Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44

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

  1. #1
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

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

    Some Republican lawmakers have seized on the fuel's $26-a-gallon price, compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel. They paint the program as a waste of precious funds at a time when the U.S. government's budget remains severely strained, the Pentagon is facing cuts and energy companies are finding big quantities of oil and gas in the United States.
    LINK: MSNBC

    You elected Obama and now you know what four more years with him in the White House will look like.

    The US Navy, under Obama, is now more concerned about global warming and “going green” than it is with defending the United States. We are about to gut the defense budget but our navy can afford $26 a gallon (bulk) for fuel while WE pay ~ $3.60 a gallon at the local gas station?

    Obviously Obama has picked his “’yes’ men” military leaders carefully. If he wanted to test this out on the post office or other civilian government agencies like the EPA, I might groan about it but I wouldn’t be as outraged as I am over this because the US military isn’t supposed to be an experimental playground for Presidential politics that have nothing to do with national security.
    Last edited by GPS_Flex; 07-03-12 at 03:30 AM. Reason: Edited for emphasis

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  2. #2
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    LINK: MSNBC

    You elected Obama and now you know what four more years with him in the White House will look like.

    The US Navy, under Obama, is now more concerned about global warming and “going green” than it is with defending the United States. We are about to gut the defense budget but our navy can afford $26 a gallon (bulk) for fuel while WE pay ~ $3.60 a gallon at the local gas station?

    Obviously Obama has picked his “’yes’ men” military leaders carefully. If he wanted to test this out on the post office or other civilian government agencies like the EPA, I might groan about it but I wouldn’t be as outraged as I am over this because the US military isn’t supposed to be an experimental playground for Presidential politics that have nothing to do with national security.
    The military understands what world peak oil will mean for not only our economy but for their future operations. They are smart to begin planning now so that they are not held hostage to future oil prices when world demand for cheap oil exceeds world supply as it did in the US in 1971.

    Their warning in 2010:

    "The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."

    US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #3
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The military understands what world peak oil will mean for not only our economy but for their future operations. They are smart to begin planning now so that they are not held hostage to future oil prices when world demand for cheap oil exceeds world supply as it did in the US in 1971.

    Their warning in 2010:

    "The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."

    US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian
    From your own article:

    "The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?"
    Like I said, Obama installed a few yes men and put the thumbscrews on them to do his political work.

    I know you deal more in ideology than rationality catawba but even you can’t explain a scenario where oil based fuel reaches $26 a gallon. Please try if you can.
    Last edited by GPS_Flex; 07-03-12 at 04:31 AM.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  4. #4
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    From your own article:
    And your point is?


    Like I said, Obama installed a few yes men and put the thumbscrews on them to do his political work.
    Yeah, that is what you said, with absolutely no proof to back it up. From your article:

    "Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the program's biggest public booster, calls it vital for the military's energy security."

    "The biofuels effort is one of the most ambitious Pentagon energy programs since then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a task force in 2006 to find ways to reduce the military's fossil fuels dependency, involving more than 300,000 barrels a day.

    "The reason we're doing this is that we simply buy too many fossil fuels from either actually or potentially volatile places on earth," Mabus told a conference on climate and security last month.

    He says the Pentagon can use its buying muscle - it is the largest single consumer of petroleum in the world - to guarantee the demand needed for biofuel businesses to produce at a scale that will eventually drive down costs.

    "We use 2 percent of all the fossil fuels that the United States uses," Mabus told the conference. "And one of the things that this means is that we can bring the market. And to paraphrase the old 'Field of Dreams' line, if the Navy comes, they will build it."

    Mabus, a former Mississippi governor and ambassador to Saudi Arabia, aims for biofuels to supply about half of the Navy's non-nuclear fuel needs by 2020, about 8 million barrels a year.

    His main tool in pushing the effort is the Defense Production Act, a measure passed in 1950 in the early stages of the Korean War to help the president mobilize the civilian economy for the war effort.

    The act lets the Pentagon provide funding or loan guarantees to ensure production of critical defense needs. Since the 1970s it has been used to do things like bolster beryllium production and develop a specialized integrated circuit."


    I know you deal more in ideology than rationality catawba but even you can’t explain a scenario where oil based fuel reaches $26 a gallon. Please try if you can.
    You have no concept do you, that when things are first developed that they cost more than they will later?
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #5
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    And your point is?
    The point was obvious. “Decades away” means a long time from now. Things changed with the DOE overnight once Obama took office and now $26 a gallon gas is ok by you because you think it is good for the planet. Fact is, biofuels have always been more harmful to the planet than petrol and they will always cost more than petrol.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yeah, that is what you said, with absolutely no proof to back it up. From your article:

    "Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the program's biggest public booster, calls it vital for the military's energy security."
    Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is a politician,appointed by Obamma, and a shill for Obama. Obama might as well have Eric Holder telling us that the world will be a better place if we gut the US military budget and demand it pays $26 a gallon for gas.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "The biofuels effort is one of the most ambitious Pentagon energy programs since then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a task force in 2006 to find ways to reduce the military's fossil fuels dependency, involving more than 300,000 barrels a day.

    "The reason we're doing this is that we simply buy too many fossil fuels from either actually or potentially volatile places on earth," Mabus told a conference on climate and security last month.
    Mabus was a guest speaker at conference on climate and security? Imagine that. A green political hack who does and says what Obama tells him to say and do and in exchange, he gets a really cool job where he isn’t even asked to think about anything important other than name ships after John Murtha and Cesar Chaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    He says the Pentagon can use its buying muscle - it is the largest single consumer of petroleum in the world - to guarantee the demand needed for biofuel businesses to produce at a scale that will eventually drive down costs.
    I read the article. Unlike you, I understand that United States Secretary of the Navy isn’t appointed to office because he has any expertise on global fuel prices now or in the future so I challenge you to explain why this idiot knows fuel prices will be so high tomorrow that $26 a gallon today will do anything other than give Obama political points with the greenies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "We use 2 percent of all the fossil fuels that the United States uses," Mabus told the conference. "And one of the things that this means is that we can bring the market. And to paraphrase the old 'Field of Dreams' line, if the Navy comes, they will build it." This is great for a hollywood tear jerker but in the real world, it won’t change anything but the escalating taxes here in the USA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Mabus, a former Mississippi governor and ambassador to Saudi Arabia, aims for biofuels to supply about half of the Navy's non-nuclear fuel needs by 2020, about 8 million barrels a year.
    Isn’t that nice of him? I wonder where he got that idea. Obviously he doesn’t have a clue what it costs to produce bio-fuels in the way he imagines but hey, he is just a politician so he is entitled to Obama’s opinion, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    His main tool in pushing the effort is the Defense Production Act, a measure passed in 1950 in the early stages of the Korean War to help the president mobilize the civilian economy for the war effort.

    The act lets the Pentagon provide funding or loan guarantees to ensure production of critical defense needs. Since the 1970s it has been used to do things like bolster beryllium production and develop a specialized integrated circuit."
    I see, he has his excuse and has the power but has no common sense. $26 a gallon is not justifiable. If we were at war and refineries were being blown up regularly, that might be a different story but we have oil and gas and coal here in the USA that we can use so there is no excuse for $26 a gallon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You have no concept do you, that when things are first developed that they cost more than they will later?
    Sure I do. More than you will ever know. Hate to burst your bubble but the Secretary of the Navy isn’t developing anything here. He is simply raping the tax payers and the US Navy in the name of environmentalism and Obamaism.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    The military should be looking for alternative ways to fuel the fleet, not because its "green" but because anything that reduces foreign oil demand and thus reduces our involvement with those mostly unfriendly oil countries is a good thing. What it should not be is a way to defraud the taxpayer by propping up what is still a very uncompetitive industry, bio-fuels haven't reached the stage where they can compete toe to toe with petroleum oil.

    When the military starting uses nuclear power to propel its larger ships, moving away from conventional fuel, it was down for military and strategic reasons. Lawmakers and other decision makers were not thinking "Hey if we force the military to buy into nuclear power, that'll be a major boost to our domestic nuclear power industry" of course in the end it actually was a major boost but that was a secondary affect. If we are going to use more biofuels it must be done for military and strategic reasons not because an industry has wiggled its way into the minds of politicians.

    Which is it? Frankly I don't know, on the one side biofuels have had several set backs and still only survive via government subsidies and special laws like "Your fuel must contain X amount of biofuel" if you've ever noticed those signs at the gas station. But on the other hand there's no denying the great benefit it would have to the US to significantly decrease its foreign oil consumption.

  7. #7
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,661

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The military understands what world peak oil will mean for not only our economy but for their future operations. They are smart to begin planning now so that they are not held hostage to future oil prices when world demand for cheap oil exceeds world supply as it did in the US in 1971.

    Their warning in 2010:

    "The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact."

    US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 | Business | The Guardian
    If you REALLY want to "save energy" then stop fighting totally moronic "nation building" wars. If the most powerful military force on the planet can not advance beyond a stalemate in Afghanistan, against an "enemy" that has no navy, no air force and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a VERY BAD battle plan.

    The U.S. military is NOT designed to play world policeman, especially in a corrupt "country" that has NO court system. The military should be used, as intended, for national defense and fighting only necessary wars with a "git-r-done" battle plan. The idea that it should be a "laboratory" for green energy "experiments" is INSANE. Even with the REAL material and fuel shortages during WWII, we got the job done.

    Stop the nonsense and trying to INVENT problems that "might happen" when ignoring REAL problems, like "nation building" nonsense, that not only WASTE fuel, but the lives of thousands of U.S. service personnel. Explain to that guy that just lost both of his legs, playing "nation builder" in some far away excuse for a country, that they helped make the USA "green". Get real!
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-03-12 at 07:43 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #8
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

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

    Oil can only be obtained from a limited number of geographic areas and is currently is refined in a relatively small number of locations. Those kind of bottlenecks can make you very vulnerable in a wartime situation. Biofuels are hideously inefficient, but with decentralized production and ability to use local materials, its much harder to sabotage production. Converting the entire military away from oil would be stupid, but having a small alternative fuel capability and the know-how could be useful in certain situations.

  9. #9
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    LINK: MSNBC

    You elected Obama and now you know what four more years with him in the White House will look like.

    The US Navy, under Obama, is now more concerned about global warming and “going green” than it is with defending the United States. We are about to gut the defense budget but our navy can afford $26 a gallon (bulk) for fuel while WE pay ~ $3.60 a gallon at the local gas station?

    Obviously Obama has picked his “’yes’ men” military leaders carefully. If he wanted to test this out on the post office or other civilian government agencies like the EPA, I might groan about it but I wouldn’t be as outraged as I am over this because the US military isn’t supposed to be an experimental playground for Presidential politics that have nothing to do with national security.
    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.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  10. #10
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    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.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •