DC Tom Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Ya mean like Nuclear Power Plants? I'm not sure if you mean that the military created the demand for nuclear power (false), or that energy independence for the Navy would be better served by nuclear power (true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 New Navy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Ya mean like Nuclear Power Plants? A price (in Bulk) comparable to #4 or #6 Fuel Oil. Developing the production capability to meet or exceed demand at the comparable price. Not happening for at least another 10 years, probably more like 20 if ever. Even if the Navy dictates it, the technology simply isn't there. Don't really have an issue w/ the Navy looking for alternative fuels. Find it a bit silly the way they are implementing this one time exercise, but they'll waste a lot more money that this 'feel good' episode will waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I'm not sure if you mean that the military created the demand for nuclear power (false), or that energy independence for the Navy would be better served by nuclear power (true). Somewhere in the middle, actually. While it's true that the Navy didn't create the demand for Nuclear Power Plants. Admiral Rickover's influence is still felt today in the Nuclear Power world, and the Navy's Nuclear Power School is the ONLY training facility of it's kind in existence and the only school that trains Nuclear Power Plant Operators. A fully Nuke Powered fleet would be the best way to go if it were possible or more correctly, practical. IMO Frigates and up should all be Nukes, but the Aux fleet (Supply ships, tugs, Landing Craft, etc) cannot be for obvious reasons and even the most advanced Nuke Plants have Diesels for back-up. I'm not even going to mention Naval Avation. So it's possible to reduce the Navy's need for oil, but not to eliminate it. And the Navy would be foolish to limit it's examination of possible answers to potential problems to just those approved of by one side of the political spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 4, 2012 Author Share Posted July 4, 2012 You still haven't answered why it's political. 3rdnlng Posted Today, 01:44 PM RI Bills Fan, on 04 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said: 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 You still haven't answered why it's political. 3rdnlng Posted Today, 01:44 PM RI Bills Fan, on 04 July 2012 - 01:28 PM, said: 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? Re-read Posts 1, 9, & 21 in this thread, Sue. You wrote that drivel, ("Republicans painting the cost... Tree Huggers..." etc) yet you need someone to explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Re-read Posts 1, 9, & 21 in this thread, Sue. You wrote that drivel, ("Republicans painting the cost... Tree Huggers..." etc) yet you need someone to explain it to you. Ain't he fun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Re-read Posts 1, 9, & 21 in this thread, Sue. You wrote that drivel, ("Republicans painting the cost... Tree Huggers..." etc) yet you need someone to explain it to you. You are one stupid !@#$. "Republicans painting" came from what I cut and pasted from the article. Calling people "Tree Huggers" could come from both sides of the aisle. I was refuting a conspiracy theory and made a comment about people being stupid enough to vote for Obama/Biden. That covers the three posts. This was your initial post in this thread: "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!" This is your 2nd post in this thread: 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." It should be obvious that you were the one making it so partisan. BTW, I'm fully aware that you may just be honing your hyperbole skillset. The problem with hyperbole, is that people don't know when to take you seriously. Edited July 5, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If the Navy is testing bio-diesel it probably wants to find out the following 1. changes in peak power performance 2. changes in efficiency 3. changes in lubrication properties 4. changes in corrosion properties 5. changes in exhaust properties 6. changes in temperature properties (gelling) 7. changes in chemical reaction with non-metal parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If the Navy is testing bio-diesel it probably wants to find out the following 1. changes in peak power performance 2. changes in efficiency 3. changes in lubrication properties 4. changes in corrosion properties 5. changes in exhaust properties 6. changes in temperature properties (gelling) 7. changes in chemical reaction with non-metal parts If they loaded up a tanker and sent it along on a three-week exercise, they're hopefully well beyond those tests. Especially considering that most of the fuel carried isn't diesel but jet fuel, which is easy enough to test on land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 25, 2012 Author Share Posted July 25, 2012 Now it's $59 a gallon fuel. As if $26 a gallon fuel wasn't enough. But then again those bundlers and contributors have to be taken care of. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/07/23/air-force-59-per-gal-biofuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 BTW how much of that cost is because it's biofuel and how much is it because it's the military- OVER EASTERN AFGHANISTAN—Parachuting a barrel of fuel to a remote Afghan base takes sharp flying skills, steady nerves and flawless timing. It also costs a lot of money—up to $400 a gallon, by military estimates. But the Pentagon is stuck with the expense for the foreseeable future, especially given the recent deterioration in U.S.-Pakistani relations. Enlarge Image Nathan Hodge/The Wall Street Journal The U.S. Air Force's 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron flew an airdrop mission over eastern Afghanistan in October. Pictured, a C-130 cargo aircraft seen from another C-130. "We're going to burn a lot of gas to drop a lot of gas," said Capt. Zack Albaugh, a California Air National Guard pilot deployed with the 774th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. He spoke just before a recent mission to supply a remote base near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, scene of cross-border rocket attacks that have heightened regional tensions this fall. The price of a gallon of Biodiesel in this ad is 4 dollars About Houston BiodieselCURRENT BIODIESEL PRICE is $3.399 per gallon including road tax. The price is correct as of July 9th, 2012. The cost of a gallon of diesel has been up and down in recent years. Now is a good time to explore incorporating biodiesel into your energy needs. Houston Biodiesel has been retailing biodiesel for over 10 years. We have the experience and stability you can depend on. Houston Biodiesel is here to advise, educate, sell, assist, and just take the mystery out of using this clean, renewable, non-toxic, domestically produced diesel fuel alternative. Houston Biodiesel remains committed to bringing our customers the highest quality biodiesel available. Whether you need a gallon or an entire tanker load we can supply you with the highest quality biodiesel available on the market today. this is the military that spends $400 on hammers and $4000 on toilet seats- this is the military that just oops don't know what happened to at least eight billion dollars in Iraq- so you expect thrift for their biofuels lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 BTW how much of that cost is because it's biofuel and how much is it because it's the military- The price of a gallon of Biodiesel in this ad is 4 dollars this is the military that spends $400 on hammers and $4000 on toilet seats- this is the military that just oops don't know what happened to at least eight billion dollars in Iraq- so you expect thrift for their biofuels lol. Jet fuel costs would be a better comparison. JP-5 is probably somewhere around $10/gal right now. There's a few ways I can think of to manipulate contract number so that $4/gal biofuels look like $60/gal when you're done. PARTICULARLY in a news article about it - it's entirely possible that the contract includes not just the fuel purchase but storage, support, and maintenance, and the dumbshit reporter just took the total contract value and divided by gallons of fuel delivered, misrepresenting that as actual cost of fuel (which, of course, CAN be valid from an accounting standpoint, depending. In the USAF...I'm guessing it's not valid; fuel expenses and infrastructure support and maintenance are probably out of different accounts). Given that the article says the biofuel is alcohol-based, and alcohol is hydrophilic, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case: the Air Force had to pay the biofuel company for delivery, and for a service contract to maintain equipment in a state compatible with the fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts