Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Sunday, May 20, 2012

You think the left can't get any dumber....

The stupidity of the left knows no bounds in all areas of life, but especially the military. May have something to do with the fact the left despises the military but they love to use it for social experiments. And here is another one.
Why We Need a Greener Military

Congress banning the U.S. military from using biofuels is just plain dumb.

A Navy experimental program to use biofuels has been shot down by the House Armed Services Committee

Killing a $12 million military program may seem like a paltry matter. The sum amounts to a mere 0.002 percent of the total defense budget. But the elimination of one such program this week by the House Armed Services Committee reveals—more brazenly than many larger tamperings—just how shortsighted, hypocritical, and beholden to special interests the custodians of national security can be.

The program in question is a two-day experiment by the Navy to power an aircraft carrier’s entire battle group—its jet planes and escort ships—not with petroleum but with biofuels. (The biggest ship in the group, the carrier itself, is excluded, since it is, and would remain, nuclear-powered.)

The rationale for barring the Navy from buying the 450,000 gallons of biofuels necessary for the experiment is economic: These fuels are too expensive—about four times more costly than conventional fuels.

To hammer home the point, the committee’s Republican leaders passed an amendment barring the entire Defense Department from using any alternative fuels, for any purpose, if they’re more expensive than oil. But then, in a shameless disclosure of who’s paying the tiller, they tacked on a provision exempting coal and natural gas from this prohibition. As Noah Shachtman put it in Wired’s Danger Room blog, they “didn’t put limits on all alternative fuels—just the ones with environmental benefits.”
Strange. I though natural gas has no CO2 emissions and wouldn't that be an environmental benefit? But let's not have logic and truth get in the way of a good story. We continue.

But this is not a tale of green woe about the environment, or not just that; it’s a story about hard-headed national security and energy policy.


The Defense Department has stepped up alternative-energy projects in the past few years, and not for the sake of trendiness. The Army and Marines have been setting up solar panels in Afghanistan, because the convoys of trucks bringing in oil—mainly to fuel the military’s own operations—cost a tremendous amount to maintain and secure, not just in money but in lives. (In 2007, insurgent attacks on fuel convoys were responsible for one-third of U.S. casualties—a bit of data that prompted the alt-fuels program.)

Yes, there has been some use of solar energy to power US bases in Afghanistan. But the fuel these authors are talking about is for vehicles for the most part. And sorry guys, solar will not power a Hummer.

But again, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Even now, in its early phases, solar is a more mature technology than biofuels. In part that’s because there’s almost no market for biofuels—mainly because, as the House committee complained, they’re too expensive. But some of modern history’s most revolutionary devices started out as too expensive; and they would have stayed that way—they might never have got off the ground—had the federal government not created the market. And since, in American politics, the military and space programs have been the federal government’s only sources of manufacturing, it’s the Pentagon and NASA that have created those markets....

...Alternative fuels are currently in the same trap. In the long run, they are likely to save money, reduce our dependence on foreign producers (many of them with less-than-stable regimes), and do less damage to the environment. But in the short run, they are too expensive—and, in some cases, their net benefits are too uncertain—for private citizens, or very many companies, to take the plunge.

This is where government comes in—where it has always come in.

Biofuels are riskier than solar. Their price may never plunge below the cost of oil (unless, of course, the price of oil skyrockets), and some variants produce their own carbon footprints. But they’re worth a modest experiment; they’re worth a boost in demand, which could spur more firms to take a leap into the market...
Typical leftist propaganda on how the government must fund an alternative fuel for our benefit. I love how they say if the price of oil skyrockets. As if it hasn't already because of intentional government policy. Thankfully there has been some wisdom shown by the Congress. Now if this can be shown at DoD and DOE.

2 comments:

  1. Have you heard about the serious proposal to send women to Ranger School?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought I sent you the link. My Ranger buddies are none too pleased. With women in subs, the repeal of DADT and now this I am just so glad I'm retired.

      Delete