I'm a bit confused, why in the HELL are we allowing a bunch of politicians decide what FUEL we put in our military? Don't we have General's, commanders, admirals, and scientists in the military that can make those decisions themselves???
Or wait, I forgot all these politicians are all scientists and know better than anyone else.....
Or is it..... They have stock in ExxonMobil? Don't want to see there stock prices go down....
I'm thinking it's they have stock in ExxonMobil. Ugh.
I'm thinking that they don't like Obama's attempts to support alternative energy sources, which include bio-fuels, and this is just one more way they use to thumb their noses at him.
I mean, why be responsible when you stay with the OLD WAY and frustrate your political opponent's efforts to aid the military and the country with it, eh?
That's right Loren. It's not about OUR COUNTRY, it's about doing anything to crush Obama! What good citizens. WINNING is more important than our country, our citizens, our planet...
Here's an interesting exercise in internet research. See who the members of the House Armed Services Committee are. Then, go to the website OpenSecrets.org Type in each member's name, then click to see where his/her campaign contributions come from. As an example, Howard P. "Buck" McKeon's (R and Chariman of the committee) 5 largest campaign contributors are all defense contractors. Makes for interesting reading.
While this may well be politcally motivated, take a look at one of the articles linked at the bottom, that biofuels are costing 4X conventional fuels. In a time of tight budgets, that is not trivial.
Biofuels are not always wise, consider the ethanol fiasco, which actually saves little or no carbon, raises food prices, and fuel prices. The only reason it's still in business is corporate welfare to the agribusiness lobby. Biofuels are not an easy fit. The amount of extra processing required to make them suitable for many applications as well as the very large amount of raw plant material needed to produce fuel make this a non trival problem.
Maybe some day it might work, but it's not a magic bullet. The Navy use in planes was probably more a PR stunt than a practical move.
indeed... seems the only magic bullet is...
(solar and wind perhaps just learning how to ride motorcycles too... ; )
Conservation only goes so far. Civilization runs on energy. While biofuels aren't a magic bullet, we have to find some energy source that works without killing us all in a few decades. So far solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy sources are the only ones that sound as if they won't come back to bite us in the end.
The latest data indicates most biofuels aren't green. While they produce less CO2, they still damage the environment. Using them just displaces the damage from one sector to another.
Regarding their chart, I don't understand how methane from sewage sludge could possibly cause ionizing radiation.
infectious crap that GOP i guess... weird
Other than nuclear, there is nothing that can practically power the grid and reduce carbon. Simple. Wind is extremely variable in most areas, and wide areas can unexpectedly go windless over the span of minutes or hours. (Japan is struggling with a 15% drop, wind faces 50,70, 100% drops.) Solar sounds nice but is unavailable at night, in bad weather or even in winter (especially as you go far from the equator and it needs to pass through miles of atmosphere for a very brief period of daylight). Storage is nowhere up to the job, and long hall power distribution is not currently practical. Even ignoring the technical problems, can you imagine a nation willingly getting into a situation where the majority of nighttime power comes from nations on the other side of the planet (over vulnerable pathways)?
For the forseeable future, aircraft and all heavy transport (except possibly railroads) must use chemical power. [Interesting side point: people often perceive the Europeans and Japanese as making better use of rail transport primarily because of the high visibility of passenger carriers. In fact, the US transports a far higher proportion of its goods by rail than either EU or Japan--and this is the area where rail can make a really significant impact, much more than shuttling people around the city]
What has happened to the Republican Party over the last few election cycles is in many ways a tragedy. The party has been taken over by ignorant extremists and it doesn't appear that it will be salvageable. The party is committed to claims that global warming is a hoax, that creationism should be taught in public schools, and that just cutting the size of government and reducing taxes will spur the economy to new heights. It turns out that a majority of GOP voters in Ohio think there actually were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After all a Republican President told them there would be, so it must have turned out that way. As Goethe said, "There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action."
Once again, I totally agree with you Dr. Allan. I don't think the mainstream Republicans like it either. Ignorance (that spreads like wildfire!) really is frightening.
There may be a practical reason for not using biofuels, but also to the Right green is the new pink. If you're trying to stop their using a Humvee, you must be a commie.