backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by Manch.. on Jul 14 at 1:34 PM


At a time when Congress is looking to cut the budget, the DoD is pleading for $517M USD in extra funding to keep up with the soaring costs of crude oil.  (Source: Tatan Syuflana/AP)

Without extra funding, the U.S. Air Force could be grounded and unable to defend the nation.  (Source: USAF)

The U.S. DoD is hoping that biofuels will hold the key to safe, cheap fuel in the long term.  (Source: California Polytechnic State University's Controlled Environment Agriculture & Energy Working Group)
Soaring gas prices have hit defense budgets, and served as a reminder of the volatility of oil

Between Iraq and Afghanistan alone, the U.S. Department of Defense needed an enormous amount of fuel last year -- the U.S. government uses 20 to 50 million gallons of fuel every month in Afghanistan to support operations. In fact, of the $15B USD it spent on fuel, 75 percent went towards operations, such as the efforts in these Middle Eastern nations.  

I. Massive Demand, Soaring Costs

The thirstiest branch of the armed forces was the U.S. Air Force (USAF).  They used $8.1B USD in fuel, including $7B USD in costs for jet fuel.  The USAF burned through 54 percent of the DoD's fuel budget, sipping 2.5 billion gallons of fuel.

The aforementioned figures come courtesy of Air Force assistant secretary for installations, environment and logistics Terry Yonkers.  Speaking at the Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, Asst. Secretary Yonkers expressed alarm at rising fuel costs and the impact they might have on the nation's ability to defend itself.

At a time when Congress is looking to slash the budget, the DoD is requesting an injection of $517M USD in extra cash to keep up with rising oil prices.  According to the request, the price per barrel of oil rose from $127.26 in April to $165.90 by June 1.

In reality, that $517M USD will likely not be nearly enough to cover the 30 percent higher costs, considering that 30 percent of last year's budget totaled almost $5B USD.  But facing a cuts-minded Congress, that may be the best the DoD can hope for. 

The DoD is running on empty and desperately needs a solution in the long term to secure the nation in the face of continually rising fuel costs.  Asst. Secretary Yonkers believes the answer lies in biofuels, like algae-based oil.  Currently biofuels are quite expensive, costing $40 to $50 USD per gallon.  Given that there's about 45 gallons of petroleum products in a barrel of crude oil, petroleum was at approximately $3.69 USD/gallon, or roughly 1/11th of the cost of biofuel.

However, as biofuel production ramps up, costs are expected to greatly decline.  Asst. Secretary Yonkers greets that possibility with optimism, stating, "If they'll produce it, we'll buy it."

II. Biofuels v. Domestic Drilling

New biofuels like algae have an advantage over other alternative fuels like ethanol, in that they contain the larger hydrocarbons necessary for jet fuel and other high-energy blends.  In that regard, they're quite similar to petroleum products.  Because of that, 98 percent of the USAF's aircraft can run on a biofuel blend (though the allowed amount of biofuel in the blend is application-dependent).

One obstacle is that while the DoD commands a substantial stake in the U.S. fuel market, it's still a small player in terms of total demand.  Last year it reportedly accounted for 2 percent of the nation's fuel budget.  That is a large amount, but it also represents how much the DoD needs the other 98 percent, which includes civilian and corporate use, to support biofuel development.

In the short term, the U.S. could look to domestic drilling options to try to drop fuel prices.  However, there are issues there too.  Most "easy" fuel in the U.S. has already been extracted -- much of the remaining fuel requires complex extraction procedures.

Some studies indicate that extraction from oil shales and their ilk can be done safely, with minimal environmental impact.  But as NPR's "This American Life" points out, this research is often biased by the fact that top petroleum research universities are dependent on petroleum grants for funding and are afraid to publish negative studies.

The actual impact of domestic drilling may be significantly higher than the oil and gas companies would wish the public to believe, as evidenced by recent environmental damage in Appalachian rivers, and the recent earthquakes that struck Arkansas when natural gas injection wells appeared to disturb local fault lines.

On the other hand, there may be cases where the costs outweigh the benefits, and domestic drilling makes sense.  After all, environmentalists often paint an equally biased picture, albeit with less financial resources.  The truth, as is typical in such debates, likely lies in the middle.

At the end of the day, though America faces the real issue that its domestic petroleum supply is a finite product and will run out -- sooner or later.  That leaves America dependent on foreign oil, which is volatile both in price and in politics.

The tough question is what to replace the oil with.  

III. The Long Term View

Biofuels seem an attractive alternative, given that they only require sunlight, typically (as most are plant based) and can produce high-octane fuel blends resembling petroleum products.  Further, these blends typically are cleaner, with less sulfides and nitrides than typical petroleum fuel.

Of course the DoD could also look to nuclear fission power, combined with EVs to greatly reduce its transportation related fuel consumption in the short term.  Such a suggestion might have trouble flying in nuclear fearful America, though.

In the long run fusion may also provide a possible alternative energy source for defense transportation.  But the problem of energy storage is likely to remain for some time.  Unless researchers can develop a fusion reactor small enough to fit in a jet, or a battery vastly more energy-dense than today's designs, the only solution is a chemical fuel.  And the choice for chemical fuel today are pretty much oil, ethanol, or biofuels.

The DoD thinks biofuels are the most attractive of those choices to use in defending the United States.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Maybe I'm confused
By Solandri on 7/11/2011 10:14:38 PM , Rating: 3
It's off the mark too. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is the one budget item that's been consistently cut over the decades (though to be fair it's ticked up about 1% since 9/11).
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/35xx/doc3521/352101.g...

The budget item threatening to sink the government right now is Medicare/Medicaid. The recent Democratic pledge to not allow entitlements to be touched in the budget negotiations is downright suicidal. Something has to be changed about entitlements if we want this country to survive. I don't care if we keep them, but allowing them to continue in their present form unaltered is a guaranteed path to fiscal ruin.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10455/Figure1-...

If you think I'm some conservative shill, go read the CBO reports for yourself. Look at the raw budget numbers without any political rhetoric or spin, and decide for yourself. See where the problems really are, not where some politician wants you to think they are.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12212


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By FauxNews on 7/11/2011 10:42:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's off the mark too. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is the one budget item that's been consistently cut over the decades (though to be fair it's ticked up about 1% since 9/11).


Uh, not sure what you're smoking, defense spending has doubled since 9/11, both in real money spent and as a percentage of GDP.
Your "here's a bar graph with no labels" is nice but doesn't say anything.
And this is such a common fact you can google "defense spending doubled since 9/11" and find plenty of results to verify.

quote:
The budget item threatening to sink the government right now is Medicare/Medicaid. The recent Democratic pledge to not allow entitlements to be touched in the budget negotiations is downright suicidal.


Uh, you mean to say that the programs that have taxes funding them are going to sink us, but the military, which has no direct tax linked to it, isn't?

RIGHT.

In the past, wars have typically been accompanied by a tax to pay for the war. That hasn't happened this time.

And defense spending is the sacred cow of the Republicans.
While everyone's cutting, they're giving MORE money to the DoD. Heck, they're even buying planes the military doesn't want!!!

I think when you say they get "cuts", you mean "cuts to massive raises".
Sort of like getting a 25% raise and then having it "cut" by 5%... Sorry it's still a massive raise by anyone's definition.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By yomamafor1 on 7/11/2011 11:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well you know how these people believe... Constitution explicitly called for national defense, but didn't explicitly called for social welfare (which includes health, education, etc).

Seriously, people need to stop looking at a 250 year old document about how to run this country in the future.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By geddarkstorm on 7/12/2011 2:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution is what -makes- this country this country. Don't want to keep looking at it at how to run this place? Then move to some other nation, you don't belong here. That simple.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By Reclaimer77 on 7/11/2011 11:10:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And defense spending is the sacred cow of the Republicans. While everyone's cutting, they're giving MORE money to the DoD. Heck, they're even buying planes the military doesn't want!!!


Right. Which is why Obama hasn't cut defense spending. Didn't pull us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, but actually raised the troop levels. And he also started ANOTHER new war.

Clearly it's all the Republicans, who weren't in power, making all these decisions.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By yomamafor1 on 7/11/2011 11:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Iraq: US troop is set to leave by the end of 2011
Afghanistan: US troop is set to leave by the end of 2012

Both timetable set by President Obama, not "Mission Accomplished!" Bush.

Clearly, take your tinted glass elsewhere.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By Reclaimer77 on 7/11/2011 11:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
Timetables shmimetables! He said in "day one" of his Presidency we would be out of the Middle East. He didn't say he would raise troop levels and start more wars did he?

How convenient to set the "timetable" for the end of his Presidency. Leaving a mess in the lap of the next President instead of following through with his campaign promises.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By yomamafor1 on 7/12/2011 12:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
I would like to see the link where he explicitly said he will pull US troop out on the first day of his presidency.

Secondly, the point of the fact is that he set the timetable for troop withdrawl. If he needed a troop surge to meet the timetable, so be it. You can hark all you want when he significantly miss the deadline.

Lastly, you can be a conspiracist and hark about how Obama "conveniently set the deadline" for the next president to clean up his mess, but doesn't change a fact: he is following through with his campaign promise to end the wars during his presidency. Last I checked, Obama still have 1 year left to go.


RE: Maybe I'm confused
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2011 4:49:35 PM , Rating: 1
Oh also, let's add selling arms to foreign nationals to this list. After 20+ years of Democrats bringing up the "Iran Contra" affair, their savior Obama goes and does Operation Gunrunner. Wtf was he thinking!?

I think the only difference is the media reported the hell out of one, and then goes out of it's way to distort and bury the other.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki