But Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) pointed out that even at a competitive price, the Navy’s plan to use a “50/50 blend” of diesel fuel and a biofuel supplement would still cost $15 per gallon. Traditional JP-5 jet fuel used in the Navy’s fighter aircraft runs $4 to $5 per gallon on average, Inhofe said.
“Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Forbes asked at the time.
Before Mabus could respond, the Virginia Republican took a clear shot at the secretary: “You’re not the secretary of the Energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.”
Hard to be convinced the USN is serious about fuel costs given the LCS, F-35 and DDX.
H/T-War News Updates
7 comments:
I have no problem with conducting research on alternate fuels and energy but I do have a problem with going into production with such things when they know it is uneconomical. They should be able to do all the research then need in the laboratory and some occasional limited production facilities to find out if the new fuel/energy system works and what it costs.
However building mass production levels of facilities to make over priced fuel/energy is just a waste of money which should be put into research to get prices down before it is massed produced. Especially since if they do manage to get prices down the old now obsolete production facilities will probably have to be scrapped and new facilities and equipment built.
You can't help but suspect that someone behind the scenes (shades of Al Goore and global warming) is making an awful lot of money out of these Green schemes.
Secondly, has anyone taken one moment to consider what large scale use of bio materials to make so-called 'Green-friendly' fuels will have upon the prices of basic food? You know, the stuff poor and not so poor people eat?
I think that you will find that we have moved on in relation to the production of biofuels.
Most research and practical solutions now come from what is referred to as second-generation biofuels, using waste material such as urban waste, forestry waste and crop waste.
The technology is not new and involves the gasification and processing of those materials.
Much research has been done by CSIRO, and the timber industry in Australia for example.
These processes do not need crops or compete with food production.
Of course, there are the practical solutions in use now using natural gas and coal to produce fuel using the Fisher Tropsch process, as done by South Africa and now Qatar.
Let me see, how do I comment without seeming like a raving lunatic? Count to ten...Think good thoughts...Not working. Since an unfortunate personal financial experiment with alternate enegy almost 40 years ago in which I was persuaded by the same lies, I suggest resistance to this approach. If it saves me money (now), I'm with you, brother. If it adds one cent to my costs you can talk to the hand. No, better yet, I urge you to make the pitch to my competitor, or in the military fuel case, my enemy. Make them go broke, so I am doing well by comparison. That's the ticket.
Germany produced around 35 percent of fuel needs from gas to liquids (GTL) processes during WW2 and the USAF has recently involved in GTL development of aviation fuel. GTL technology is producing diesel fuel commercially in Malaysia and Qatar.
I agree with Albatross. Food production potential for a growing world population should not be sacrificed for ethereal 'Green' schemes. Alternative fuels generated from waste products, as mentioned by Perplexed, would conceivably not be of sufficient scale to assure fuel security nor perhaps economically justifiable compared with availability of low cost coal and gas.
Australia is exporting abundant LNG at peppercorn prices yet is over 60 percent reliant on imported fuels. On present indications, oil refineries in Australia are likely to close within about 5 years. Alas, assuring transportation and defence fuel security does not seem to be in the minds of the major political parties.
Bushranger the CSIRO examined the resources regarding agricultural wases and other input in 1999,and found that theoretically most Australian liquid fuel meet needs could be met.
There have also been other studies carried out by organisations such as forest industries confirming that finding.
These waste are gassified(CO and
H2) and passed over a catalyst and converted to methanol which is further refined into transportation fuels.
It relies on numerous small plants processing approximate 400 barrels of methanol a day of material sourced from a 50 to 80 km radius, making the exercise theoretically and economically viable.
Then there is the flow on effect of large-scale job creation in regional areas.
However having said that, I agree that the potential for gas and coal to liquids in this country is enormous and necessary.
For example possibly 30 to 40% of coal mined is not used to the lower quality or size, and could easily use in such a process in a very low-cost exercise. There have been proper studies done relating to the use of this material and it is found to be technologically possible.
Nuts! Gas or coal liquefaction - anything makes more sense that a Mad Max induced algae-fuel fantasy.
Post a Comment