House Republicans Order Navy to Stop Buying Biofuel - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/republican-navy-biofuel/[/URL] [quote] On Monday, the U.S. Navy will officially announce the ships for its demonstration of the “Great Green Fleet” — an entire aircraft carrier strike group powered by biofuels and other eco-friendly energy sources. If a powerful congressional panel has its way, it could the last time the Navy ever uses biofuels to run its ships and jets. In its report on next year’s Pentagon budget, the House Armed Services Committee banned the Defense Department from making or buying an alternative fuel that costs more than a “traditional fossil fuel.” It’s a standard that may be almost impossible to meet, energy experts believe; there’s almost no way the tiny, experimental biofuel industry can hope to compete on price with the massive, century-old fossil fuels business. Committee Republicans, like Rep. Randy Forbes, insist this isn’t an attempt to kill off military biofuels before they have a chance to start. “Now, look, I love green energy,” he said in February. “It’s a matter of priorities.” But if the measure becomes law, it would make it all-but-impossible for the Pentagon to buy the renewable fuels. It would likely scuttle one of the top priorities of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. And it might very well suffocate the gasping biofuel industry, which was looking to the Pentagon to help it survive. “We’d be years behind if it wasn’t for the military,” said Tom Todaro, a leading biofuel entrepreneur whose companies have supplied the military with tens of thousands of gallons of fuel made from [URL="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/navy-converts-biofuel-into-noise-to-celebrate-earth-day/"]mustard seeds[/URL]. When Mabus took over as Navy Secretary, he declared that the service would get half of its energy from sources other than oil by 2020. The two-day [URL="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/is-the-pentagon-going-green-or-eco-pretending/"]Great Green Fleet[/URL] demo, scheduled for the end of June in Hawaii, is supposed to be the biggest step yet towards that beyond-ambitious goal. The destroyers [I]USS Chafee[/I] and [I]Chung Hoon[/I] will plow through the Pacific and F/A-18 jets will scream off of the [URL="https://twitter.com/#%21/dangerroom/status/201047752967331843"][I]USS Nimitz[/I]‘s[/URL] flight deck, all thanks to a 50/50 blend of alternative and traditional fuel. It’ll not only show the world that the Pentagon is serious about biofuels — a full-scale Green Fleet deployment is scheduled for 2016. It’ll also show skittish investors that biofuel companies have a willing customer in the U.S. Navy. But the Green Fleet’s [URL="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/navy-biofuels/"]450,000 gallons of fuel made from chicken fat and other waste greases[/URL] (plus a dollop of algae oil) didn’t come cheap. At $12 million — arguably the biggest biofuel purchase in military history — all those gallons cost about four times what the equivalent petroleum product does. There were political costs, too. Committee Republicans — unhappy about shrinking defense budgets and skeptical about the White House’s green initiatives — used the biofuel buy as a way to go after the administration. “I understand that alternative fuels may help our guys in the field, but wouldn’t you agree that the thing they’d be more concerned about is having more ships, more planes, more prepositioned stocks,” Rep. Randy Forbes said during a February hearing with Mabus. “Shouldn’t we refocus our priorities and make those things our priorities instead of advancing a biofuels market?” Then he told Mabus: “[URL="http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/22/forbes-slams-green-navy-political-argument-falls-flat-on-hill/"]You’re not the secretary of the energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy[/URL].” Mabus and his allies countered that the Republicans were taking an overly-simplistic view of things. [I]Of course[/I] relatively small batches of a new fuel are going to be expensive — just like the original, 5GB iPod cost $400 and held fewer songs than today’s $129 model, which holds 8 GB. That’s the nature of research and development. With development time and big enough purchases, the costs of biofuels will come down; already, the price has dropped in half since 2009. “It’s a false choice to say that we should concentrate on more ships versus a different kind of fuel. If we don’t get a different kind of fuel, if we don’t have a secure domestic supply of energy at an affordable price… the ships and the planes may not be able to be used because we can’t get the fuel,” Mabus told the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power in March. What’s more, Mabus added, there’s a value in a more stable, domestic supply of fuel; every time the price of oil goes up by a dollar per barrel, it costs the Navy $31 million. “We simply buy too much fossil fuels from places that are either actually or potentially volatile, from places that may or may not have our best interests at heart,” he said. “We would never let these places build our ships, our aircraft, our ground vehicles, but we do give them a say on whether those ships steam, aircraft fly, or ground vehicles operate because we buy so much energy from them.” None of those arguments managed to sway House Republicans, who last Wednesday voted to impose its ban on alt-fuels that cost more than the traditional stuff. [URL="http://InsideDefense.com"]InsideDefense.com[/URL] first noted the measure. Long before the congressmen made their decisions, biofuel industry insiders told Danger Room that their products would never be as cheap as petroleum-based ones. “This idea that we can match [the price of] crude oil — I think it’s such a bullshit question,” Tom Todaro said back in October. “A car with airbags costs more than a car without. Society decides how valuable those airbags are. Society can decide the value of renewable fuels.” But the armed services committee didn’t put limits on all alternative fuels — just the ones with environmental benefits. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/15/national-security-and-fuels-future-importance-sec-526"]forbids federal agencies from buying alternative fuels that are more polluting than conventional ones[/URL]. Last week, the congressmen ordered to exempt the Defense Department from those regulations. That would free the military up to start using the so-called so-called [URL="http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/002476.html"]Fischer-Tropsch[/URL] method of squeezing fuel out of coal or natural gas, both of which America has in abundance. It’s what helped Apartheid-era South Africa survive a sanctions against the regime, and enabled [URL="http://noahshachtman.com/blog/archives/2476.html"]the Germans to produce 124,000 barrels of fuel per day during World War II[/URL]. It could help make our military more energy-independent, too. There’s just one small problem: “[URL="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/09/darpas-coal-to/"]you end up kicking a whole bunch of additional carbon dioxide out into the air[/URL],” as Lt. Col. Bob Bateman once noted. “More carbon dioxide, in fact, than you do just using and burning the refined products you get from crude oil.” During his testimony in March, Mabus insisted that “the Great Green Fleet doesn’t have an environmental agenda. It’s about maintaining America’s military and economic leadership across the globe in the 21st century.” Still, it’s hard to imagine him agreeing to a Great Green Fleet that polluted the planet even further. [/quote] Thank god we have good, loyal men in the House who will defend our Navy's right to pollute more and continue being dependant on fuel we get from nations we're fighting perpetual wars in. Yes, it's a mildly sensationalist title, because nothing the House ever passes will actually become law.

“Now, look, I love green energy,” Pfff, yea, sure

[quote]“Now, look, I love green energy,” he said in February. “It’s a matter of priorities.”[/quote] "i love green energy but i love money more"

We can't have our ships running on hippy juice now can we.

why don't they make ships that run purely by burning orangatangs while they're at it

It's good to know they are putting so much effort into technological progress. I think the US government applies the same mentality to it's economy that it does to it's social policy. The entire mindset seems to be that change is bad and that if something isn't completely broken, there is no point in improving, repairing, or innovating it.

Shameless pricks.

Don't Biofuels use up a lot of crop that could be used for food? Edit: Nope, it just uses land that could be used for growing food crops.

i would prefer it if when they got rid of it, allocated the extra cost to green energy research or something, but getting rid of it outright is just selfish.

[QUOTE] making or buying an alternative fuel that costs more than a “traditional fossil fuel.”[/QUOTE] So I'm assuming they mean that so long as the alternative fuel costs less than a fossil fuel, it's okay? If so, then the title is *slightly* sensationalist.

Well, the navy can't run on fossil fuels forever.

[QUOTE=danharibo;35957707]Don't Biofuels use up a lot of crop that could be used for food?[/QUOTE] I remember watching a documentary claiming that was just some bullshit made popular by big oil. Not saying it is but that seems like the kind of thing they would do.

Yeah but in the middle of DOD budget cuts, depending on the price of biofuel vs petroleum, I could see why this decision was made. They have to save every dollar they can so that it can be allocated to areas that need it. It's a sensible decision, it wasn't made because of 'hippy fuel'. It allows biofuels when they are cheaper. People for the biofuels said it themselves, when the price of oil goes up a dollar it costs the Navy 31 million. To get this much backlash, I'd imagine that the price of biofuel is much more significant. There are still other ways for the BioFuel industry to grow without the Navy as a buyer. Once they reach the point where they can efficiently make enough so the price is equal, or less, the Navy will then become a very large client.

Stupid fuckers are paid off by the oil companies' lobbyists. Such bullshit.

[QUOTE=danharibo;35957707]Don't Biofuels use up a lot of crop that could be used for food?[/QUOTE] That's like complaining that a new building could have been used as a homeless shelter. The food would not have been grown except for this purpose. [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35957742]So I'm assuming they mean that so long as the alternative fuel costs less than a fossil fuel, it's okay? If so, then the title is *slightly* sensationalist.[/QUOTE] As the article says, there is no way for the green energy market to compete with the prices of a huge industry. Halting purchases of biofuel harms its funding and growth, and prevents it from becoming cheaper.

[QUOTE=Glitch360;35957649]"i love green energy but i love money more"[/QUOTE] Green energy costs too much green paper to make them more green paper within a short time. Long-term investment is not an ideal that's adopted by people anymore, especially not in this country. Which pisses me off quite frankly, because the same people could be rolling in dough if they just invested and waited.

To be honest, biofuel is pretty shitty It is no where near as effiecent as fossil fuels, still pollutes when you burn it, and it subsidizes corn/food production for the use as fuel Now what would be good, is if they just slapped some thorium reactors in those ships. Boom, 100% clean energy that doesn't use fossil fuels and has almost zero chance of having nuclear-related issues (as thorium just straight up stops working in thorium reactors should the core ever be breached, instead of causing a chain reaction meltdown). They already use these in submarines as far as I know.

-snip-

[QUOTE=KorJax;35958788]To be honest, biofuel is pretty shitty It is no where near as effiecent as fossil fuels, still pollutes when you burn it, and it subsidizes corn/food production for the use as fuel Now what would be good, is if they just slapped some thorium reactors in those ships. Boom, 100% clean energy that doesn't use fossil fuels and has almost zero chance of having nuclear-related issues (as thorium just straight up stops working in thorium reactors should the core ever be breached, instead of causing a chain reaction meltdown). They already use these in submarines as far as I know.[/QUOTE] From what I see, "green fuel" is still relatively new and hasn't been made efficient yet. It'll probably need another decade to really contend with fossil fuels effectively.

You guys DO realize that using the biofuel costs more, and means the military has to spend more, right?

[QUOTE=download;35957643]“Now, look, I love green energy,” Pfff, yea, sure[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Glitch360;35957649]"i love green energy but i love money more"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ewitwins;35958106]Stupid fuckers are paid off by the oil companies' lobbyists. Such bullshit.[/QUOTE] You guys are kidding, right? Do you have any idea how much the US spends on its defense budget? It needs to be reduced. Not to mention we are FOURTEEN TRILLION in the hole and kind of need to get out of that Isn't FP usually wildly anti-defense spending/anti-debt Where the hell did you guys come from

The US really needs to cut costs, If that means cutting bio-fuel so be it

Spends money on military Doesn't let them buy anything

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;35957671]It's good to know they are putting so much effort into technological progress. I think the US government applies the same mentality to it's economy that it does to it's social policy. The entire mindset seems to be that change is bad and that if something isn't completely broken, there is no point in improving, repairing, or innovating it.[/QUOTE] In many cases, even if something is totally broken, they don't change it. A better explanation would be "If it makes us money, refuse to change it. If it's totally broken and doesn't make us money, deny the existence of a problem."

[QUOTE=KorJax;35958788]To be honest, biofuel is pretty shitty It is no where near as effiecent as fossil fuels, still pollutes when you burn it, and it subsidizes corn/food production for the use as fuel Now what would be good, is if they just slapped some thorium reactors in those ships. Boom, 100% clean energy that doesn't use fossil fuels and has almost zero chance of having nuclear-related issues (as thorium just straight up stops working in thorium reactors should the core ever be breached, instead of causing a chain reaction meltdown). They already use these in submarines as far as I know.[/QUOTE] Thorium seems like the solution to end Evil :v:

[QUOTE=Ridge;35958862]You guys DO realize that using the biofuel costs more, and means the military has to spend more, right?[/QUOTE] facepunch: but it's republicans, so fuck them

[QUOTE=Latex;35958034]I remember watching a documentary claiming that was just some bullshit made popular by big oil. Not saying it is but that seems like the kind of thing they would do.[/QUOTE] It really does, a lot of corn goes straight into being used for production for ethanol, which at the moment takes more energy to make than it can output. When the government started subsidizing people growing corn for ethanol prices went up for food since corn is in almost everything we eat. I really wish we could jump on into green fuel but right now the shits just not cost effective for the amount of energy it produces. I think what they wanted was to not use bio-fuels until it becomes more affordable and actually competitive against oil.

[I][B]US Military Budget for FY 2013 851 Billion $[/B][/I] FP: No wonder why America is in debt! We need to spend less money on new ways to kill people! America, what a bunch of phillistines...using all their money on war machines [B][I]Military cuts Biofuel project because it costs way too much money[/I][/B] FP: Greedy American generals! How dare they use a product that is less healthier for the environment to save money! Scoundrels. Backwards Americans of course they would rather save their money then kill the environment.

[QUOTE=scout1;35958991]You guys are kidding, right? Do you have any idea how much the US spends on its defense budget? It needs to be reduced. Not to mention we are FOURTEEN TRILLION in the hole and kind of need to get out of that [/QUOTE] And we should be getting out of that by cutting back our imperialistic world-spanning wars, not by burning dirtier fuels just because they're a bit cheaper. FP is against this because it's so blatantly political and really has nothing to do with saving money. Republicans are the servants of the oil companies and don't want anything competing with them, and in their world alternative energy = Democrats = BAD. It's the same logic that had the House Republicans voting to bring styrofoam containers back to the congressional cafeteria after the Democrats had voted to use biodegradable containers.

Styrofoam cups are also insulators, which keep your hand from getting as hot or cold as the drinks they contain. Especially since heat breaks down biodegradable things faster. Don't want to spill coffee all over your legislation because it broke down too quickly!