In 2012, if you want to reduce your use of fossil fuels in favor of clean energy sources, expect to be taken to task by Republicans. Even if you're the United States Armed Forces.
Under most of the mainstream media radar, the U.S. military has emerged as one of the nation's biggest adopters of clean technologies including solar power, wind energy, green buildings, and biofuels. And why not -- who knows better the cost, in dollars and human lives, of our (to use George W. Bush's phrase) addiction to oil? The Pentagon is the world's largest single consumer of energy, spending about $15 billion a year and accounting for 70 percent of the entire U.S. government's energy bill. Even more to the point, one out of eight soldiers killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2007 were protecting fuel convoys, a telling statistic that has continued in Afghanistan as well.
So you would think that any effort to diversify the military's fuel sources away from petroleum, and help end our dependence on often-hostile foreign oil suppliers, would be cheered by politicians of all stripes. And you would be wrong.
At a Navy budget hearing in the House late last month, several GOP Congressmen took the opportunity to attack Navy Secretary Ray Mabus for his commitment to the development and deployment of biofuels. Along with the Air Force, the Navy has been a leading biofuels proponent, with an ambitious goal of all ships and aircraft being 50 percent biopowered by 2020. In November, a decommissioned Navy destroyer out of San Diego completed a successful test journey powered by a 50/50 blend of algae biofuel and conventional marine fuel -- 20,000 gallons worth.
Leading the charge against such initiatives was Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes, who, according to press accounts, pounded his fist on the table and stormed at Mabus, "You're not the Secretary of Energy, you're Secretary of the Navy." GOP colleagues such as Mike Conaway of Texas piled on as well, questioning the wisdom of paying higher prices for biofuels. The Navy is obviously planning (and innovating) for the future, creating a viable market for suppliers like Solazyme and Dynamic Fuels, which will bring prices down. "I think we would be irresponsible if we did not reduce our dependence on foreign oil and if we did not reduce the price shocks that come with the global oil market," said Mabus. The Navy is doing what it takes when you have a multi-year plan to reduce fossil-fuel consumption and save lives -- long-term goals that go beyond the next election.
And that's what I think is really going on here. When it comes to the GOP stance against President Obama's clean energy policies, in the post-Solyndra world, not even the U.S. military is safe from political grandstanding. Republicans "are using clean energy as a proxy for the war on the administration," said Adam Browning, executive director of the excellent advocacy group Vote Solar, at a March 7 solar conference in Silicon Valley. "Their strategy seems to be that if clean energy is favored by this administration, we'll oppose it no matter what." In the mire of the 2012 election, even support for the U.S. military comes with political caveats.
Follow Clint Wilder on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Clint_Wilder
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
With that Saudi can put a lot more oil in the world market than the USA. And since Saudi hasn't hit peak oil they can actually increase their drilling significantly. The USA has increased drilling since Obama took office, the USA is actually producing more oil now than any other time since 2000 but that hasn't lowered the price of gas because the price of oil is set on the WORLD MARKET.
Obama had every right for mocking the GOP because they are not looking at the real reason for the rise in the price of gas which is speculation on Wall Street and the WORLD MARKET.
Just because the oil is drilled in America doesn't mean it is sold in America. The USA is actually exporting gasoline. World Market learn about.
We live in a lot more complicated and connected world than what you might think.
You'd need a big back lot, but at ~30MJ/Kg for the fuel and photosynthesis giving you ~1W/m^2 in sweated diesel, a square killometer of bio diesel plant could give you a few tons of oil per day. It's probably not nearly enough.
But yea they still need to truck it which means fuel convoys.
I get totally disgusted when these no it all politicians get involved with the armed services. They tell Generals,Admirals,full bird Colenels how to fight wars when most of them never saw any combat or worse,dodged the draft.They put our youth in harms way then tie one hand behind their backs by not allowing them to properly fight the war,they do not even let them properly defend themselves.Disgusting!
heat to dump.
They've been in use since the late 1950s.
They don't work great in mid-69: the operators have to pay more attention.
DOE BIOMASS PROGRAM AND ALGAE RESEARCHERS NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Solydra story is opening a huge can of worms at the DOE LOAN GURANTEE LOAN PROGRAM. Its not just about the Solar loan guarantee program. Look at all the millions in fees collected by the DOE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM with algae projects less than 20% completed. An audit needs to be done on all DOE Biomass Program Grants to algae researchers.
The US taxpayer has spent over $2.5 billion dollars over the last 50 years on algae research. To date, nothing has been commercialized by any algae researcher.
The REAL question is: Does the DOE BIOMASS PROGRAM really want the US off of foreign oil or do they want to continue funding more grants for algae research to keep algae researchers employed at universities for another 50 years?
In business, you are not given 50 years to research anything. The problem is in the Congressional Mandate that says the DOE can only use taxpayer monies on algae research, NOT algae production in the US. So far, algae research has not got the US off of foreign oil for the last 50 years!
A Concerned Taxpayer
How? It has to be cheaper than oil to do that and it is not : "Algae Biodiesel: It's $33 a Gallon"
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/algae-biodiesel-its-33-a-gallon-5652/
Using say ~2000 gallons of fuel per day, you're talking ~$20m a year, which doesn't change the game.
Mother earth will take care of it.
Why are you asking these people logical questions?????
Second, the wars were NOT about protecting oil company profits. If Persian Gulf oil were cut off, the profits of the oil companies would soar - along with the price of oil. It would, however, be an economic disaster to the world.
Whoever heard of the military ever being cost efficient????
Youre full of it.
Alternative fuels are not limited to the military. The civilian market is many times larger than the military market. Let civilians drive the development.
With aircraft costing $100k per hour to operate, a few thousand dollars worth of fuel is only
a small part of it.