There is an article in the September 17, 2012 issue of Chemical and
Engineering News by Andrea Widener concerning fuels in the military.
The article doesn't say how much the military spends each year in fuel, but it must be big. The Air Force spends $9 billion alone for aviation fuel
The basis of the article is to question whether the military should be using or even testing biofuels. A recent naval fleet demonstration sailed on a blend of traditional petroleum fuel and biofuels from algae and cooking oils.
This effort is presumably related to the Department of Defense having a legislative mandate to use 20% renewable fuels by 2025. In this context renewable fuels means biofuels from living sources, such as algae and animals (fat)
The major objection to this program appears to be the fact that biofuels cost considerably more than fuels from petroleum.
In defense of the biofuels program, Sec. of the Navy says we must do this to guarantee energy security and independence. It's not clear what the practical difference is between security and independence.
Additionally, the military claims that volatility in the price of petroleum means the Air Force ends up paying more than it budgets. An obvious rebuttal to that is that the Air Force needs a better budgeting capability. More significantly, this variability could be significantly reduced by increasing drastically the production of petroleum in the United States from which we have significant resources being withheld only by government and pandering to Marxist type environmental groups. If those groups are the cause of the price variations by limiting US petroleum production, it might be reasonable to tax them as political operators rather than charitable organizations. This would at least reduce their funds available to buy positions with the federal government.
A House bill proposes that the military should not be using biodegradable fuels for either major testing or operational use, unless the price is equivalent to that of petroleum-based fuel. There is a similar bill in a Senate committee, which has not passed the full Senate. It Is likely that these bills will go nowhere, based on the attitude of the full Senate and the President, who are continuing to promote expensive biofuels to the detriment of the taxpaying public.
The article doesn't say how much the military spends each year in fuel, but it must be big. The Air Force spends $9 billion alone for aviation fuel
The basis of the article is to question whether the military should be using or even testing biofuels. A recent naval fleet demonstration sailed on a blend of traditional petroleum fuel and biofuels from algae and cooking oils.
This effort is presumably related to the Department of Defense having a legislative mandate to use 20% renewable fuels by 2025. In this context renewable fuels means biofuels from living sources, such as algae and animals (fat)
The major objection to this program appears to be the fact that biofuels cost considerably more than fuels from petroleum.
In defense of the biofuels program, Sec. of the Navy says we must do this to guarantee energy security and independence. It's not clear what the practical difference is between security and independence.
Additionally, the military claims that volatility in the price of petroleum means the Air Force ends up paying more than it budgets. An obvious rebuttal to that is that the Air Force needs a better budgeting capability. More significantly, this variability could be significantly reduced by increasing drastically the production of petroleum in the United States from which we have significant resources being withheld only by government and pandering to Marxist type environmental groups. If those groups are the cause of the price variations by limiting US petroleum production, it might be reasonable to tax them as political operators rather than charitable organizations. This would at least reduce their funds available to buy positions with the federal government.
A House bill proposes that the military should not be using biodegradable fuels for either major testing or operational use, unless the price is equivalent to that of petroleum-based fuel. There is a similar bill in a Senate committee, which has not passed the full Senate. It Is likely that these bills will go nowhere, based on the attitude of the full Senate and the President, who are continuing to promote expensive biofuels to the detriment of the taxpaying public.
No comments:
Post a Comment