Does this make sense to anyone that's not a BO supporter?

[Mazeppa]

July 6, 2012
Biofuel's Cost Torpedoes Navy Budget
Tom Roberson

Facing massive cuts to the defense budget, the U.S. Navy is being used to prop up the failing biofuel industry by converting the fleet to run on the so-called "green fuel" at $26 a gallon.

Failure to cut federal government spending by last year's Budget Supercommittee triggered automatic cuts to the defense budget estimated at some $600 billion over ten years. These cuts come on top of $400 billion in cuts over ten years under former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and an additional $100 billion in cuts over ten years demanded by the Obama Administration.

Coming on the heels of our involvement in two major wars over the last ten years which left our military with worn out equipment and exhausted troops, military officials, defense industry leaders, and various congressmen have warned of the dire consequences such cuts could do to hollow out our military force. There is no question that the DoD faces a dire situation as the defense cuts proscribed under last year's budget deal were specifically designed to be so unrealistic that the Budget Supercommittee would be forced to act to prevent their coming to pass. Well, it didn't work and the DoD is now facing the threat of these cuts.

Despite the bleak budget prospects, the U.S. Navy is expanding its use of expensive biofuels under the guise of establishing alternative fuel sources for future fleet needs. At $26 a gallon, biofuel costs are almost seven times the cost of conventional fuels which are still so plentiful that the U.S. currently exports refined fossil fuels. A Navy official confirmed that the biofuel costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel.

The biofuel industry was built on government subsidies and promptly folded once those subsidies were removed. Americans may ignore traffic laws, but they pay strict attention to the economic law of supply and demand, refusing to pay a cent more for fuel than is required. As part of the Obama Administration's push into subsidizing the alternative energy industry, the Navy has been enlisted to be the purchaser of last resort in order to keep the biofuel industry alive.

Despite the failures of numerous solar energy companies who received federal loans, the progressive liberals will not let go of Jimmy Carter's false pronouncement that fossil fuels are being depleted and we must act quickly to replace them with alternative fuels no matter the cost. It's an idea that's seductive on the surface, but fails to stand up to real-world scrutiny as ever increasing fossil fuel supplies are being discovered. These additional supplies further doom alternative fuels to the ash heap of economic history occupied by the likes of the Sony Betamax.

The DoD, recovering from two major wars and facing massive budget cuts, can ill-afford to waste precious financial resources propping up another failing alternative energy scheme. The military's purpose is to defend America from enemies both foreign and domestic, not to protect politically-connected crony capitalists from suffering defeat in the marketplace.

[soonercruiser]

I saw a report on a local (major network) channel last night.
It would be interesting to find out at what military or administrative level this decision was made!
To he11 with taking good care of our tax dollars....say the Keynesians!

I'm 14 years out from AF retirement now.
And I can tell you that a lot is changing in the military....and a lot of it is NOT GOOD for the country!

[diverdog]

July 6, 2012
Biofuel's Cost Torpedoes Navy Budget
Tom Roberson

Facing massive cuts to the defense budget, the U.S. Navy is being used to prop up the failing biofuel industry by converting the fleet to run on the so-called "green fuel" at $26 a gallon.

Failure to cut federal government spending by last year's Budget Supercommittee triggered automatic cuts to the defense budget estimated at some $600 billion over ten years. These cuts come on top of $400 billion in cuts over ten years under former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and an additional $100 billion in cuts over ten years demanded by the Obama Administration.

Coming on the heels of our involvement in two major wars over the last ten years which left our military with worn out equipment and exhausted troops, military officials, defense industry leaders, and various congressmen have warned of the dire consequences such cuts could do to hollow out our military force. There is no question that the DoD faces a dire situation as the defense cuts proscribed under last year's budget deal were specifically designed to be so unrealistic that the Budget Supercommittee would be forced to act to prevent their coming to pass. Well, it didn't work and the DoD is now facing the threat of these cuts.

Despite the bleak budget prospects, the U.S. Navy is expanding its use of expensive biofuels under the guise of establishing alternative fuel sources for future fleet needs. At $26 a gallon, biofuel costs are almost seven times the cost of conventional fuels which are still so plentiful that the U.S. currently exports refined fossil fuels. A Navy official confirmed that the biofuel costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 for conventional fuel.

The biofuel industry was built on government subsidies and promptly folded once those subsidies were removed. Americans may ignore traffic laws, but they pay strict attention to the economic law of supply and demand, refusing to pay a cent more for fuel than is required. As part of the Obama Administration's push into subsidizing the alternative energy industry, the Navy has been enlisted to be the purchaser of last resort in order to keep the biofuel industry alive.

Despite the failures of numerous solar energy companies who received federal loans, the progressive liberals will not let go of Jimmy Carter's false pronouncement that fossil fuels are being depleted and we must act quickly to replace them with alternative fuels no matter the cost. It's an idea that's seductive on the surface, but fails to stand up to real-world scrutiny as ever increasing fossil fuel supplies are being discovered. These additional supplies further doom alternative fuels to the ash heap of economic history occupied by the likes of the Sony Betamax.

The DoD, recovering from two major wars and facing massive budget cuts, can ill-afford to waste precious financial resources propping up another failing alternative energy scheme. The military's purpose is to defend America from enemies both foreign and domestic, not to protect politically-connected crony capitalists from suffering defeat in the marketplace.

How about posting the rest of the story? Like the military wants to get away from foreign oil because of its support of terrorism. Two, at this point it is just experimental and they bought just 20000 gallons of fuel for ships and 1500 gallons for jets. And third the companies behind it are Chevron and Morgan Stanley.

[yermom]

I like how the writer assumes that I don't think the budget for the DoD should be slashed.

[LiveLaughLove]

I like how neither address the $26 / gallon, which is the main point.

Getting away from foreign oil doesn't remotely require paying that.

In fact, nothing does outside of simply choosing social engineering of the military over common sense. Its idiotic and everyone knows it.

[diverdog]

I like how neither address the $26 / gallon, which is the main point.

Getting away from foreign oil doesn't remotely require paying that.

In fact, nothing does outside of simply choosing social engineering of the military over common sense. Its idiotic and everyone knows it.

If I told you to go out and drill 20000 gallons of oil out of the ground from scratch and then shut down then I bet it would cost at least $26 per gallon. If this stuff works then they will need to produce at high enough volumes to be competitive. Oil is cheaper because we extract billions of barrels from the ground.

[cleller]

If I told you to go out and drill 20000 gallons of oil out of the ground from scratch and then shut down then I bet it would cost at least $26 per gallon. If this stuff works then they will need to produce at high enough volumes to be competitive. Oil is cheaper because we extract billions of barrels from the ground.

Biofuels have been around for many years, nothing new about them. Our dependence on foreign oil is already dropping, this switch by the Navy would have no impact on that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304441404577480952719124264.html

If the administration actually gave a whit about reliance on foreign oil, it would have acted differently toward the Keystone Pipeline's north leg.

[diverdog]

Biofuels have been around for many years, nothing new about them. Our dependence on foreign oil is already dropping, this switch by the Navy would have no impact on that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304441404577480952719124264.html

If the administration actually gave a whit about reliance on foreign oil, it would have acted differently toward the Keystone Pipeline's north leg.

Crap....I have to agree with you again. Although energy from algae is looking interesting. Have you seen where they pump the emissions from coal fired power plants into a pond with this algae and then create massive quantities of biofuel? I really believe this will be a fuel that we see in the future. At least it is better than ethanol.

[cleller]

Crap....I have to agree with you again. Although energy from algae is looking interesting. Have you seen where they pump the emissions from coal fired power plants into a pond with this algae and then create massive quantities of biofuel? I really believe this will be a fuel that we see in the future. At least it is better than ethanol.

A few years ago National Geographic did a great story on alternative sources of energy. If I remember correctly, it basically concluded that the only sensible bio-source at this stage of the game was sugar cane on a huge scale. Brazil, I believe, does this, and imports no oil.

It was particularly harsh on corn ethanol. One scientist made the excellent point that corn is food, and should be used that way until there is no demand for food.

[soonercruiser]

I like how neither address the $26 / gallon, which is the main point.

Getting away from foreign oil doesn't remotely require paying that.

In fact, nothing does outside of simply choosing social engineering of the military over common sense. Its idiotic and everyone knows it.


That would be a combo of Keynesian and environmental energy policy!
Obama plays to his constituient groups.

[diverdog]

Interesting








Venture capitalists and private firms have started to pour money into this research. In 2009, ExxonMobil started a $600 million partnership with synthetic geonomics to study algae fuel-extraction and growth techniques. Several different venture-capital firms, including Bill Gates’s Cascades Investment LLC and the Rockefeller family’s Venrock, have invested tens of millions of dollars in Sapphire Energy Founded in 2007, Sapphire is on the forefront of algae research, having cultivated over 4,000 different strains. The company has made algal jet fuel, which has been tested successfully by Continental Airlines. Last November, Sapphire was listed as one of “16 Companies to Watch With Under $1 Million in Sales” by Forbes.

[okie52]

A few years ago National Geographic did a great story on alternative sources of energy. If I remember correctly, it basically concluded that the only sensible bio-source at this stage of the game was sugar cane on a huge scale. Brazil, I believe, does this, and imports no oil.

It was particularly harsh on corn ethanol. One scientist made the excellent point that corn is food, and should be used that way until there is no demand for food.

Now that brazil had the huge offshore oil discovery we'll see how committed they remain to cane ethanol.

[cleller]

Now that brazil had the huge offshore oil discovery we'll see how committed they remain to cane ethanol.

Nat Geo also mentioned the algae thing as something that might come about in the future, but seemed to say that right now cane was the only source even remotely practical. They'll probably be in the same league with wind, etc.
Still, until economics dictate their usage, they'll probably stay in the background.

It really says something about the pure energy capacity of gas and oil. As expensive as they are to locate, access, recover and transport, it still blows away everything we can try to grow or synthesize.

[diverdog]

Nat Geo also mentioned the algae thing as something that might come about in the future, but seemed to say that right now cane was the only source even remotely practical. They'll probably be in the same league with wind, etc.
Still, until economics dictate their usage, they'll probably stay in the background.

Given the fact that Exxon and Chevron are investing in this technology makes me think they see a future in it. The big advantage is that if you can make it commercially viable you have an endless supply of fuel.

[okie52]

Nat Geo also mentioned the algae thing as something that might come about in the future, but seemed to say that right now cane was the only source even remotely practical. They'll probably be in the same league with wind, etc.
Still, until economics dictate their usage, they'll probably stay in the background.

It really says something about the pure energy capacity of gas and oil. As expensive as they are to locate, access, recover and transport, it still blows away everything we can try to grow or synthesize.

I believe the future ultimately will go solar but that might be way down the road. Certainly a good idea for energy companies to continue to invest in R & D because you never know when a breakthrough will occur.

It is amazing how long coal, NG and oil have dominated the energy fields. Nukes still hold a lot of promise but also face the biggest hurdles in the US. Biofuels could play a role but I just don't see them making much difference for at least afew decades.

[cleller]

Given the fact that Exxon and Chevron are investing in this technology makes me think they see a future in it. The big advantage is that if you can make it commercially viable you have an endless supply of fuel.

Just googled around on this some. Those two are still going after algae, but Shell called it quits. Chevron is partnering with nother company, Solazyme, which is publicly traded, and seems to be having some good results. I think they are the ones selling the stuff to the navy.

One article said it currently costs $400/barrel for the stuff, but they hope to drive it down to $85 in 5 years. That's a lot of algae to grow.

Good luck to em.

[soonercruiser]

How about posting the rest of the story? Like the military wants to get away from foreign oil because of its support of terrorism. Two, at this point it is just experimental and they bought just 20000 gallons of fuel for ships and 1500 gallons for jets. And third the companies behind it are Chevron and Morgan Stanley.

WHO" in the military says that?

The Secretary? Navy? DOD? LW Admirals?
Gonna bet it's not someone who has to pay any personal bills from his/her own sweat and toil!
Energy policy is not in the purvue of the DOD, budget-wise!
THEY have a budget to meet.

[diverdog]

WHO" in the military says that?

The Secretary? Navy? DOD? LW Admirals?
Gonna bet it's not someone who has to pay any personal bills from his/her own sweat and toil!
Energy policy is not in the purvue of the DOD, budget-wise!
THEY have a budget to meet.

Cruiser:

Don't be an idiot. You know damn good and well that POL is the achilles hill of any military. The military has always been looking for better ways to power their armies. The military is studying coal to liquid fuels, solar power, NG and biofuels. With your way of thinking the Navy would still be powered by sails. The military is also interested in finding ways to insulated themselves from massive price fluctuations every time some country in the ME waives a sword. So yeah they are interested in Energy policy.

[LiveLaughLove]

Cruiser:

Don't be an idiot. You know damn good and well that POL is the achilles hill of any military. The military has always been looking for better ways to power their armies. The military is studying coal to liquid fuels, solar power, NG and biofuels. With your way of thinking the Navy would still be powered by sails. The military is also interested in finding ways to insulated themselves from massive price fluctuations every time some country in the ME waives a sword. So yeah they are interested in Energy policy.

Not to take up his fight, but he didn't remotely say anything you just accused him of saying. His point was quite clear, at least to me. He is implying that someone in the admin is the one that ok'ed such an idiotic deal as purchasing $26/gal fuel.

There is no excuse for paying that, and no one in the DOD would have seriously wanted to spend money on such a waste (unless they were taking illegal kickbacks). This is clearly a political decision being forced on the military.

Experimentation isn't necessary for ethanol. It's been around for a very long time now. It doesn't work (cost effectively). Everyone knows it doesn't work, but we have special interest groups flexing muscle on a weak President and his admin.

What a ridiculous attack to claim that cruiser would still want us to be a sailing navy. I suppose he believes the earth is flat too by your accounting. Try speaking your side of things without trying to inflate ours just so you can feel like you are winning an argument by trying to knock it down. Talk about being an idiot.

[diverdog]

Not to take up his fight, but he didn't remotely say anything you just accused him of saying. His point was quite clear, at least to me. He is implying that someone in the admin is the one that ok'ed such an idiotic deal as purchasing $26/gal fuel.

There is no excuse for paying that, and no one in the DOD would have seriously wanted to spend money on such a waste (unless they were taking illegal kickbacks). This is clearly a political decision being forced on the military.

Experimentation isn't necessary for ethanol. It's been around for a very long time now. It doesn't work (cost effectively). Everyone knows it doesn't work, but we have special interest groups flexing muscle on a weak President and his admin.

What a ridiculous attack to claim that cruiser would still want us to be a sailing navy. I suppose he believes the earth is flat too by your accounting. Try speaking your side of things without trying to inflate ours just so you can feel like you are winning an argument by trying to knock it down. Talk about being an idiot.

First of all this is not about ethanol but biodiesel ( B20 fuel 20% biodiesel and 80% diesel has been around for a while). Biodiesel has been used and has been worked on by the military since 2001. DOH! There goes your idiotic rant about Obama. The Marines used about 850,000 gallons of B20 in 2003 and the military will use 6 million gallons of B20 this year. All of this was mandated from the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Secondly, the military has always experimented with fuels for as long as it has been around. The $26 price tag includes research and development cost and production. They are moving to a 50/50 blend and I believe the ultimate goal is 100% pure algae based biofuel (B100) which I understand the Navy is testing.

You are right Biofuels have been around a long time. That is not the issue. The issue is a promising development of algae based biodiesel that could revolutionize fuel production in this country. If this works and they can increase production it is a game changer. The navy is looking at portable units that could produce biodiesel from algae on deployments. That sure as sh*t seems like a good idea to me. On top of that most of the current biodiesel is being produced by soy beans and this new production method of using algae will move us away from using our food supply for fuel and replace it with something we do not eat.

There are issues with biodiesel and I am not going to pretend there is not. It is about 11% less efficient than diesel, currently it is much more expensive and there have been issues with its use at low temperatures. I am sure the latter can be solved with additives. It is not ethanol and it is a far better product. If the military cannot get the cost down then all bets are off. For you guys to pretend that the military does not engage in buying new technology is nothing but bunk. How many billions did we waste on systems like Star Wars that still do not work but hold promise in the future? This is only one fuel technology that they are developing and I am sure at some point they will have some good alternatives.

[soonercruiser]

Not to take up his fight, but he didn't remotely say anything you just accused him of saying. His point was quite clear, at least to me. He is implying that someone in the admin is the one that ok'ed such an idiotic deal as purchasing $26/gal fuel.

There is no excuse for paying that, and no one in the DOD would have seriously wanted to spend money on such a waste (unless they were taking illegal kickbacks). This is clearly a political decision being forced on the military.

Experimentation isn't necessary for ethanol. It's been around for a very long time now. It doesn't work (cost effectively). Everyone knows it doesn't work, but we have special interest groups flexing muscle on a weak President and his admin.

What a ridiculous attack to claim that cruiser would still want us to be a sailing navy. I suppose he believes the earth is flat too by your accounting. Try speaking your side of things without trying to inflate ours just so you can feel like you are winning an argument by trying to knock it down. Talk about being an idiot.

Thanks LLL.
But poor ole Diver can't seem to post an argument without throwing in a slur of vail personal attack.
My queston stands! Who made that decision and why?
I predict that they will be in front of Congress soon.

Diver seems to have a pretty short view on history.
IF THE GOING GOT ROUGH, the military would be getting all my gasoline and oil.
If needed, they'd get all the resources they need, no matter what, just like WW II.

[diverdog]

Thanks LLL.
But poor ole Diver can't seem to post an argument without throwing in a slur of vail personal attack.
My queston stands! Who made that decision and why?
I predict that they will be in front of Congress soon.

Diver seems to have a pretty short view on history.
IF THE GOING GOT ROUGH, the military would be getting all my gasoline and oil.
If needed, they'd get all the resources they need, no matter what, just like WW II.

Why do you always have to politicize everything? I pointed out that there was more to this story than meets the eye and there was. So you immediately jump to the conclusion that this was done by either Obama or some left wing generals (which I find hilarious). How about accepting the idea that the Pentagon is researching alternative fuels like it did when it switched from coal to diesel fuel and then nuclear power.

[yermom]

Thanks LLL.
But poor ole Diver can't seem to post an argument without throwing in a slur of vail personal attack.
My queston stands! Who made that decision and why?
I predict that they will be in front of Congress soon.

Diver seems to have a pretty short view on history.
IF THE GOING GOT ROUGH, the military would be getting all my gasoline and oil.
If needed, they'd get all the resources they need, no matter what, just like WW II.

do you at least dispute his numbers? if you are really talking about 21,500 gallons of fuel at $26 a gallon, you look like an idiot

there's nothing veiled about that

[soonercruiser]

Why do you always have to politicize everything? I pointed out that there was more to this story than meets the eye and there was. So you immediately jump to the conclusion that this was done by either Obama or some left wing generals (which I find hilarious). How about accepting the idea that the Pentagon is researching alternative fuels like it did when it switched from coal to diesel fuel and then nuclear power.

BUT...you too "deflect"!
Sounds like the "fast & Furious" approach....."nothing to see here....move on"!
I say who made the decision...and why waste our tax dollars??
The Navy doesn't have some LWer like Soros donating the $$ to try such a stupid scheme.

It's the same old tired appraoch of the GOBMENT trying to do fuels research.....like solar power!
Duh!

[diverdog]

BUT...you too "deflect"!
Sounds like the "fast & Furious" approach....."nothing to see here....move on"!
I say who made the decision...and why waste our tax dollars??
The Navy doesn't have some LWer like Soros donating the $$ to try such a stupid scheme.

It's the same old tired appraoch of the GOBMENT trying to do fuels research.....like solar power!
Duh!

Well guess who said the following:


. I have said we’ll have a mandatory fuel standard, not a voluntary fuel standard, but a mandatory fuel standard that will reduce our uses of gasoline by 20 percent over a 10-year period of time. We believe that ethanol and biodiesel, the spread of ethanol and biodiesel are — the goal of spreading ethanol and biodiesel is achievable, that’s what we believe. And we’re spending a lot of money to achieve that goal.

Now, the spread of ethanol in the United States is not going to be achievable if we rely only upon corn. There is a limit to the amount of ethanol we can produce with corn as a feedstock. So our research dollars are going to what they call cellulosic ethanol, and that means the ability to make ethanol from switchgrasses or wood chips. And we’re spending a lot of money to that end.

And it is a mandatory approach. And the reason why I laid it out is because, one, I do believe we can be better stewards of the environment; and, two, I know it’s in our national interest to become less dependent on foreign sources of oil. The fundamental question is, will America be able to develop the technology necessary for us to achieve the goal. I think we can. It’s in our interest to share that technology, not only with our partners who are wealthy enough to spend money on research dollars, but also with the developing world.

Now you talk about helping alleviate poverty in the developing world — wouldn’t it be wonderful if the developing world could grow crops that would enable them to power their automobiles, so they wouldn’t have to be dependent on foreign oil, either. And that’s the message I took down to South America, with Lula, and to Central America. For example, sugar cane is the most — you’re learning about ethanol here, but sugar cane is the most efficient way to make ethanol. It turns out in Central America there is a lot of land and opportunity to continue to produce cane, which means that the Central American countries could be eventually net exporters of energy. So we’ve got a lot of common ground and a lot of area to work on.

[soonercruiser]

Well guess who said the following:

Oh! I loved "What's My Line"!
It was a real funny show. Were YOU on the show?

What does your cut & paste quote quiz...have to do with the answers that I'd like to get on wasting my tax dollars?

[diverdog]

Oh! I loved "What's My Line"!
It was a real funny show. Were YOU on the show?

What does your cut & paste quote quiz...have to do with the answers that I'd like to get on wasting my tax dollars?

Answer the question.

[soonercruiser]

I'm not your peep!

[diverdog]

I'm not your peep!

You won't answer because you know who said it. The current Navy policy was started and supported by Bush. A decision I agree with. It has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. The US has always researched energy and this is just an extension of that research. The cost has only been a few million dollars.

[jkjsooner]

So this is essentially a research project, right? I think this seems to be a fact that escapes LLL and cruiser.

[diverdog]

So this is essentially a research project, right? I think this seems to be a fact that escapes LLL and cruiser.

It is all research at this point. The Navy is allowed to do it under the Defense Production Act signed in 1950.

There is a great documentary out called Fuel. That is where I first heard about biofuels from algae. If this works it could be huge because you can grow it everywhere.

[jkjsooner]

It is all research at this point. The Navy is allowed to do it under the Defense Production Act signed in 1950.

This just shows how ridiculous guys like LLL and cruiser are. The military spends countless amount of money on research projects. Some will pan out and some won't. Nobody would expect these to be cost effective with existing technologies especially when much of it is at the prototype stage.

LLL and cruiser are so quick to blame Obama for all the world's problems that they latch onto anything and everything whether it makes sense or not.