RAND throws one over DoD’s “green fuels” initiatives:
The authors conclude that DoD goals for alternative fuel use in tactical weapon systems should be based on potential national benefits because the use of alternative fuels offers no direct military benefit over the use of conventional petroleum-derived fuels. Consequently, DoD and Congress should decide whether defense appropriations should continue to support advanced technology for producing alternative liquid fuels. The authors also find that the prospects for commercial production of appreciable amounts of alternative fuels suitable for military applications within the next decade are highly uncertain, that current efforts by the services to test and certify alternative fuels are far outpacing commercial development, and that certain efforts are directed at fuels with a very limited potential for sustainable production.
DoD is the single largest user of petroleum products in the world, and it has recently been a part of the department’s policy to investigate ways to reduce dependence upon foreign sources. RAND has essentially come out and said, “Good idea, and all, but you’re wasting a lot of money.”
On the flip side, it’s not inherently bad for DoD to outpace commercial development: Many of the gains made in aerospace over the last century would not have come out of purely peacetime motivations, and with processed oil still cheaper by the gallon than bottled water, there’s little commercial incentive for R&D investments. Nor is it necessarily awful for to DoD to sort the wheat from the alternative fuel chaff, so long as the department is doing so more out of a rigorous approach to eventual alternatives than as a “we get it” public relations campaign.
Craig Hooper, correctly, rips RAND’s report: http://nextnavy.com/did-rand-force-the-green-fleet-out-of-the-state-of-the-union-address/
As the end user of alternative fuels, the USN has a horse in race. Not all research can be done in a totally efficient process and with special fuels the Navy can contribute. Plus, I would rather have the DOD tell the various research orgs where they should spend the money, rather than another round of studies which can identify a cow patty by the shape and smell, but not be able to place said patty in the correct bin.
green this. green fuel that costs more and provides no discernible benefit. green bullets that may or may not be as lethal, but the folks telling the grunts to use them will never be at risk if they aren’t…
conservation, at a reasonable level is not a bad thing, but this reflexive over the top hair on fire effort to pander to the Luddites of the world gets in the way of the primary purpose of the military which is to kill people and break things in the pursuit of national objectives and policies as delineated by NCA.
any program, initiative, mission, etc, that gets in the way of training for or executing that purpose is a waste of time and resources and should be eliminated.
“…so long as the department is doing so more out of a rigorous approach to eventual alternatives than as a “we get it” public relations campaign.”
Uhm, Lex? Did you not read your own story entitled “Circular Firing Squad?”
It’s the same jamokes making these calls as are making those.
The bigger issue I see with “green” fuels is whether the engines would be compatible with whatever grade diesel/jet fuel the logistics folks are going to buy out in the far east. Because that is going to be locally procured, and given the costs involved for green fuels, I don’t see the rest of the world following. Not to mention the fact that there is not that much emphasis commercially being placed on green fuels here in the US, other than the EPA’s misguided directive that vehicles going back to 2001 can use E15 (which is supported only by the farm lobby). I would also argue that given the large call for defense cuts, we should not be researching speculative technology that we can’t afford now.
Oh, and by the way, we do have “green” powered ships. Those are the ones with nuclear reactors….
The alternate fuels research isn’t just about being green. Much of this research applies to reducing the logistics tail and the purpose isn’t green. For example, that CVN might be ‘green’ but still needs to unrep for JP-5…therefore ONR is researching fuel from seawater. Also, affordable oil will run out sooner or later. We can do the research now or we can suffer later. Yes, we might not have the money now to fund acquisition but if we don’t continue to fund the research now, we won’t have the technology later when we need it! You had better believe the Chinese are working at it. Yup, some of these technologies will not pan out, but that’s why its called research!
Want to reduce dependency on petroleum products from hostile countries? Buy Canadian oil sands derived fuel and lubricants.
After all, if we are dependent upon Canada for our oil, and they try to exert undue influence us, what are they going to demand? We give up fourth down? Make hockey the national pasttime? Provide free healthcare and bad dentistry????? Oops, sorry. Already accomplished…….
Subsunk
The only research that I think has any hope of producing a viable fuel, is the continuing bio-genetic effort to create bacteria and / or algae that will produce a “renewable” version of bio-diesel. It would surely help to accomplish this without wasting valuable cropland to produce and inefficient fuel (ethanol), and incidently, jack up worldwide food prices. (But I’m sure that has nothing to do with the riots currently sweeping the Middle East…)
If we can create microbes that produce 50% (or more) or their mass as vegetable oil, that can then be used as a fuel, that would greatly reduce the use of petroleum-based products for uses such as commerical transport, perhaps heating / cooking, etc., allowing us to utilize POL where there are no substitutes.