• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

What if...? said:
Iirc, biodiesel replaces lubricity lost in low sulphur diesel fuels at like 1-2% mixture. I've read that that should be done for its own sake.

Diesel injector pumps are EXPENSIVE.
Click to expand...

Not only that. You can make diesel fuel from common trash. Seems like a better way to handle trash than just stuffing it in the ground to rot.
 
PrometheusBound said:
We have a right to confiscate the property of our enemies, starting with the jihadists' oil.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Saudis??? Who gave us this so called "right"?
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Not only that. You can make diesel fuel from common trash. Seems like a better way to handle trash than just stuffing it in the ground to rot.
Click to expand...

Before reading the article I got an image in my mind of the Navy having small biofuel processing units aboard their ships and using ship waste to generate their own fuel. Pity that wasn't what the article was about.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Before reading the article I got an image in my mind of the Navy having small biofuel processing units aboard their ships and using ship waste to generate their own fuel. Pity that wasn't what the article was about.
Click to expand...

Well, space comes at a premium aboard a warship. On the other hand, anything that would extend the operational range of a ship would be seriously considered. The Navy uses water condensers to get fresh water from sea water (which take up space), but this extends the range between port visits. If fuel from trash could also extend the ship's range, it's hardly beyond the bounds of practicality. The process of making fuel from trash requires lots of heat and pressure. And guess what, there's LOTS of that within any ship's engine room.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Not only that. You can make diesel fuel from common trash. Seems like a better way to handle trash than just stuffing it in the ground to rot.
Click to expand...

Now I just need to get to the Pacific Trash Gyre. Melt enough of it together to make an island. Set up a factory turning plastic bottles into fleece clothing.

Then declare myself a nation.

Trashlandia!

Recycletopia!

Dumb as that sounds, it actually might work.

And as long as people keep throwing their garbage in the Pacific, the free resources will continue to deliver themselves to my facilities.
 
Last edited:
Cut the Navy down to size and it won't cost much money. Everybody wins that way. No need for alternative energy for the Navy. The savings can be used to pay for Obamacare.
 
What if...? said:
Now I just need to get to the Pacific Trash Gyre. Melt enough of it together to make an island. Set up a factory turning plastic bottles into fleece clothing.

Then declare myself a nation.

Trashlandia!

Recycletopia!

Dumb as that sounds, it actually might work.

And as long as people keep throwing their garbage in the Pacific, the free resources will continue to deliver themselves to my facilities.
Click to expand...

I'm imagining you sitting in a chair shaped like an egg with a cat in your lap as you typed that out. :cool:
 
EagleAye said:
Nice. You would push our American sons and daughters into deadly combat because you can't be bothered to think and innovate? How about YOU lead that charge into enemy machine gun nests?
Click to expand...
What machinegun nests? Without oil money to buy weapons, the Arabs will be fighting us with sticks and stones.

It was American innovation that gave oil all its value, started in 1859. Why did we give away our intellectual property to savages who would never have become intelligent enough to develop it on their own? Like others with unearned gifts, they have cheated us blind on oil worth only about $5 a barrel.
 
What if...? said:
****ing with their **** is why they're our enemies in the first place.
Click to expand...
Believing in childish dreams about equality among nations leads to national suicide. If they don't earn their wealth, why should we recognize their ownership of it? Such a belief, that luck is worth more than merit, has led to an American society content to be run by birth-lottery winners (Sperm Bingo) and a world run by the same kind of parasites. Believing in the required self-hating view of property rights that justifies the jihadists' price-gouging on oil, which costs OPEC only about $5 a barrel, makes us real patsies who accept everything we are told.
 
PrometheusBound said:
What machinegun nests? Without oil money to buy weapons, the Arabs will be fighting us with sticks and stones.
Click to expand...

To steal another nation's oil NOW, you need to fight through the weapons they have NOW. Try to keep up.

It's more efficient to make business deals than conquering whole nations. Better yet, rather than fight expensive wars for resources, use current developing technology to not need those resources in the first place, and create tons of badly needed American jobs to boot.
 
joko104 said:
Except it's NOT "green" fuel. It is "world starvation" fuel. Crops and crop land diverted to fuel reduces world food supplies and increases food costs - meaning starvation for the desperately poor of the world. And it is myth that biofuels do not produce Co2.

Another question is whether then Navy needs to use 2% of the entire national fuel consumption or, according to the article, 264,000,000 gallons of oil each year. Since we are in NO Naval wars why the massive fuel usage?

This all is an example of lack of financial oversight and prudence within the military. What about not stop making soldiers pay for the cleaning of their own uniforms instead? Why does the military have unlimited amounts of money except with it comes to military personnel? Then the military is financially broke.

There is no defending $26 a gallon for bulk fuel. Trace it all the way and it will just be more political graft and payola disguised as a "green" agenda.
Click to expand...

Speaking of politcal graft and payola, why has the House added billions to the defense budget for projects that the Defense Dept. neither wants nor needs?
It appears that some would rather worry about an experiment with alternate energy costing a few million than $3000 million that the other side is spending for the benefit of their contributors.

As the clock ticks ever closer to the triggering of the sequestration time bomb — you know, the massive cuts to government spending that are set to take effect next January unless Congress moves to eliminate them — lawmakers are still forcing more cash on the Pentagon than it says it needs during this time of belt-tightening.Yup, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is set to add nearly $3 billion to the Pentagon’s weapons buying accounts in its version — called a markup — of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that’s set to be unveiled tomorrow. And yes, the HASC’s bill along with a similar effort by the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, is meant to bar the Air Force from retiring its fleet of C-27J Spartan airlifters. The appropriators also moved to keep the service flying its Block 30 Global Hawk spy drones that Air Force brass want to retire in favor of keeping U-2 spylanes.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/05/08/congress-keeps-adding-billions-to-pentagon-budget/#ixzz1zmO5YfRL
Defense.org
 
Last edited:
Don't know why the bio-fuel was $26 a gallon, but I can think of several reasons:
1) where it was delivered to (delivery costs may be included)
2) Military Industrial Complex contracting (the old $1000 toilet seat move)
3) it wasn't bio-diesel being provided, but bio-jet fuel. There's a radical difference as the bio-jet fuel is experimental and not yet formulated in bulk.

And just a nit to pick, but the price per gallon of DIESEL fuel at the pump is not $3.60. That's the price of a gallon of gasoline (or close), carriers do not run on gasoline. Bio-diesel costs about $1.50 to produce, though most of it is sold as a blend with traditional petro-diesel (typically B80 - 80% bio-diesel). It's blended because bio-diesel doesn't take the cold weather like petro-diesel does - it gels.
 
Last edited:
PrometheusBound said:
Believing in childish dreams about equality among nations leads to national suicide. If they don't earn their wealth, why should we recognize their ownership of it? Such a belief, that luck is worth more than merit, has led to an American society content to be run by birth-lottery winners (Sperm Bingo) and a world run by the same kind of parasites. Believing in the required self-hating view of property rights that justifies the jihadists' price-gouging on oil, which costs OPEC only about $5 a barrel, makes us real patsies who accept everything we are told.
Click to expand...

Of course the oil companies are not at all complicit in the thievery. How much do they charge us for our OWN oil?
 
New technology implementation costs more initially. News at 11.
 
jamesrage said:
That's just ****en stupid paying that much for fuel when traditional fuel is nowhere near that much. Its like paying ten bucks for a common screw.
Click to expand...
They do that too. ;) When are people ever going to figure out that the government pays ridiculously high prices for things so that the selected government friends get seriously wealthy from it. the excuse its green must mean the money. I am pretty sure that is what green energy really means, just a lot of green being paid to some friends.
 
EagleAye said:
To steal another nation's oil NOW, you need to fight through the weapons they have NOW. Try to keep up.

It's more efficient to make business deals than conquering whole nations. Better yet, rather than fight expensive wars for resources, use current developing technology to not need those resources in the first place, and create tons of badly needed American jobs to boot.
Click to expand...
Why should I keep up with hired liars whose assignment is to keep us down? Paying extortionist prices to OPEC has cost us far more than defeating their 3d World armies would cost. The pipe dreams of the Green jihad can't compete with the quick takeover of Muslim oil pipelines. In fact, we'll never be able to finance alternative-energy research as long as OPEC is draining our wealth. We've been tricked by this mantra of waiting for science-fiction fuels since 1973. Since oil is only worth about $5 a barrel, our whole national debt would be non-existent if we had immediately used our military to punish price-gougers when this economic jihad first started.
 
iguanaman said:
Of course the oil companies are not at all complicit in the thievery. How much do they charge us for our OWN oil?
Click to expand...
Twenty to thirty times what it cost them. In order to cover up their own extortion, the Texxon peckerwoods created the OPECkers' cartel so they could blame foreigners for our economic problems. They are of the same ilk as the Bankensteins on Wall Street. The government bails them out too, by starting wars to protect their Arab allies. These real-life J.R Ewings are nothing but Saudis in Stetsons.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Twenty to thirty times what it cost them. In order to cover up their own extortion, the Texxon peckerwoods created the OPECkers' cartel so they could blame foreigners for our economic problems. They are of the same ilk as the Bankensteins on Wall Street. The government bails them out too, by starting wars to protect their Arab allies. These real-life J.R Ewings are nothing but Saudis in Stetsons.
Click to expand...

We don't belong to OPEC and most of our foreign imports are from non-OPEC nations.

Venezuela and Iran were the first countries to move towards the establishment of OPEC in the 1960s by approaching Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 1949, suggesting that they exchange views and explore avenues for regular and closer communication among petroleum-producing nations.[citation needed] The founding members are Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Later members include Algeria, Ecuador, Gabon, Indonesia, Libya, Qatar, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates.

Source
Click to expand...

Our OWN oil doesn't flow from the ground right to the pumps, but must be shipped to refineries where it is processed into usable forms. Not all of it is sweet light crude, which by itself takes significant processing. We have our share of bitter heavy crude which takes much longer to process.
 
PrometheusBound said:
Why should I keep up with hired liars whose assignment is to keep us down? Paying extortionist prices to OPEC has cost us far more than defeating their 3d World armies would cost. The pipe dreams of the Green jihad can't compete with the quick takeover of Muslim oil pipelines. In fact, we'll never be able to finance alternative-energy research as long as OPEC is draining our wealth. We've been tricked by this mantra of waiting for science-fiction fuels since 1973. Since oil is only worth about $5 a barrel, our whole national debt would be non-existent if we had immediately used our military to punish price-gougers when this economic jihad first started.
Click to expand...

There's been "talk" about alternative fuels for a long time, but very little "doing." Only recently is anyone "doing" anything about it. We haven't been "trying" at all until recently when the price of oil is becoming untenable. Now we are "trying" and what you are suggesting would only "delay trying" just like people who had other excuses since 1973. It hasn't been so much a lack of technology, it's been a lack of willpower to "try," that has failed to produce a result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom