The New Green Navy

[3rdnlng]

So let me get this straight. The same people who're bitching like hell that we need to become "Energy Independent" are pissed that the Navy demonstrated that if necessary, in an emergency, they could complete their assigned missions using an (admittedly) extremely expensive fuel to substitute for the normal fuel.

 

Did I miss something here?

 

This was a Demonstration/Test of an Emergency Use Back-Up Fuel!

 

And now a pack of partisan idiots and their sheeple want to turn it into a political football.

 

Would you clowns be happier if the military wasn't exploring alternate fuel usage? Would you be happier if the Joint Chiefs came out and stated that if we run out of fuel for some reason we'll be in the wardroom playing Acey-Duecy until somebody finds some for us?

 

Partisan Frickin' Idiots!

 

Yes, let's ignore our own vast oil and gas deposits that would make us energy independent and focus on making our military adapt to some tree huggers ideology. Next we'll be putting solar panels and windmills on our nuclear cruisers to make them less damaging to the environment.

 

BTW, ever hear of the Strategic Oil Reserve? What purpose does that serve other than to temporarily bring down gas prices for Obama's political purposes?

[RI Bills Fan]

Yes, let's ignore our own vast oil and gas deposits that would make us energy independent and focus on making our military adapt to some tree huggers ideology. Next we'll be putting solar panels and windmills on our nuclear cruisers to make them less damaging to the environment.

 

BTW, ever hear of the Strategic Oil Reserve? What purpose does that serve other than to temporarily bring down gas prices for Obama's political purposes?

 

As usual your total lack of comprehension of any facts or ideas not spoon fed to you by either the RNC or Fox News is astounding.

 

Unlike the Tea Party/Conservative Wing GOP/FNC Talking Heads who feed you your "Original" ideas, the leadership of the Navy (actually the entire US Military) is forced to deal with the real world as it is rather than "How it should be" so they need to consider and either prove or disprove the viability of a wide range of options not restricted by political rhetoric.

 

Do you honestly think that there is never a situation that requires multiple options to be explored to find an optimum solution to a given problem? Or that the best solution might be found in a combination of different philosophies?

 

Why should the military (or the nation) be handicapped by strict adherance to the political philosophy of one political party?

 

I'm not arguing against your options, although I know you'll claim I am. The options of increased drilling/use of the strategic reserves are valid. I'm stating that it's absolutely stupid to ignore/attack other possible solutions to the problem because they don't fit into the box your political masters define as "correct."

[/dev/null]

Meanwhile around the world...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/middleeast/us-adds-forces-in-persian-gulf-a-signal-to-iran.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

[3rdnlng]

As usual your total lack of comprehension of any facts or ideas not spoon fed to you by either the RNC or Fox News is astounding.

 

Unlike the Tea Party/Conservative Wing GOP/FNC Talking Heads who feed you your "Original" ideas, the leadership of the Navy (actually the entire US Military) is forced to deal with the real world as it is rather than "How it should be" so they need to consider and either prove or disprove the viability of a wide range of options not restricted by political rhetoric.

 

Do you honestly think that there is never a situation that requires multiple options to be explored to find an optimum solution to a given problem? Or that the best solution might be found in a combination of different philosophies?

 

Why should the military (or the nation) be handicapped by strict adherance to the political philosophy of one political party?

 

I'm not arguing against your options, although I know you'll claim I am. The options of increased drilling/use of the strategic reserves are valid. I'm stating that it's absolutely stupid to ignore/attack other possible solutions to the problem because they don't fit into the box your political masters define as "correct."

 

 

$26.00 per gallon vs. $3.60. 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit. Failure after failure of this administration's "green" projects based on their ideology.

 

Your schtick gets old. Anytime you disagree with someone you accuse them of following their masters, who happen to be the GOP, Tea Party, Fox and blah, blah, blah. I don't need anyone to tell me that we'd be much better off drilling our own oil than relying on it from volatile regions of the world. I also don't need our government flat out wasting anymore money than they already do. So, this isn't about politics, it's common !@#$ing sense.

 

Meanwhile around the world...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/middleeast/us-adds-forces-in-persian-gulf-a-signal-to-iran.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

 

I heard on NPR that they'll also be sending the Navy's newest carrier, the "Volt" to the region. That is, once they install enough charging stations along the way.

[RI Bills Fan]

$26.00 per gallon vs. $3.60. 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit. Failure after failure of this administration's "green" projects based on their ideology.

 

Your schtick gets old. Anytime you disagree with someone you accuse them of following their masters, who happen to be the GOP, Tea Party, Fox and blah, blah, blah. I don't need anyone to tell me that we'd be much better off drilling our own oil than relying on it from volatile regions of the world. I also don't need our government flat out wasting anymore money than they already do. So, this isn't about politics, it's common !@#$ing sense.

 

 

 

I heard on NPR that they'll also be sending the Navy's newest carrier, the "Volt" to the region. That is, once they install enough charging stations along the way.

 

So let me get this straight. In your mind the "common sense" approach is to ignore any possible solutions which aren't endorsed by your political idiot-logy and to bash any attempts to prove or disprove their worthiness for future consideration?

 

Did I get that straight?

 

Good thing you're not in charge of anything defense related.

 

OBTW, All of the Carriers in commission today are nuclear powered. So those charging stations would be for them to provide power to someone else. So another of your partisan BS rants fails the smell test.

[DC Tom]

So let me get this straight. The same people who're bitching like hell that we need to become "Energy Independent" are pissed that the Navy demonstrated that if necessary, in an emergency, they could complete their assigned missions using an (admittedly) extremely expensive fuel to substitute for the normal fuel.

 

Did I miss something here?

 

This was a Demonstration/Test of an Emergency Use Back-Up Fuel!

 

And now a pack of partisan idiots and their sheeple want to turn it into a political football.

 

Would you clowns be happier if the military wasn't exploring alternate fuel usage? Would you be happier if the Joint Chiefs came out and stated that if we run out of fuel for some reason we'll be in the wardroom playing Acey-Duecy until somebody finds some for us?

 

Partisan Frickin' Idiots!

 

Except that it doesn't really demonstrate much of anything meaningful, since the real test of the utility of biofuels isn't filling up an AO and sending it to a joint exercise once, but producing enough of the **** to do so with some regularity. It's a PR stunt.

[RI Bills Fan]

Except that it doesn't really demonstrate much of anything meaningful, since the real test of the utility of biofuels isn't filling up an AO and sending it to a joint exercise once, but producing enough of the **** to do so with some regularity. It's a PR stunt.

 

Except that it isn't the Navy's mission to produce that fuel. And if the Navy demonstrates the fuel is viable, other services and/or industries will (If they aren't scared off by the partisan BS) begin to seriously investigate it's possible use. IF the demand is there, the cost will come down.

 

Whether or not it comes down enough to make the fuel a viable alternative to #4 or #6 is another question entirely. I don't know if it will ever be cost effective to use this fuel. But nobody can definitively say it won't be, either.

 

But if we let Pastisan Sniping derail the entire process everybody loses.

[Taro T]

Except that it isn't the Navy's mission to produce that fuel. And if the Navy demonstrates the fuel is viable, other services and/or industries will (If they aren't scared off by the partisan BS) begin to seriously investigate it's possible use. IF the demand is there, the cost will come down.

 

Whether or not it comes down enough to make the fuel a viable alternative to #4 or #6 is another question entirely. I don't know if it will ever be cost effective to use this fuel. But nobody can definitively say it won't be, either.

 

But if we let Pastisan Sniping derail the entire process everybody loses.

Not if the only source of demand is DoD - cost + contracts anyone?

[3rdnlng]

So let me get this straight. In your mind the "common sense" approach is to ignore any possible solutions which aren't endorsed by your political idiot-logy and to bash any attempts to prove or disprove their worthiness for future consideration?

 

Did I get that straight?

 

Good thing you're not in charge of anything defense related.

 

OBTW, All of the Carriers in commission today are nuclear powered. So those charging stations would be for them to provide power to someone else. So another of your partisan BS rants fails the smell test.

 

Damn, you are obtuse. This is not political. Why do you keep wanting to make it that way? That's only to your disadvantage. Are you saying that the Conservatives are the common sense/frugal party and the Lefties are the Pie-in-the-sky wasteful people?

 

Mabus said he was doing this for "security" reasons. Security my ass. That's what the Strategic Oil Reserve is for. If we started drilling more of our own oil we would be fine.

 

The charging stations comment was made tongue-in-cheek and yes you finally win a small point from me. I should have said Cruiser or Frigate.

[RI Bills Fan]

Not if the only source of demand is DoD - cost + contracts anyone?

 

Cost plus contracts are typically used for R & D work, Unexpected Major Repairs (think USS Miami etc.), and things of that nature. Material procurement contracts (including operating supplies) typically go to the lowest bidder.

 

I'm not saying that the lowest bidder option will result in an acceptable cost for that fuel, but we can't find that out until we give it a chance to succeed.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Except that it isn't the Navy's mission to produce that fuel. And if the Navy demonstrates the fuel is viable, other services and/or industries will (If they aren't scared off by the partisan BS) begin to seriously investigate it's possible use. IF the demand is there, the cost will come down.

 

Whether or not it comes down enough to make the fuel a viable alternative to #4 or #6 is another question entirely. I don't know if it will ever be cost effective to use this fuel. But nobody can definitively say it won't be, either.

 

But if we let Pastisan Sniping derail the entire process everybody loses.

And the cost of food ["Bio" remember?] Will go up. I can't believe a liberal is putting ahead the military over feeding people.

[RI Bills Fan]

Damn, you are obtuse. This is not political. Why do you keep wanting to make it that way? That's only to your disadvantage. Are you saying that the Conservatives are the common sense/frugal party and the Lefties are the Pie-in-the-sky wasteful people?

 

Mabus said he was doing this for "security" reasons. Security my ass. That's what the Strategic Oil Reserve is for. If we started drilling more of our own oil we would be fine.

 

The charging stations comment was made tongue-in-cheek and yes you finally win a small point from me. I should have said Cruiser or Frigate.

 

The first highlighted section demonstrates exactly why nobody on this board (with certain obviously loony exceptions) takes anything you say seriously.

 

The second demonstrates why the first is so funny.

 

But go ahead and keep shoveling the partisan BS out there.

Edited July 4, 2012 by RI Bills Fan

[DC Tom]

And the cost of food ["Bio" remember?] Will go up. I can't believe a liberal is putting ahead the military over feeding people.

 

Quite a bit of it comes from algae, which, last I checked, very few people are eating.

[RI Bills Fan]

And the cost of food ["Bio" remember?] Will go up. I can't believe a liberal is putting ahead the military over feeding people.

 

Reach Much? I know Kirby Street hasn't produced many Rhodes Scholars but that's almost crayons level (minus the humor).

[DC Tom]

Except that it isn't the Navy's mission to produce that fuel. And if the Navy demonstrates the fuel is viable, other services and/or industries will (If they aren't scared off by the partisan BS) begin to seriously investigate it's possible use. IF the demand is there, the cost will come down.

 

Whether or not it comes down enough to make the fuel a viable alternative to #4 or #6 is another question entirely. I don't know if it will ever be cost effective to use this fuel. But nobody can definitively say it won't be, either.

 

But if we let Pastisan Sniping derail the entire process everybody loses.

 

And the Navy's not demonstrating the fuel is viable as much as they're demonstrating they can load a tanker full of it. "Viable" could be demonstrated at about a tenth the cost.

 

 

Never mind the fallacy of using the military to create demand for something that isn't otherwise in demand, and claiming it's a viable alternative.

[Taro T]

Cost plus contracts are typically used for R & D work, Unexpected Major Repairs (think USS Miami etc.), and things of that nature. Material procurement contracts (including operating supplies) typically go to the lowest bidder.

 

I'm not saying that the lowest bidder option will result in an acceptable cost for that fuel, but we can't find that out until we give it a chance to succeed.

What are you considering an 'acceptable cost for that fuel' and what are you considering 'giv(ing) it a chance to succeed?'

[RI Bills Fan]

And the Navy's not demonstrating the fuel is viable as much as they're demonstrating they can load a tanker full of it. "Viable" could be demonstrated at about a tenth the cost.

 

 

Never mind the fallacy of using the military to create demand for something that isn't otherwise in demand, and claiming it's a viable alternative.

 

Ya mean like Nuclear Power Plants?

 

What are you considering an 'acceptable cost for that fuel' and what are you considering 'giv(ing) it a chance to succeed?'

 

A price (in Bulk) comparable to #4 or #6 Fuel Oil.

 

Developing the production capability to meet or exceed demand at the comparable price.

[3rdnlng]

The first highlighted section demonstrates exactly why nobody on this board (with certain obviously loony exceptions) takes anything you say seriously.

 

The second demonstrates why the first is so funny.

 

But go ahead and keep shoveling the partisan BS out there.

 

Keep telling yourself whatever you want. The facts are:

 

Mabus said it was a security issue.

 

The navy's biofuel cost is $26 vs. $3.60 a gallon.

 

We have something called the Strategic Oil Reserve that would be tapped in an emergency.

 

We have the ability to become energy independent if we choose.

 

Now, explain to me why this is so political. Keep in mind that there are many politicians with a "D" after their name that completely agree with me on the drilling issue.

[RI Bills Fan]

Keep telling yourself whatever you want. The facts are:

 

Mabus said it was a security issue.

 

The navy's biofuel cost is $26 vs. $3.60 a gallon.

 

We have something called the Strategic Oil Reserve that would be tapped in an emergency.

 

We have the ability to become energy independent if we choose.

 

Now, explain to me why this is so political. Keep in mind that there are many politicians with a "D" after their name that completely agree with me on the drilling issue.

1. Find any post where I disagreed with you on the drilling issue.

2. Then find any post where I disagreed with you about the Strategic Reserve.

3. Check your reading comprehension against the results of your searches for 1 & 2.

4. Quit while you're behind.

[3rdnlng]

1. Find any post where I disagreed with you on the drilling issue.

2. Then find any post where I disagreed with you about the Strategic Reserve.

3. Check your reading comprehension against the results of your searches for 1 & 2.

4. Quit while you're behind.

 

Then how am I making it political?