backtop

Print 28 comment(s) - last by gnac.. on May 30 at 8:46 AM

Military fuel convoy
New budget would cut ethanol investment

There's a lot of pressure in America to move our military from dependence predominantly on foreign oil to the use of more biofuels to replace oil. Most of the gasoline used around the country today has 10% ethanol content and not only are average Americans using more ethanol, but the military has been making a big push towards investing in ethanol and reducing the amount of oil it uses. 
 
The U.S. House recently approved a new $642 billion annual defense authorization bill that has provisions to cut $70 million in funding from a public-private partnership aimed at developing a commercial supply of advanced biofuels for the Pentagon and commercial airlines.
 
Ethanol advocates are urging the Senate Armed Services (SAS) Committee to reject the proposal and put the $70 million back into the partnership.
 
Detroit News reports that the SAS is considering a version of the defense spending bill that would offer similar restrictions as the House version. Commercial interests feel that rejecting the $70 million cut for developing biofuels wouldn't be controversial.
 
"This should not be controversial because all Americans are concerned about America's dependence on foreign oil," said Phyllis Cuttino, director of Pew's Clean Energy Campaign.
 
The Defense Department spent $19.4 billion on energy in 2011 budget year, and roughly $17 billion of that was for oil alone. Reducing the amount of oil that the military uses, and increasing the efficiency of military vehicles isn't simply for saving money and helping the environment. More efficient vehicles means the military will need less fuel and the need to protect and transport fuel will be reduced in combat areas.
 
General Wesley Clark, co-chairman of Growth Energy, which is in ethanol advocacy group, says that the House version proposing the cuts is "shocking." According to Clark, America has lost 6,500 soldiers in wars directly or indirectly associated with oil and spends about $150 billion a year to secure access to oil.
 
The ethanol industry is facing hard times with the ending of a 30-year tax subsidy for corn-based ethanol in December. The subsidy was costing the American taxpayer $6 billion annually. At the same time the U.S. increased tariffs on Brazilian ethanol.

Ethanol advocates are also worried that Washington could repeal a mandate from 2007 intended to boost the use of ethanol annually through 2022. That mandate would increase the use of renewable fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, from 15 billion gallons in 2015 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Source: Detroit News


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
$642,000,000,000 defense spending
By tayb on 5/24/2012 2:28:51 PM , Rating: 3
China spends ~$143,000,000,000 annually on defense. Does anyone here think China is at risk for invasion, has serious national security issues, or is falling dangerously behind in military technology?? What about the United Kingdom, at ~$63,000,000,000 annually?

Can someone, anyone, please explain this ridiculous defense budget to me?




RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By Flunk on 5/24/2012 2:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
Because they can?


By aromero78 on 5/24/2012 3:59:43 PM , Rating: 3
One hammer: $30,000
One unarmored Humvee: $5,000,000
The satisfied look of the congressman who pockets the difference - priceless...


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By kattanna on 5/24/2012 4:36:54 PM , Rating: 4
what makes me cry.. think about how far out into space we could be now if that was NASA's budget..


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By ebakke on 5/24/2012 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 3
What makes me cry ... think about how many cool new gadget, technologies, cured diseases, flying cars, etc we could have if the government hadn't taken all of that money out of our pockets in the first place.


By YashBudini on 5/26/2012 3:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
The last pair of electrostats I purchased came with a letter from the manufacturer stating that the speaker was made possible because of glues that were originally designed for NASA.


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By disgusted@thieves on 5/24/2012 4:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
Comparing USA expenditures with other countries is apple and oranges. How much do you think China pays it's conscripts? zero? And of course they are not falling behind in technology they steal it or buy all the latest goodies from Pakistan and Iran.

What is stupid is burning our food, when we have more then enough energy here to supply all our needs - just drill and mine it


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By Noya on 5/25/2012 1:15:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is stupid is burning our food, when we have more then enough energy here to supply all our needs - just drill and mine it


What's stupid is believing that our producers won't sell to China at a higher margin to line their pockets.


By disgusted@thieves on 5/26/2012 7:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
You lack of understand of basic supply and demand economics is astounding. Please take a class, then make an intelligent comment.


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By ebakke on 5/24/2012 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Can someone, anyone, please explain this ridiculous defense budget to me?
I hope you're being intentionally facetious, and not that obtuse. The answer is painfully obvious. But I'll play along anyway.

First and foremost, waste. The people controlling the spending are trying to get reelected. And they're spending someone else's money, so it's easy to throw another few billion over here and another few billion over there. Defense contractors have exploited this and have facilities in as many congressional districts as possible. If a program is cut, they can scream bloody murder about lost jobs, and congressmen capitulate.

Second, we've decided that being the world's super power means we have to be the world's police. That's expensive.

And then, in no real particular order:
* Not having conscription is expensive. We have to recruit soldiers, we have to pay them (both in wages and benefits) sufficiently well to have enough to accomplish point 2 above. We pay for their care and for "rehabilitation" programs when they return from combat.
* We value human lives. So when folks are getting blown up by IEDs, we spend a bajillion dollars developing a new truck, building a bunch, and then shipping them across the world. I suspect the Chinese would probably just send out another peon to replace the one who blew up.
* We have the technological prowess to build things that remove our soldiers from harm's way. Drones, for example, keep soldiers back at the base but cost a lot to develop.
* No bid contracts.
* No real incentive for contractors to do better. If you're General Dynamics and you totally screw the pooch on something, you'll still get future contracts for other work. If you do really well and come in under budget, many times you have to give the savings back to the gov't. So the incentive is to spend every penny allocated.
* The DoD is averse to new, smaller startup companies. So the big contractors keep getting work without having to be more efficient.

In short, the problem with the DoD budget is the exact same problem with the rest of the federal government (and in some cases, state/local governments) - we have given these people too much power, too much discretion, and too much of our money.


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By x10Unit1 on 5/25/2012 10:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Second, we've decided that being the world's super power means we have to be the world's police. That's expensive.

Wow...just wow. This kind of arrogance is what gets us hated around the world. We don't have to be the world police.

We have to recruit soldiers, we have to pay them (both in wages and benefits) sufficiently well to have enough to accomplish point 2 above.

lol

We value human lives.

No we don't. Read that again.... NO WE DON'T. We slaughter people whether it be our own or others. Don't you ever think we value human live. We value resources. And here is the prime example:

How many times do you hear people complaining about oil/gas prices?

How many times do you hear people complaining about the number of people we have killed or soldiers that have died?


By ebakke on 5/25/2012 11:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow...just wow. This kind of arrogance is what gets us hated around the world. We don't have to be the world police.
I never said we have to be the world's police. I said we've decided we have to be. That's an important distinction. As long as we keep electing politicians who view this as our moral obligation, we will continue to expend enormous amounts of money on "defense".
quote:
lol
Do you care to debate my argument? Or simply attempt to dismiss it by laughing it off?
quote:
No we don't. Read that again.... NO WE DON'T. We slaughter people whether it be our own or others. Don't you ever think we value human live. We value resources. And here is the prime example:
I thought it was apparent in the context of my post, but I'll clarify. We value American lives. Surely, we aren't that concerned with those we've deemed enemies and are actively fighting. We also go to great lengths to protect civilians in war zones. But neither of those points have anything to do with the argument I was making. Assuming a military of some sort is necessary, and that some amount of money is going to be spent on it - the OP asked why is it so expensive. The argument I was clearly making in that example, is that many war activities could be done with lower monetary cost but higher human (specifically, American) cost.


By knutjb on 5/25/2012 3:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We value human lives.
quote:
No we don't. Read that again.... NO WE DON'T. We slaughter people whether it be our own or others. Don't you ever think we value human live. We value resources. And here is the prime example:
How many times do you hear people complaining about oil/gas prices?

How many times do you hear people complaining about the number of people we have killed or soldiers that have died?

Uh you're a fool. We do value lives more so than any other country. We have gone to great extremes, and yes spending, to minimize collateral damage. We do this at risk to ourselves. We could easily carpet bomb with no regard but we don't. Europe whines and complains to fix a problem but they only talk the problem to death. We just fix it, right or wrong, we do something for the better. We can't fix everything and political leaders don't always make the best choices. If we did nothing the world would be a much uglier, less safe place.

As to your two points you didn't see all the complaining in the news in 2004 with body counts plastered all over. The oil/gas comment isn't even analogous because it's too off topic.
quote:
Wow...just wow. This kind of arrogance is what gets us hated around the world. We don't have to be the world police
So it's arrogant? How. If we're so hated why do we have so many wanting to immigrate. Those who think we're arrogant are usually the ones creating the problems or are unwilling to put up resources to fix problems. Sitting idly by just condones and enables those committing the crimes.

The world is an ugly place but to do nothing accomplishes what? Do you believe the Chinese or Russians, or anyone else for that matter, will do better?


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By Reclaimer77 on 5/24/2012 7:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
All China has to do is bully it's neighbors. They don't have to project power all over the planet like we do. They don't have allies halfway around the world like Australia, like we do, who expect us to send carriers groups anywhere in the world in 24 hours with 12 hours notice.

Also if you think China uses "slave labor" to make iPads, do you honestly think their labor costs and contractor acquisition costs are anywhere CLOSE to ours for military goods and services? Hello, do you understand how Communism works? Apparently not.

If you think we're spending too much, that's valid. But using China as a comparison is just idiotic.


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By ebakke on 5/24/2012 9:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They don't have to project power all over the planet like we do.
We don't have to either, we choose to.
quote:
They don't have allies halfway around the world like Australia, like we do, who expect us to send carriers groups anywhere in the world in 24 hours with 12 hours notice.
Words are free. We could tell them tomorrow that their expectations are in need of an adjustment.


RE: $642,000,000,000 defense spending
By Spuke on 5/25/2012 2:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not to many people agree with me (even liberals) on this but here goes... I don't think we should have a single base in a foreign country. I don't think we should be fighting other people wars (Iran isn't our problem). And I don't think we should have military allies. Our military should ONLY be used for OUR defense and that's it. Hell, I even think trade should be limited only to countries of "like mind" (no trade with third world countries, dictatorships, etc). That said, WW2 showed us we can't isolate ourselves and expect not to be attacked. That's just no going to happen. We will be hated and targeted regardless (that was a hard lesson you gave us Japan). Involvement in world politics is a must but no military intervention unless someone is threatening us. Doesn't have to be a direct threat either (cause most are too smart to do direct threats). Anywat, that's my opinion.


By Jeffk464 on 5/24/2012 9:41:29 PM , Rating: 3
"Ethanol Advocates" - read corn lobby


By Asetha on 5/27/2012 1:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
China's military is not set up to stop an invasion, it is an internal security force to protect the Communist Party from the 700 million Chinese living on less than 3 dollars a day.

American military strategy is based on keeping the world's sea lanes open, which is very expensive. There is waste in any system, don't be surprised that the bigger the system the bigger the waste.

The UK's strategy is to tie itself to the world's leading power in return for trade concessions with that power.

You need to understand what strategic goals China, the US, and the UK are pursuing before you call them ridiculous. The countries you mention don't have much of a choice in the matter. Chinese military strategy MUST be one of internal security, due to the unique geopolitics of their nation. America MUST protect the globe's sea lanes in order to maintain their economy, which is built upon sea trade.


Wonder if it would be cheaper
By spamreader1 on 5/24/2012 2:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
To have the military grow their own corn and produce the ethanol than it would be to subsidise this insanty? I can see it now, milspec corn kernels...




RE: Wonder if it would be cheaper
By Sazabi19 on 5/24/2012 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
What we need to do is stop using ethanol, it's just driving the price of a food crop up. We need to start using direct injection and turbos for our vehicles to make them more efficient. I personally don't mind driving a smaller car but I know some people don't like that idea, as long as they don't complain I don't care either. I just hate seeing people drive their H2 and complain about gas prices. My vehicle right now is an AWD Nissan Rogue (crossover) and my next vehicle will be more efficient. It snows where I live and the winter before last when I got my car it was snowing A LOT. Last winter there was nothing. I complain about the price of gas in general but I try not to drive as much as I possibly can. My boss told me he apparently gets 4-6MPG less when he fills with E85 (yes it's a compliant vehicle). Doesn't sound good to me.


RE: Wonder if it would be cheaper
By Baffo on 5/27/2012 7:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that you and a number of people replying to this article are missing the point of the issue: they are quote "provisions to cut $70 million in funding from a public-private partnership aimed at developing a commercial supply of advanced biofuels for the Pentagon and commercial airlines." This is R&D money, not subsidies like the $6 Billion expiring. I agree, we need to stop getting ethanol from corn as it is competition for food crops (the effect of cheaper corn - at this price we are talking cornsyrup for use in manufactured foods - is a whole 'nuther discussion). More importantly to root of the issue though is it is inefficient by energy consumed, oil consumed, various metrics compared to other promising sources of ethanol - switchblade grass, algae, etc. This allocation could be very important to making these other (non-food source) ethanol production processes economically viable and not just efficiency footnotes in scientific history.

Comments about the lower power density of ethanol are missing the point - yes, for the same number of gallons, ethanol will produce less energy and therefore move you fewer miles in your car. From a consumer standpoint, you need to adjust the per-gallon cost to make up that difference (which is one of the reasons more efficient production processes are needed), or increase the tank size to address range, etc. At the end of the day, ethanol, like gas, oil, lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen in whatever form used for fuelcells, and even compressed air (google articles on taxis running on compressed air) are just means of storing energy and making it available to a vehicle or other machine needing energy. Energy density is only an issue if you are space and availability constrained - if you have a range of 200 miles instead of 240 miles with gas, it won't matter for 95% of typical driving as long as stations for ethanol are as plentiful as gas stations. That of course is a chicken and egg issue without providing incentives for making it that widely available.

To your point, if your boss is buying E85 at the same price per gallon as gasoline (I suppose technically E10), you are right, he is getting a raw deal. But if he is buying it at a prices that is at least 20% lower than that of gasoline to make up for the 20% lower energy density, he will be the getting the same or saving money on a $/mile basis. However, if we had feasible non-corn stocks of ethanol, other less apparent costs could also be factored in - $/gallon NOT spent guarding oil tankers in politically unstable countries (also mentioned in prior comments), or used to clean up environmental disasters, impacted health of communities affected by drilling/fracking, etc.


Why not natural gas?
By zlandar on 5/24/2012 2:21:27 PM , Rating: 4
We have a crapload of it. You can liquefy it.




RE: Why not natural gas?
By geddarkstorm on 5/24/2012 3:47:47 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously.

Ethanol, particularly from corn, needs to die (or at least -all- its subsidies). Biodiesel and biogas are the only biofuels worth talking about. And as you point out, natural gas is abundant and can be used in vehicles as well. Or what about hydrogen fuel cells? Haven't heard much about that lately, even though hydrogen is easily extracted from natural gas, or even from water now with the newest catalyzed electrolysis breakthroughs.

But ethanol has nothing going for it as a fuel. It belongs in one place: a bottle.


RE: Why not natural gas?
By TSS on 5/24/12, Rating: -1
What a Suprise
By Kyuu on 5/24/2012 9:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
The people with a financial interest in the biofuel game are up-in-arms about cutting funding for biofuels. Who'd have thunk it.

Ethanol, especially from corn, is something we need to stop wasting money on. The end of the subsidies was a great step. Cutting funding for this crap from the military budget would be another. Of course they're going to throw the "but the jobs!" and "but energy independence!" cards on the table. They're good sound bites. Problem is they're total bull.




RE: What a Suprise
By knutjb on 5/25/2012 3:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Ethanol is not a great fuel. Low energy density. The cost and supply capacity of it and others have not come down to a sensible point and likely won't.


By drycrust3 on 5/24/2012 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reducing the amount of oil that the military uses, and increasing the efficiency of military vehicles isn't simply for saving money and helping the environment. More efficient vehicles means the military will need less fuel and the need to protect and transport fuel will be reduced in combat areas.

I've been watching the TV series "World War 2 in colour", and one of the things that comes up time and again (happened to both sides) is how a modern army will be racing across the country side, squashing everything in its path, and then suddenly, without an enemy in sight, it grinds to a halt : no fuel.




By gnac on 5/30/2012 8:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
What? Build a refinery (1.5 Billion or less) contract for oil companies to drill, produce our own oil on federal lands and operate the refinery (2-3 billion), build pipelines from the oil sources to the refinery (1.5 billion) - 6 billon and the military will have all the fuel it needs. The only cost is the operating cost as the "people" own the resources that are on Federal Lands.

Trade the fuel on the open market - to have fuel where it is needed.

No longer need to police the middle east- guaranteed fuel source available and secure.

Creates huge # of jobs.

By pass EPA and other regulations - it is a national security issue.

Win for workers, win for military (reduced costs and secure source) win for tax payers - reduced expense, win for citizens - less soldiers need to be put in harms way.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki