backtop


Print 4 comment(s) - last by cruisin3style.. on Aug 13 at 2:18 PM


  (Source: gm-volt.com)
Increased budget pressures could jeopardize these investments

Energy efficiency has become a concern for many U.S. government sectors in recent years. For instance, the Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a total of $175 million to 40 different vehicle technology projects in an effort to promote the development of lightweight, efficient vehicles. In addition, Boeing and Siemens recently announced their new alliance, which aims to improve the Department of Defense's (DOD) energy and security management. 

While these efforts seem very progressive, the DOD has increased budget pressures that may jeopardize its investment in renewable energy. According to Rear Adm. Neil Morisetti, the United Kingdom's climate and security envoy who spoke on a potential partnership between the U.K. and DOD on August 10, the cost of energy is exceeding manpower costs as far as defense budgets go. 

Despite these growing pressures, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), co-chair of the new congressional Defense Energy Security Caucus, wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on August 10 to drive the continued investment in renewable energy. Other caucus members joined Hinchey in signing the letter, such as Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Jack Kingston (R-GA) and the office of Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). 

"Recognizing the critical importance of mission energy requirements, we urge you to prioritize the department's energy policies and budgets," wrote Hinchey in the letter. "Investments in smart energy plans will not only show returns in security and mission success, but they will contribute to future cost savings and have a unique opportunity to help foster innovative and diverse energy and clean technologies to strengthen our economy."

While Morisetti noted the costs associated with renewable energy investments, he also said that it's something that cannot be pushed aside either. 

The Pentagon spent $15 billion on energy last year alone, where 75 percent of that was operational. It's expensive to move this large amount of energy around Iraq and Afghanistan where battlefields are located, and can create supply lines "that are under constant attack."

But Army Gen. David Petraeus is looking for better ways to manage fuel consumption in Afghanistan. 

"Commanders will push for rapid technology transition of new fuel savings methods to field, where appropriate, and will pursue existing, proven alternative energy options that reduce the use and transport of fuel," said Petraeus.



Comments     Threshold


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

Good.
By themengsk176 on 8/12/2011 8:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Renewables are the future.

Renewables are a safe, common sense investment, even if you can argue that the government shouldn't be footing the bill.

There are worse things to spend money on.




RE: Good.
By knutjb on 8/12/2011 10:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
The military is not the best place to test unproven eco ideas. There are some that are valid, bio fuels, synthetic fuels, even some hybrid technologies in specific purpose vehicles. Also everyone whines and complains about wasteful military spending and much of this is just that. To experiment with fighting forces just to feel good is dangerous.

In my 20+ years in the military I have seen a number of wasteful ideas that made some congressman feel warm and fuzzy but made my life more difficult, i.e. E85/biodiesel fueled vehicles. We had to drive 17 miles round trip to a commercial gas station and 30+ minutes to fill our tanks which, for E85 emptied much faster, added wear and tear, strained our limited fuel budgets, and reduced our time on job. All those extra steps and your tax dollars, excuse me government revenues, for what.


RE: Good.
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2011 8:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
These are about buying votes and reelections, not "the future". That's why none of these dirtbags want congress to cut ANYTHING. They rather see the whole nation collapse than risk their special "high profile" projects being cut and their "constituents" not vote for them because of it.

Renewables ARE the future. But we'll never see that future unless we make massive spending cuts. Anything not critical to running the country needs to go so we can stave off this crisis. THEN, after the ship stops taking water, we can discuss them.


RE: Good.
By cruisin3style on 8/13/2011 2:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
While I think claiming that a group of people don't want to cut anything from the budget because they want to keep renewable energy spending in the defense department is the most hyperbolic thing I've heard today (I visit dailytech every day ;) )

I agree with you that we basically need to cut everything that isn't necessary for the country/government to function. Sadly due to politics that will probably never become even close to a reality.


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














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