The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on December 23, 2010, 10:50:57 AM
-
Here's an op-ed from the NYT by Tom Friedman. He tends to be liberal, but knows his stuff on the Middle East and energy policy. He gives an interesting take on green technology here. Basically, the Navy and especially the Marine Corps have apparently seen fuel effeciency as tactical and strategic issues. They seem to be aggresively pushing green technolgy, not for PC purposes, but rather as part of the mission. Its an interesting read.
FQ13
Op-Ed Columnist
The U.S.S. Prius
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: December 18, 2010
As I was saying, the thing I love most about America is that there’s always somebody here who doesn’t get the word — and they go out and do the right thing or invent the new thing, no matter what’s going on politically or economically. And what could save America’s energy future — at a time when a fraudulent, anti-science campaign funded largely by Big Oil and Big Coal has blocked Congress from passing any clean energy/climate bill — is the fact that the Navy and Marine Corps just didn’t get the word.
Spearheaded by Ray Mabus, President Obama’s secretary of the Navy and the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the Navy and Marines are building a strategy for “out-greening” Al Qaeda, “out-greening” the Taliban and “out-greening” the world’s petro-dictators. Their efforts are based in part on a recent study from 2007 data that found that the U.S. military loses one person, killed or wounded, for every 24 fuel convoys it runs in Afghanistan. Today, there are hundreds and hundreds of these convoys needed to truck fuel — to run air-conditioners and power diesel generators — to remote bases all over Afghanistan.
Mabus’s argument is that if the U.S. Navy and Marines could replace those generators with renewable power and more energy efficient buildings, and run its ships on nuclear energy, biofuels and hybrid engines, and fly its jets with bio-fuels, then it could out-green the Taliban — the best way to avoid a roadside bomb is to not have vehicles on the roads — and out-green all the petro-dictators now telling the world what to do.
Unlike the Congress, which can be bought off by Big Oil and Big Coal, it is not so easy to tell the Marines that they can’t buy the solar power that could save lives. I don’t know what the final outcome in Iraq or Afghanistan will be, but if we come out of these two wars with a Pentagon-led green revolution, I know they won’t be a total loss. Wars that were driven partly by our oil addiction end up forcing us to break our oil addiction? Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, the assistant secretary of the Navy for energy, installations and environment, used to lead the California Energy Commission. She listed for me what’s going on:
On April 22, Earth Day, the Navy flew a F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet powered by a 50-50 blend of conventional jet fuel and camelina aviation biofuel made from pressed mustard seeds. It flew at Mach 1.2 and has since been tested on biofuels at Mach 1.7 — without a hiccup. I loved the quote in Biofuels Digest from Scott Johnson, general manager of Sustainable Oils, which produced the camelina: “It was awesome to watch camelina biofuel break the sound barrier.”
The Navy will use only “third generation” biofuels. That means no ethanol made from corn because it doesn’t have enough energy density. The Navy is only testing fuels like camelina and algae that do not compete with food, that have a total end-to-end carbon footprint cleaner than fossil fuels and that can be grown in ways that will ultimately be cheaper than fossil fuels.
In October, the Navy launched the U.S.S. Makin Island amphibious assault ship, which is propelled by a hybrid gas turbine/electric motor. On its maiden voyage from Mississippi to San Diego, said Mabus, it saved $2 million in fuel.
In addition, the Navy has tested its RCB-X combat boat on a 50-50 blend of algae and diesel, and it has tested its SH-60 helicopter on a similar biofuel blend. Meanwhile, the Marines now have a “green” forward operating base set up in Helmand Province in Afghanistan that is testing in the field everything from LED lights in tents to solar canopies to power refrigerators and equipment — to see just how efficiently one remote base can get by without fossil fuel.
When you factor in all the costs of transporting fuel by truck or air to a forward base in Afghanistan — that is, guarding it and delivering it over mountains — a single gallon of gasoline “could cost up to $400” once it finally arrives, Mabus said.
The Navy plans in 2012 to put out to sea a “Great Green Fleet,” a 13-ship carrier battle group powered either by nuclear energy or 50-50 blends of biofuels and with aircraft flying on 50-50 blends of biofuels.
Mabus has also set a goal for the Navy to use alternative energy sources to provide 50 percent of the energy for all its war-fighting ships, planes, vehicles and shore installations by 2020. If the Navy really uses its buying power when buying power, and setting building efficiency standards, it alone could expand the green energy market in a decisive way.
And, if Congress will simply refrain from forcing the Navy to use corn ethanol or liquid coal — neither of which are clean or efficient, but are located in many Congressional districts — we might really get a green revolution in the military. That could save lives, money and the planet, and might even help us win — or avoid — the next war. Go Navy!
-
Congress is not being bought off by big oil. If that were the case we would be drilling in ANWAR, the gulf, and all over the western states. Not to mention building new refineries. Gas would be back down to $1.00 a gallon, and the CAFE standards would be more realistic.
The military "going green" is not a bad thing for the fact that they would be doing it for practical reasons and not because of some mandate from an inept congress. I support the move based on the motivation.
-
This is great, as many of you know, while I consider "Global warming" to be a load of crap, I am a great fan of renewable energy sources that either reduce cost or can be produced by home owners.
What I do not see is how hauling biofuels will reduce the load on logistics convoys, it still needs to be transported to the point of use.
-
Congress is not being bought off by big oil. If that were the case we would be drilling in ANWAR, the gulf, and all over the western states. Not to mention building new refineries. Gas would be back down to $1.00 a gallon, and the CAFE standards would be more realistic.
The military "going green" is not a bad thing for the fact that they would be doing it for practical reasons and not because of some mandate from an inept congress. I support the move based on the motivation.
Actually, they are being "bought off" on the refinery issue. Its why gas is so expensive. We have plenty of oil, its the ability to refine it that is the bottle neck (look at Iran as exhibit A, all the oil in world and they import most of their fuel). The oil companies make a mint off controling the supply. Remember the anual excuses "Fuel prices are going up this drivng season because, A) higher demand, B) they are servicing the refineries, C)......) ::). If Congress were serious they would mandate the construction of new ones (preferrably outside of Hurricane country). Obviously, this would need to be offset with tax breaks and the like, but the fact is that oil companies keep the supply limited deliberately. Take drilling in ANWR. Sounds good right? That is until you look at the number of other leases that they have had on public lands for decades and never drilled. They just want to make sure it never comes to market from a competitor. DeBeers and other diamond companies do the same with stones. They buy them by the ton at wholesale, and never market them to keep the supply low and the price up. The sad thing is that a lot of those "blood diamonds" from Africa will never be sold, unless its to our grandkids. They just sit in warehouses. Same deal with oil. Expand refining capacity and gas gets cheaper. Its in the interest of the consumer, and our strategic interest, which is why gov't intervention is justified, to expand refining capacity, but its not happening.
FQ13
-
Thank goodness, I finally get to call FQ an Ahole today. I've been getting nervous about agreeing with him on other threads. ;D
He is wrong about the Refinery issue, it is the "Environazi's" who are in the way of refinery construction, same as with Nuclear plant construction.
-
Thank goodness, I finally get to call FQ an Ahole today. I've been getting nervous about agreeing with him on other threads. ;D
He is wrong about the Refinery issue, it is the "Environazi's" who are in the way of refinery construction, same as with Nuclear plant construction.
Only half an Ahole. I didn't think I needed to bash the envirnonmentalist shiites on this forum, I assumed it went without saying. But yes, they are a part of the problem. Again though, its one Congress can easily solve by exempting a new refinery from whatever regulations stops it from being built. Its just a line in a bill. Congress does it all the time. The fact that they haven't speaks to the fact that Shell hasn't asked for it. The greens are almost irrelevant in this. The idea of citizen suits etc. is a creation of Congress and Congress can remove it with the stroke of a pen.
FQ13
-
Actually, they are being "bought off" on the refinery issue. Its why gas is so expensive. We have plenty of oil, its the ability to refine it that is the bottle neck (look at Iran as exhibit A, all the oil in world and they import most of their fuel). The oil companies make a mint off controling the supply. Remember the anual excuses "Fuel prices are going up this drivng season because, A) higher demand, B) they are servicing the refineries, C)......) ::). If Congress were serious they would mandate the construction of new ones (preferrably outside of Hurricane country). Obviously, this would need to be offset with tax breaks and the like, but the fact is that oil companies keep the supply limited deliberately. Take drilling in ANWR. Sounds good right? That is until you look at the number of other leases that they have had on public lands for decades and never drilled. They just want to make sure it never comes to market from a competitor. DeBeers and other diamond companies do the same with stones. They buy them by the ton at wholesale, and never market them to keep the supply low and the price up. The sad thing is that a lot of those "blood diamonds" from Africa will never be sold, unless its to our grandkids. They just sit in warehouses. Same deal with oil. Expand refining capacity and gas gets cheaper. Its in the interest of the consumer, and our strategic interest, which is why gov't intervention is justified, to expand refining capacity, but its not happening.
FQ13
Congress will not allow the construction of new refineries. Oil companies have been screaming for them for decades. This ties into your thought on the leases. It used to be you had to lease the land just to explore. The reason they haven't been drilled is because there is nothing to drill for. Second, the drilling that is happening is slow because of the lack of refining capacity. The idea is that there is no point in spending all the money to drill for it if you can't get it refined and onto the market. Also the cost of storing petroleum is through the roof due to environmental concerns and permitting. The other reason for those leases being on the books for decades is that most of those land leases were made for 40-50 years. It was a gamble on the part of the oil companies that IF they found oil, that was how long they expected to be able to pump for. They didn't find it and thats why they are still sitting on a worthless lease.
As for your diamond theory, DeBeers is the ONLY diamond supplier in the world. They set the market, and you are right they stockpile diamonds for that very purpose. You can use a simple vault for that. No environmental concerns, no permits. It's cheap, and that's why they do it.
-
Cecil Rhodes bought the DeBeers brother's "digging's" and invented the diamond "Engagement" ring with the sole intention of establishing a monopolized market for what was previously a far less popular gem.
-
Without reading all the Friedman crap, this isn't anything new.
With the exception of aircraft carriers and submarines, every ship in the Navy runs on JP8 fuel and with good reason. They can fuel all the aircraft, the tanks, helicopters, etc.....and all use the same fuel. Now IIRC, a Frigate has to carry about 965,000 lbs of fuel in a load. At about 6.24 lb/gal for jet fuel, that's a shitload of fuel. If the Navy can save 10-25 percent as was presented as a possibliity as early as 2001, we can save billions of dollars anually in fuel savings. Somewhere there is a congressional report about it. I'll see if I can find it.
It ain't so much a matter of environmental as it is logistical or financial consideration.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33360.pdf
-
This is great, as many of you know, while I consider "Global warming" to be a load of crap, I am a great fan of renewable energy sources that either reduce cost or can be produced by home owners.
What I do not see is how hauling biofuels will reduce the load on logistics convoys, it still needs to be transported to the point of use.
tom most of the renewable energy stuff is actually very bad for the enviroment.
Now don't get me wrong there are some good ones out there, but many are not. infact they do more harm.
-
something you need to know about refineries. the majority of them are 'tuned' to refine crude from one specific source, and to change crudes you would have to change the processes. not all crude oil is the same. it's different weights, viscosity, flash point, etc... so to start using crude from a new well, you must either build a new refinery, or stop producing from another source and reconfigure your existing plant to take the new product. you can't really take from any source the way a gas station can with the finished product. if we are not allowed to build new ones, then we must wait for old wells to run dry, or continue to use foreign oil.
deepwater
-
That I did not know. Thanks for the info. Sadly, it seems that things are a lot more expensive than they seemed, given the cost of a new refinery. Add in different settings? Yikes! :-\
FQ13
-
something you need to know about refineries. the majority of them are 'tuned' to refine crude from one specific source, and to change crudes you would have to change the processes. not all crude oil is the same. it's different weights, viscosity, flash point, etc... so to start using crude from a new well, you must either build a new refinery, or stop producing from another source and reconfigure your existing plant to take the new product. you can't really take from any source the way a gas station can with the finished product. if we are not allowed to build new ones, then we must wait for old wells to run dry, or continue to use foreign oil.
deepwater
Isn't this why we don't refine the oil coming in through the Alaska pipeline? We need light, sweet crude or some such thing because of our EPA standards...
-
Isn't this why we don't refine the oil coming in through the Alaska pipeline? We need light, sweet crude or some such thing because of our EPA standards...
we can still refine it. you would be amazed at how much product you can get from one barrel of crude. 1 barrel is 42 gallons. after processing they usually get 43, 44, 45 gallons, depending on what they started with and what they are making. one of the bi-products is processed cheese. (yuk). none of the crude goes to waste.. even the pet coke is used by the coal firing power plants to boost BTUs and fuel efficiency.
they can process out everything from heavy fuel oil to 3in1 oil. the tuning only refers to the crude going in and what needs to be done to maximize production.