Insight: "Green Fleet" sails, meets stiff headwinds in Congress

Comments (120)

If DOE share is 300,000 barrels a day – then 109,500,000 barrels a year – Navy 600,000 barrels a year equals only 14% – really?

Jul 02, 2012 2:56am EDT  --  Report as abuse
BobTheJanitor wrote:

Osama Bin Laden made his money off of Saudi crude oil. We should have done this 20 years ago, after the first World Trade Center attack.

That said, the Fischer-Tropsch process is already very proven technology. After we bombed the German oil supplies in WWII, the only significant liquid fuels for the Axis powers were German coal reserves via the Fisher-Tropsch process. And what a supply it was: it added a year to the war. (We started bombing those plants too and suddenly the war was pretty much over.)

Jul 02, 2012 2:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rugratz2222 wrote:

Somebody at the bio-fuels gas depot is going to send his kid to an Ivy League school now … every time a ship fills up. Or wait for the kickback payments to come in … maybe they can get a piece of the carbon footprint payments as well?

Jul 02, 2012 4:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sonnyjc9 wrote:

Will be good to know if it does work but at the price quoted maybe best to keep ‘in reserve’ for war time when price will be less of a consideration.

Jul 02, 2012 4:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sonnyjc9 wrote:

Would be good to know if it works. Keep it in reserve for a real need like war.

Jul 02, 2012 4:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GA_Chris wrote:

This is a disgrace… we are spending money in the US and employing Americans to create a fuel that means we will spend less money on gas to the middle east.
I much prefer that my tax dollars get sent foreign countries rather than helping my follow citizens.

Jul 02, 2012 7:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
explorer08 wrote:

Republicans are always against the future, preferring, instead, yesterday. They never give anything new a chance to succeed. They’d rather go back to 1950 (or even 1850). No long range thinking, no long range action. Republicans only think about how they can put a nickel in their pockets….today. Yes, bio fuels are expensive….today. But, given half a chance things could be different in ten years. We’ll never know if these backward thinkers keep blocking progress.

Jul 02, 2012 8:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rissey wrote:

Great strategic thinking, now to get the unit cost down without the distraction of overpaying in whatever form.

Jul 02, 2012 8:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PMoon wrote:

Am I reading that incorrectly, or has the price per gallon come down about 95% in the past 3 years? Seems like a pretty sharp drop, no? Could that be encouraging in regards to prices 5-10 years out?

Jul 02, 2012 9:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Redford wrote:

So sails the S.S. Colonel Saunders.

Jul 02, 2012 9:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
triumph900 wrote:

Given that the alternative fuels are not yet cost effective there must be another reason for letting these contracts. Likely related to green party support for the Obama reelection campaign

Jul 02, 2012 10:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse

politicians are all same… they make profit for their own supporters… sad… green is stupid…

Jul 02, 2012 10:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
screentest wrote:

Now lets see…Obama is bent on cutting defense funding and wanting servicemen to carry a greater portion of their medical care, the deficit is 15+ trillion…and he is forcing the navy to purchase fuel at $26/gallon??? I think he is still smoking something! That makes NO economic sense!

Jul 02, 2012 2:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KevinStowell wrote:

In response to elplorer08, above. There are none so backward as those who are generous with others’ money, even if that generosity takes form in wasteful, national-security-compromising, stupidity like this and ignore that, if it was worth doing, the private sector would have had us there already. See also Commie Shill.

Jul 02, 2012 2:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SVanNeuter wrote:

You cannot be serious, we’re paying $23 a-gallon more than normal fuel, when our country is broke, just to satisfy some ‘green’ global warming fantasy?

Where’s my pitchfork

Jul 02, 2012 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
baruch1 wrote:

Forget about putting planes on the aircraft carriers – just stick solar panels on the decks – what a tribute to green!

Jul 02, 2012 2:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
arnoldripkin2 wrote:

You can buy Crisco retail for less than $10. per gallon.

Jul 02, 2012 2:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Typhoon wrote:

This is not where we should be risking capital ships or the men aboard them for green engergy experiments, these guys go to sea for the real deal. I’m guessing Barry’s contibutors are getting rich on this while the navy (and all of our services) are losing men and needed equipment due to budget cuts, total leftist bull***t. This is time to play and make contributors rich, what if something happens like Iran blows up (Due to Hillary’s incompetence?????) Remember Solindra??

Jul 02, 2012 2:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cometmann wrote:

This is the height of stupidity and waste!

Jul 02, 2012 2:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jkjacksonhole wrote:

Only question should be …can they complete the mission no matter what??

Jul 02, 2012 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jkjacksonhole wrote:

Only question should be …can they complete the mission no matter what??

Jul 02, 2012 2:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kakarmsf wrote:

$3.80 a gallon vs $27 a gallon? Sounds like a wacko liberal idea to me!

Liberals never met a dollar they did not want to take from a taxpayer and they never met a dollar they did not want to spend on a project that wastes money but makes them feel good and superior to us regular folks.

Jul 02, 2012 2:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chipgiii wrote:

Wow this Green stuff will surely break the American Taxpayer’s wallet. People on the left scream about the defense budget but support $26/gal fuel…you just can’t make that kind of stupid up.

Jul 02, 2012 2:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sueinpa wrote:

I am puzzled why the government demands soldiers,sailors,etc. pay more for health insurance to balance the defense budget and then unnecessarily spends a mind-numbing $27/gallon on fuel.

Jul 02, 2012 2:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
RIGHTINFO wrote:

This is where you hear the sailors singing “In The navy”

Jul 02, 2012 2:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MichMike wrote:

Virtually ALL of the “investment” in green energy has been targeted to obama campaign contributors with most of that stolen or wasted. Why do you think they all immediately build a big plant (for which there are no customers)? Because when building stuff, it is easier to steal money. Organized crime, that is what you morons brought into the white house.

Jul 02, 2012 2:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I definitely agree with the Navy on this one. Biofuel can be made from many sources and they are supporting all types at this point. Eventually the ones that are economical will win the market. This needs to be expanded so the U.S. auto and truck fleets can go to clean and renewable diesel so we can give the big middle finger to the Middle East. Diesel cars get great mileage and have great torque for towing, much better than gasoline. A hybrid diesel is nearly unbeatable.

Jul 02, 2012 2:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Why doesn’t the Navy simply harness the endless stream of manure emanating from the president’s mouth? Free energy.

Jul 02, 2012 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jlocke wrote:

Wait until the Gov’t takes over health care.

Jul 02, 2012 2:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cogito wrote:

A testimony to the absolute ignorance of the Left.

Jul 02, 2012 2:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
libsukbigtime wrote:

Go on liberal idiots. Defend this nonsense.

Jul 02, 2012 2:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MartyTN wrote:

I’m all for alternative energy, but this point it makes far more sense to fund research into scaling up the process rather than committing to purchasing the overpriced fuel. In our current economy, bleeding money and jobs, can we afford to be spending another $2.57B a day for when we don’t have to?

Jul 02, 2012 3:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
phnx wrote:

The Pentagon is cutting back people and programs that will weaken our defense capabilities, but we seem to have no end of money to waste on ‘alternative energy’. $26 for biodiesel??? Really!!!!!!

Jul 02, 2012 3:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ONTIME wrote:

$26 A GALLON FOR THIS UNRELIABLE WARSHIP FUEL?

What in the name of sanity is so great about this over expensive refined lard and weeds? This administration has to go, it loves to drive up the cost of government and make it bigger and then act like “I did’nt do nuff’n”. There goes commonsense out the window again and some crony is pocketing money to give to the left….

Jul 02, 2012 3:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
batmanRox wrote:

We are sitting on the largest oil deposits in the world in the US alone, and we know now that they are renewable. What is the damn problem, besides some stupid political correct idealist philosophy?

Jul 02, 2012 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bridgette4fun wrote:

Is it in the taxpayers best interest to run the fleet on this alternative fuel? And is it in the fleet’s best interest?

Why subject the taxpayers to fuel that costs 10 times traditional fuel? I suppose this is another example of my government telling me what is best for me. I guess I should be buying for my car too?

Jul 02, 2012 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

military can’t just add 10% alcohol either without knowingly lowering the horse poor of engines and slowing the fleets of the USA. I have had personal experience and with 10% alcholol gasoline blends. I got a 10% reduction in Prius mph. The dealership explained to me why this happened. The ethanol has fewer BTU of energy, than gasoline. That in turn forces the Prius to run longer to recharge its electic power.

Jul 02, 2012 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

military can’t just add 10% alcohol either without knowingly lowering the horse poor of engines and slowing the fleets of the USA. I have had personal experience and with 10% alcholol gasoline blends. I got a 10% reduction in Prius mph. The dealership explained to me why this happened. The ethanol has fewer BTU of energy, than gasoline. That in turn forces the Prius to run longer to recharge its electic power.

Jul 02, 2012 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
willieloman wrote:

$26/gallon?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Yes, the world has gone mad.

Jul 02, 2012 3:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ratt wrote:

More legislative trickery thru Green Energy to steal our money.

Jul 02, 2012 3:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Papagiorgio2 wrote:

The military wastes a lot of money thanks to politically correct regulations. I was once involved in examining bids for an expanded security video camera system for a military base. One bid was $8,000 and met all requirements. A competitor won the bid for $20,000 because theirs was a minority-owned, woman-owned business which helped the base meet some arbitrary affirmative action quota. So the military doesn’t mind spending a few extra zeroes if it makes the right political handler happy.

Jul 02, 2012 3:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ronwagn wrote:

They could be using liquified natural gas (LNG)
for two dollars a gallon equivalent.Natural gas is the future of energy. It is replacing dirty and dangerous coal and nuclear plants. It is producing the electricity for electric cars. It will directly fuel pickup trucks, vans, buses, long haul trucks, dump trucks, locomotives, aircraft, ships etc. It will keep us out of more useless wars, where we shed our blood and money. Here are over 200 recent links for you: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NbaKYme3bqOw0b6KMxXSjOLHLNeflalPy9gIAiTYFMQ/edit

Jul 02, 2012 3:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Our President, the proverbial LIAR, is still at it. He doesn’t even hide it anymore His prognostications of saved money using BIO- FUEL is a lot of Hogwash and n0t very clean hogwash at that. The UN charges for Carbon Taxes are left out entirely. How couod Obama;s crew do tht. It always costs American’s money.

Jul 02, 2012 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Our President, the proverbial LIAR, is still at it. He doesn’t even hide it anymore His prognostications of saved money using BIO- FUEL is a lot of Hogwash and n0t very clean hogwash at that. The UN charges for Carbon Taxes are left out entirely. How couod Obama;s crew do tht. It always costs American’s money.

Jul 02, 2012 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
minfxbg wrote:

Might be more cost effective to design a ‘flux capacitor’ and install “Mr Fusion” devices on the ships. At least all the garbage that would thrown overboard could be thrown into Mr Fusion and propel the ships.

Jul 02, 2012 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
viper41 wrote:

Looks like, once again some procurement people, in conjunction with government representatives have been paid off. This is akin to Obama’s “green solution” that went belly up and cost the tax payers trillions of dollars. As I’ve said before, “money talks and BS walks”. And we wonder why these corrupt politicians and career military people spend millions of dollars to obtain a position that pays a couple of hundred thousand a year. Yes, I know that career military people don’t spend that kind of money, but after many years of dealing with major corporations and crooked politicians, they go to work for a defense contractor. Obviously integrity and or scruples are not required to do any kind of business any more!

Jul 02, 2012 3:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
reuterssucks1 wrote:

The same “geniuses” who thought this disaster up have also solved the electricity problem. It involves rubbing cats, a whole lot of cats, with balloons. Makes about as much sense. We have just discovered ENORMOUS oil and natural gas reserves here in this country. Canada is BEGGING us to take their oil. Did I hear something about a pipeline we need???
The sooner these clowns are out of power the better off we will be.

Jul 02, 2012 3:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MartyTN wrote:

While I’m all for developing alternative forms of energy, I think the government should stick spending money only on the research end of this rather than spending $20.5M on biofuel when they could have just spent $1.7M for the dino-juice. I would rather the $18M+ premium they spent would have been used for production scale research rather than a proof of concept joyride.

Jul 02, 2012 3:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
khwilm1 wrote:

this is such a pathetic joke. I have attended several energy conservation seminars sponsored by the DOD/DOE over the past three years. Bio based fuel is the absolute worst fuel you can put into a marine engine. This article fails to point out that in addition to outrageous cost of this fuel, fuel additives must also be mixed in to compensate for the increased corrosion that will be accelerated by using this great bio-fuel. Oh btw, these additive are not cheap.

Jul 02, 2012 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
viper41 wrote:

One solution to the petroleum problem would be to drill IN THIS COUNTRY and keep it in this country!
When the Saudi’s, back in the `50′s nationalized all of the big American oil companies, that set the stage for what we see today. IF, (big if) we had any common sense at all, we would’ve destroyed their oil fields, refineries, etc. and taken care of our own nation. Of course, due to the “tree huggers”, it’s now to late!

Jul 02, 2012 3:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lupae wrote:

What idiot in our government authorized this boondoggle. Probably the same idiot who authorized “Fast and Furious.”

Jul 02, 2012 4:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
perspectoff wrote:

So, algae uses carbon dioxide to grow, right? Wouldn’t routine usage diminish the CO2 buildup that is causing global warming (and contributing to the heat wave and rising sea levels around Washington, D.C.)?

Did any of the global warming naysayers factor in the cost of all the extra air-conditioner energy consumption that results from the now more than obvious and rapidly-increasing global warming?

Seems a lot of Americans like their politicians to wear blinders.

Jul 02, 2012 4:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lupae wrote:

I wonder who’s pocket this money is going into?

How much is going back to Obama’s campaign.

Jul 02, 2012 4:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lupae wrote:

I wonder who’s pocket this money is going into?

How much is going back to Obama’s campaign.

Jul 02, 2012 4:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

The history of our military developing new technologies is legion.

In future, we’ll look back at the history of today’s Congressional politicians and their rejection of science and experiment in the name of votes from fundamentalist ignorance, Oil Patch profits – as the largest corrupt event since the administration of Warren G. Harding.

Jul 02, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GuidoFL wrote:

MORONS ! Save fuel, keep the ships in port, think of the saving$$$$$$$$$$$ !

Jul 02, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
sfltrack wrote:

Why is it the left insists that Republicans are not for green and the future? I take offense at your ignorance.

If you on the left want to pay 26$ a gallon, go ahead and burn chicken fat in your diesel autos. I can’t wait for the new fuels that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and a competitive price.
If the Navy wants an “all the above” approach, they would have supported the keystone pipeline flowing from a friendly source.

Why is it the left who won’t spend their own money until the price break makes any economic sense, claim Republicans don’t want change?

Shame on you. Shame on Obama.

Jul 02, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
e--man wrote:

Cost is not a concern when choosing bio-fuel. However, how many units of fossil fuel are needed to create ONE unit of bio-fuel? It takes energy to make and transport any type of fuel, however, bio-fuels seem to take more. So these bio-fuels actually pollute more…just not out the tailpipe. When you add that to the high price, it doesn’t make sense to use them. I’m not saying that we should abandon the technology. It just needs more work before it’s ready for real use.

Jul 02, 2012 4:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
hueychief wrote:

Stop pis sing our money away on this green crap.

Jul 02, 2012 4:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
foggytoo wrote:

It’s not just repulbicans who are screaming about this and other spectacular waste by the US government.

Jul 02, 2012 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
freecheese wrote:

I am retird Navy. The Navy budget is just about as financially sound as the City of Detriot, and now they are going to pay $26. per gallon for fuel?
You can thank Ray Mabus, ultra liberal former govenor of MS. and SECNAV. I hope congress puts him in his place.

Jul 02, 2012 4:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rvndmnmt1 wrote:

What the hell? Yes, the Navy has pioneered forms of energy in the past. Without the USN we wouldn’t have nuclear Navies. But this is a step backwards and nothing new. The Germans were doing this very thing with “synthetic fuels” towards the end of WW2 and we were cutting into their supply lines. I’m aware of other pushes for alternative fuels going back to the invention of the internal combustion engine not limited to coal dust, heavy oils, ethanol, naptha, ect, ect. Seriously, most of these green technologies are old as Methuselah and if they were cost effective they would have been put into use 40 years ago with the first gas crunch. I mean how many untold manhours and billions have been spent on these energies already in development for over 100 years, in some cases, only to be told that a new breakthrough is just one to two decades away? Just can’t quantify stupid I guess.

Jul 02, 2012 4:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
garyinco wrote:

Needs to be repeated…

screentest wrote:
“Now lets see…Obama is bent on cutting defense funding and wanting servicemen to carry a greater portion of their medical care, the deficit is 15+ trillion…and he is forcing the navy to purchase fuel at $26/gallon??? I think he is still smoking something! That makes NO economic sense!”

Jul 02, 2012 4:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TJPride wrote:

At this price tag, it’s asinine to be buying ANY of the stuff. Even at $8 it would be stupid. We should be researching it, yes, but not wasting money at producing it in scale.

Jul 02, 2012 4:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
worddust wrote:

I’m laughing.

Jul 02, 2012 4:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

Insane. Criminal to waste dollars on meaningless eco crap. Hope every one of these ships have to be towed back to port to repair the damage to their engines in full view of the press.

Jul 02, 2012 4:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

900,000 gallons at $3.60= $3,240,000…pretty darn expensive,but needed. $26X 900,000 gallons = $23,400,000…gee I wonder if they are wasting tax payer money on stupidity?

Jul 02, 2012 5:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
noseitall wrote:

$3.60 per gallon for conventional fuel -vs- $26 per gallon for alternative fuel. During the Great Recession.

Can our government get any dumber?

Jul 02, 2012 5:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
landlocked wrote:

This wouldn’t be the first time the DOD was used for liberal causes to increase contract costs – think carve outs for small or minority owned businesses.

That said, if you are going to spend this much for fuel, the up front costs of a nuclear power plant is starting to look pretty good for new destroyers. You then have plenty of electricity left over for future directed energy weapons and high power radars.

Jul 02, 2012 5:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DJG7777 wrote:

We are 15 trillion $$ in debt, and we pay these outrageous prices for military fuel so we can feel good bout ourselves? Insane. Obama has got to go.

Jul 02, 2012 5:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

At these prices, the friends of some high officials are making BOAT-LOADS of money!

Making biofuels economical is a noble objective – but this is only morally right if EVERYONE has a fighting chance of making a living wage. It will truly be a Pyrrhic victory if this means that poor people will have to compete with the Pentagon to put food on their tables that the Pentagon wants to turn into biofuels (or, compete for planted farm-land). The resulting worldwide food insecurity would certainly create more conflict than the Pentagon could hope to resolve by shooting, threatening etc.

“We use 2 percent of all the fossil fuels that the United States uses” – i.e., the US DoD/ Pentagon uses 1/200 of all the petroleum products the entire world produces! Wow! Did I get that right?
~~~
There is ONLY ONE possible outcome that would be good for everyone:
~~~
* Biofuel technology fails (as predicted) to deliver prices competitive with fossil fuels, this side of 2040 (hopefully for a long time thereafter).
* Biofuel supply chain remains a niche market, with low volumes of business to specialist consumers (government, big blue chip companies that want to claim “green” credentials for marketing reasons, etc.)
* Fossil fuel suppliers hear these rumours that the USA is becoming more fuel-independent, and that the Pentagon now has alternative options for obtaining fuels. Without suffering the food insecurity inherent to large-scale biofuel production, the USA gains a strategic negotiating advantage that makes fossil fuel even more price-advantageous (quid pro quo, gaining in the process through diversity of supply, by continually threatening fossil fuel suppliers to ramp up production of biofuels).
* Farming technology (hydroponics/ genetic engineering for biofuels), social economics and food security law finally catch up and start producing biofuels on otherwise non-arable land (of which there is plenty, such as in deserts).

Jul 02, 2012 5:27pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
GeneralDrake1 wrote:

“The Pentagon paid Solazyme Inc $8.5 million in 2009 for 20,055 gallons of biofuel based on algae oil, or $424 a gallon.” You don’t need one more single word. This says it all. Liberals Liberals Liberals do NOT know how to run a nation. Surprised? Obama never even ran a lemonade stand before running for office on bogus talking points.

Jul 02, 2012 5:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
todnwth wrote:

If the Carter tax credits had been kept in place when we did not have the massive republican national debt we would have been well on our way of being energy independent by now, we have lost 30 years of research are not far from square one..;

Sometimes we look at the present and instead of looking into the future.

Jul 02, 2012 5:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PeterGee wrote:

To all those piling in here and saying “great idea, lets stick it to the Middle East, be independent on energy” and the like. How about sticking it to the Middle East,Russia,Iran,China,Venezuela and all our other haters by simply drilling,fracking and exploiting the greatest reserves of oil,shale,coal and natural gas known on earth, enough to power the USA for 100 years, right here in the USA? And making a few hundred thousand jobs as well?

Jul 02, 2012 5:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PeterGee wrote:

To all those piling in here and saying “great idea, lets stick it to the Middle East, be independent on energy” and the like. How about sticking it to the Middle East,Russia,Iran,China,Venezuela and all our other haters by simply drilling,fracking and exploiting the greatest reserves of oil,shale,coal and natural gas known on earth, enough to power the USA for 100 years, right here in the USA? And making a few hundred thousand jobs as well?

Jul 02, 2012 5:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PeterGee wrote:

To all those piling in here and saying “great idea, lets stick it to the Middle East, be independent on energy” and the like. How about sticking it to the Middle East,Russia,Iran,China,Venezuela and all our other haters by simply drilling,fracking and exploiting the greatest reserves of oil,shale,coal and natural gas known on earth, enough to power the USA for 100 years, right here in the USA? And making a few hundred thousand jobs as well?

Jul 02, 2012 5:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
illuminati69 wrote:

This is such a joke 27 dollars a gallon who would be that stupid to pay that much? oh yea the government

Jul 02, 2012 5:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ptiffany wrote:

I work with a company that makes and sells T-shirts. A few of us are willing to chip in to buy a couple thousand tees and donate them to the Members and Staff of Congress. They are emblazoned with:
“I’m with stupid.”

We’re convinced that the original author of this slogan had this application in mind.

Jul 02, 2012 6:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
searock wrote:

… “In its tanks, the USNS Henry J. Kaiser carried nearly 900,000 gallons of biofuel blended with petroleum to power the cruisers, destroyers and fighter jets of what the Navy has taken to calling the “Great Green Fleet,” the first carrier strike group to be powered largely by alternative fuels.” …

… wait till you see the windmill powerded version … it’s “awsome” … ;-)

Jul 02, 2012 6:05pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

My E-85 biofuel here in Iowa cost $2.99/gallon. This price per gallon that the Navy pays is more of Obama’s pipedream rather than using the ethanol that American Farmers produce daily. What a joke he is.

Jul 02, 2012 6:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Follow the money. I will guarantee the fuel is being purchased from an Obama crony – just like the CEO of Solyndra after bundling large amounts of money for the Obama campaign.

Only an idiot like Obama would pay 7 times the cost of normal fuel and then call it a great moment. A government run by morons.

Jul 02, 2012 6:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
iowafarm wrote:

$2.99/gallon of E-85 isn’t good enough for the Navy?

Jul 02, 2012 6:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MassResident wrote:

So why aren’t they building more Nuclear ships? Biofuels don’t seem to be going anywhere. Like Ethanol they are bad for both the environment and our economy.

Jul 02, 2012 6:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mattflaschen wrote:

“I don’t believe it’s the job of the Navy to be involved in building … new technologies,” he said. “I don’t believe we can afford it.”

The Department of Defense has always played a huge role in advancing American technology. The Office of Naval Research *alone* has funded 58 Nobel prize winners (http://www.onr.navy.mil/About-ONR/History-ONR-Timeline/nobel-laureates.aspx)

Part of research is planning for the future. Yes, right now, the navy’s alternative fuel is $26/gallon now. But I’m confident they’re researching how to drive down this price. In the meantime, the price of conventional fuel will most likely increase.

Be prepared.

Jul 02, 2012 6:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

What nonsense!

Jul 02, 2012 6:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AmiGoHome wrote:

This makes me sick. Like we have the money to waste on this. Since when is the Navy charged with doing alternative energy experiments? If they were doing it as a cost saving measure I could understand, but I see no benefit to anyone that the Navy has simply achieved “bragging rights” that it has a green fleet. Whoop-T-Do.

Jul 02, 2012 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MelAnosis wrote:

Instead of drilling for more oil and gas, we spend dwindling defense
funds on super expensive green fuel. Idiocy

Jul 02, 2012 6:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
swiftjustice wrote:

obama is a destroyer of this country and the blind lemmings who still think he means us well will probably be following the antichrist in the next few years, never even realizing what they’re doing.

Jul 02, 2012 6:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
stefon301 wrote:

With boo takes a lot more energy to produce than fossil fuels. Emission of CO2 are higher than oil. It’s killing the cost of food. It’s taking up growing fields that could produce food. THIS is the green fuel liberals love? Only in liberal land is this ok. Oil bad, but bio good (even though it’s killing the planet more)

Jul 02, 2012 6:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zeke786 wrote:

Create government contracts and business monopolies, that’s the function of the Federal Government.

Jul 02, 2012 7:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

This sounds like a great deal if you wholesale to the Navy. Go out and buy 200,00 gals of fuel oil at the current price, quadruple the price and send it to sea.

How does one tell the difference in fuels?

Jul 02, 2012 7:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

“The Pentagon paid Solazyme Inc $8.5 million in 2009 for 20,055 gallons of biofuel based on algae oil, or $424 a gallon…For the Great Green Fleet demonstration, the Pentagon paid $12 million for 450,000 gallons of biofuel, nearly $27 a gallon. There were eight bidders for that contract, it said.”

Cut the defense budget in half now, don’t wait. They have obviously lost their collective minds.

Jul 02, 2012 8:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

@GA_Chris

“This is a disgrace… we are spending money in the US and employing Americans to create a fuel that means we will spend less money on gas to the middle east.
I much prefer that my tax dollars get sent foreign countries rather than helping my follow citizens. ”

Is that why Democrats are dead set against the Keystone Pipeline? Environmentalists and Democrat priorities have nothing to do with get Americans working or keeping money in the US rather than the middle east. If that was true we would open up drilling in the US, create nuclear plants, and use our coal and natural gas resources. That certainly is not the agenda of the left.

Jul 02, 2012 9:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
noseitall wrote:

For crying out loud, just make Chris Christie the Secretary of Defense, and have him put an end to this nonsense.

Jul 02, 2012 9:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Forz wrote:

How about stop being the worlds policemen and just patrol our waters.Stop flying 747′s to make campaign speeches. Stop all “foreign” aid.That should save a lot.

Jul 02, 2012 9:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CountryPride wrote:

No need to get oil close by from our friends in Canada from the Keystone pipeline. OWEbama would rather spend us bankrupt buying from the Muhammedans or paying $100 a gallon for tree snot.

Jul 02, 2012 9:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Of course, this could all be avoided with thorium. All that would have to be done is to link up a shielded generator to the power supply, and this whole fossil fuel thing would be over.

Jul 02, 2012 10:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@UnPartisan:
“Cut the defense budget in half now, don’t wait. They have obviously lost their collective minds.”

Too right. Perhaps they were running out of extravagant schemes for spending all their budget, and needed to waste some more money so their budget wouldn’t be automatically cut by Congress during the next cycle?

Jul 03, 2012 5:53am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Freedom74 wrote:

Actually, if your going to use government money to push a technology, the best way to do it is to buy the end product. Just throwing money at companies does not work, a demand for the product must create economic activity by providing opportunity in the market.

Yes, it is inefficient to buy more expensive products in their beginning stages, but if you are going to throw government money at industries, this is better then loans or bailouts.

Jul 03, 2012 8:10am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

The wingnuts are whining only because it is bio fuel, and their paymasters in the oil industry tell them to whine, so they all obediently stick to the party line and bleat in unison.

How do I know this? Look at he cost over-runs on the4 F-35 – they dwarf the cost of bio-fuel. The thing is 50% over budget and rising, years behind schedule, the VTOL is likely to be scrapped altogether afer spending billions on development, and no version matches original design criteria. Do Republicans say a word about that? No. Not a peep. They just throw more money at it. They are not bothered about cost when it comes to defence, proven by their stated intention to increase defence spending even though their nothing particular to spend it on. The only time they whine about defence spending is when they see the word ‘Green’.

Jul 03, 2012 9:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

@RoaringFish

Many of the new Republicans and Tea Party members voted against Boehner in Feb, 2011 to vote agains the alternative engine for the F-35. Of course you wouldn’t understand that, you don’t understand the military advantage of having a state of the art weapons platform, compared to spending all of your money on converting cooking oil into diesel at 9 times the cost of the standard fuel to have a severe disadvantage at a time of war.

Jul 03, 2012 3:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

People are starving – but it seems that our ‘so-called’ leaders still have PLENTY of food to power their war machine, don’t they?

Jul 04, 2012 1:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

Oh and congratulations on the ‘peace prize’ Obama. I do suppose that burning food for the war machine does in fact qualify you for the peace prize – more so that an POTUS that would use that same food to feed the millions of starving people of the world, huh?

Wake up people. Just because partisans are blind, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to be.

Jul 04, 2012 1:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
RoaringFish wrote:

@UnPartisan wrote:

1) I could give the USA a ‘state of the art wepons platform’ right now at much less cost: buy Eurofighter.

2) What do you expect to fight with this state of the art weapons platform? When was the last time any USAF pilot faced another aircraft?

3)There is no ‘time of war’ except when Republican presidents start them, so what you are actually saying is that the Republicans want to spend trillions on shiny new planes to start wars with.

4) Biofuel will get cheaper, as everybody except people like you understands. Everybody else also understands that mineral oil will get more expensive. Everybody else also understand that a simple way to cripple the US military is to starve it of oil. You Republicans are really not too smart…

Jul 04, 2012 3:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NoBO2012 wrote:

It’s not difficult to understand why Obama would pay $26 a gal compared to $3.60. when you see that Honeywell aquired UOP that manufactures bio-fuels. Honeywell’s CEO David Cote is a big Obama supporter and Honeywell is a big donor. One Mr. David CoteHoneywell’s engagement with politics goes beyond money. Mr. Cote has become one of President Barack Obama’s go-to CEOs, as the president has been criticized as unresponsive to business concerns. Mr. Cote attended a number of White House lunches and dinners organized as part of a campaign to woo business support for environmental and jobs legislation. The president appointed Mr. Cote to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, which is deliberating on how to tackle widening U.S. budget deficits.

Jul 04, 2012 9:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ElronAven wrote:

“Osama Bin Laden made his money off of Saudi crude oil.”

FYI, the Bin Laden family business is large scale construction projects, not oil.

Jul 05, 2012 4:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sonofgalt wrote:

$26 a gallon does anyone know how fuel a carrier group uses a day

Jul 05, 2012 6:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rusino wrote:

Not to worry. The President will just pick some money off of the money tree in The White House back yard!

Jul 05, 2012 6:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
TnMan wrote:

You miss the point. The Greens and other tree huggers want us regular folk to pay $26 a gallon for our gasoline.

Jul 05, 2012 8:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mr.Smarty wrote:

Any of you liberal geniuses figure out yet that you cannot win wars paying 7-8 times the going rate for navy fuel? The military isn’t your playground for gay rights, women’s rights, muslim’s rights, animal rights and enviro-greenie dreams and crony socialism.

The money spent on this can buy more body armor, or more tanks, or pay for military medical benefits. Only an economic illiterate would think that creating an artificial demand for a scarce and inefficient commodity will drive prices down. It will ALWAYS be 7-8 times petroleum cost.

Jul 05, 2012 11:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Why should President Obama be retired in 2012? “All of the above.”

“It’s (still) the economy, stupid.” James Carville

Jul 07, 2012 11:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
hhv wrote:

This is a classically asinine liberal solution! Green is a scam movement, its the fleecing of the fools in the world! $26 a gallon, I say we find how to take liberals and liquify their dumbasses and turn them into fuel! We can solve the food shortage problem, fuel problem and carbon footprint problem all at once!

Jul 07, 2012 4:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
timbo44 wrote:

Once again the “most transparent” administration has failed to give notice or have a simple discussion on the feasibility and availability of meeting the Pentagon’s requirements, and this will be a case of where Obama, once again, just bypasses the checks and balances and does whatever he damn well please.
Folks, it’s YOU who are paying the $27 a barrel cost for chicken fat fuel, and it was YOU who back in 2009 paid the $424 a gallon for algae fuel. Now you know why Obama has spent $6 trillion more in 3 1/2 years than the Treasury took in, not to mention the 13 solar companies that have gone bankrupt, all paid for with YOUR tax dollars, all with Obama guaranteed loans. And you also paid for all those bonuses to officers of Solyndra who were well aware that they were headed to bankruptcy.

Jul 08, 2012 12:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.