Reply With QuoteDefense budgets cuts........yeahhhhhhhhhh.......
Republicans critical of Navy's 'Great Green Fleet', $26 a gallon fuel
The Navy is steaming ahead with an initiative to power ships with biofuel, despite criticism the so-called “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel.
This month marks the first time the Navy is using biofuel in an operational setting -- sending five ships to a multi-nation exercise off the coast of Hawaii.
A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...t-green-fleet/
Defense budgets cuts........yeahhhhhhhhhh.......
Whilsy I can understand your concerns about the cost of such a program and I agree it's pretty dam massive.Originally Posted by C.Puffs
The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel.
But you also must consider economy of scale as well. Think about it. The armed forces of any nation use a huge amount of oil for a variety of applications from petrol, lubricants, plastics the list is endless.
Unfortunately we live in a capitalist driven society and to effect change what better way to wean a nation of oil and oil based products then to make the armed forces to start using alternative sources for oil based products? As the infrastructure is built up for the armed forces, especially an armed force the size of the US military economy of scale will come into play and thus making alternative oil and oil based products cheaper for the rest of the nation.
And as economy of scale kicks in, competitors will jump on board as the demand grows thus lowering processes that are palatable to consumers.
Virtually every major industry starts this way. The coming of the Industrial Revolution was not caused by private demands, it was driven by the demands of the Royal Navy as the UK built the largest empire the world had seen. As the empire grew they needed ships. Lots of ships and lots of ships quickly.
Steel industry is the same. We went from small scale furnaces producing hand made product to massive steel mills to build all the steel warships. Subsequently civilian demand through shipbuilding increased as ships grew in size and partly through shipbuilding it was realised steel could also be used to build buildings and bridges instead of wood and stone.
Aviation likwise was driven by military necessity. Think about this for a second. Despite how good modern airlines are now for example, every major manufacture of airlines produce near identical designs that were implented in the 1950's by BAC and Boeing based on bomber designs.
For as much as we try to deny it, our capitalist society is driven by government investment and the investment eventually filters down to the public and creates demand as entrepreneurs develop ways to use these advances. Alternative fuels, renewable energy is I'm afraid to say in the same situation.
Atomic energy would never have become profitable without the massive spending on the search for the bomb.
Min, the size of the RN was trvial (as in less than 0.1%) of the size of the merchant fleet. The industrial revolution was driven by the development of steam by private ventures. The RN had nothing to do with it.
The military demand for steel (except in times of war) is like wise a very small %age of overall steel production. It was the (privated developed) Bessimer technique that enabled steel to be produced in large quanities. The RN had nothing to do with that either.
The fact that the military was willing to take advantage of developments in technology does not mean that they caused those technology's to be developed.
To give you another contemporary example of this in action.
The Australian government is updating our telecommunication network infrastructure. 98% of the population will have a fibre optic connection directly to their home. The other 2% will have satellite connections installed. It's estimated to cost 30 billion Australian dollars. This is a huge project. Because of the size of Australia none of our telecommunication companies have the capital or the workforce to upgrade the network. NOR is it in their interests to do so. Both of the major companies were deadset against the idea because they own the majority of the existing network and if they did invest in such a project the cost to their customers to use such infrastructure would mean that nobody would use it.
Government steps in builds it instead, wears the construction cost, sells bandwidth space to the telecommunication companies who can sell their products on a cost basis that does not involve construction costs to recoup. Everybody wins and the infrastructure becomes a revenue raiser for the government.
I'm pretty sure that DD did a rant on this a year or so back that pointed out that 4th gen mobile wireless networks would have delivered 80-90% of the capacity of the NBN for 10% of the cost.
For sure a lot of it is privately developed. But it in most cases it takes the government to invest their usually unlimited financial capital in allowing economies of scale to take shape to make things economically viable for the private sector.
Here is a good article on the history of what I'm talking about.
http://www.maritime.org/conf/conf-goodwin.htm
Maybe but wireless has a lot of problems fibre optic doesn't.
Your article points out that iron was mostly being consumed by the East India Company.
Yes there are some areas where it isn't suitable and so the fibre to the door would be better. But not many. It's a giant waste of money in short. Much like the $26/gallon fuel.
And you honestly consider that to be separate from the British Government?
Yes as much as any private enterprise was in those days. I'd suggest the EIC owned the government more than the government owned the EIC. They certainly had most of the government in their pocket.
They'd be better off going back to nuclear than spending $26/gallon. They're going to need it anyway with DEW coming online in the next decade or two as well as more powerful radars.
I wonder if the USN had gone ahead with a nuclear destroyer and/or cruiser fleet way back then if it would have mitigated the problem today.
The Great Green Fleet?Well that's an insult to The Great White Fleet.
Oh hell yes, I know what I’ll be turning crops and Florida swamp into should WWIV ever trash and burn the petro nations. The Great Green fleets gotta have its gas and I would love the money!
Posting Permissions
