« | »

Military ‘Orders’ More Renewable Energy

From a cheering New York Times:

U.S. Military Orders Less Dependence on Fossil Fuels

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
October 4, 2010

With insurgents increasingly attacking the American fuel supply convoys that lumber across the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan, the military is pushing aggressively to develop, test and deploy renewable energy to decrease its need to transport fossil fuels.

Last week, a Marine company from California arrived in the rugged outback of Helmand Province bearing novel equipment: portable solar panels that fold up into boxes; energy-conserving lights; solar tent shields that provide shade and electricity; solar chargers for computers and communications equipment.

Given that these attacks started in the last couple of weeks, this is a very rapid response. Unless it is untrue that this equipment has anything to do with them. Which is obviously the case.

The 150 Marines of Company I, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, will be the first to take renewable technology into a battle zone, where the new equipment will replace diesel and kerosene-based fuels that would ordinarily generate power to run their encampment.

Wouldn’t you like to be part of this noble experiment? Or to have your son or daughter be a guinea pig for "renewable technology" in a combat situation? ‘Blood for renewables’ sounds so much nicer than ‘blood for oil.’

But this is all that Mr. Obama and the Democrats consider the military to be good for – social experiments.

“There are a lot of profound reasons for doing this, but for us at the core it’s practical,” said Ray Mabus, the Navy secretary and a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who has said he wants 50 percent of the power for the Navy and Marines to come from renewable energy sources by 2020. That figure includes energy for bases as well as fuel for cars and ships.

And to hell with the cost or how it hurts our combat capabilities. After all, the US military’s first duty is saving the planet. 

“Fossil fuel is the No. 1 thing we import to Afghanistan,” Mr. Mabus said, “and guarding that fuel is keeping the troops from doing what they were sent there to do, to fight or engage local people.” …

Sure it is. But just wait until the "greens" hear that we want more ‘renewable energy’ so that we can kill more bad guys.

Fossil fuel accounts for 30 to 80 percent of the load in convoys into Afghanistan, bringing costs as well as risk. While the military buys gas for just over $1 a gallon, getting that gallon to some forward operating bases costs $400

Obviously strapping solar power panels on our trucks and Humvees is the only solution. Because even ‘bio-fuels’ would have to be shipped in, would they not? And aren’t they a lot more expensive?

While setting national energy policy requires Congressional debates, military leaders can simply order the adoption of renewable energy. And the military has the buying power to create products and markets. That, in turn, may make renewable energy more practical and affordable for everyday uses, experts say

Once again we see how much the natural born slaves at the New York Times long to live under a dictatorship with a command economy. 

Of course Mr. Obama is getting us there as fast as he can.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, October 5th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Military ‘Orders’ More Renewable Energy”

  1. proreason says:

    Why is the military using vehicles anyway?

    If riding horses into battle was good enough for Mohammed, why isn’t it good enough for us?

  2. AcornsRNutz says:

    In forward areas where there isn’t a support network for energy, these ideas make some sense. Like many greenie ideas, there is some merit to the concept even though the execution is often wanting. But:
    1. Don’t want truck drivers and supply guys to get whacked? Do a better job securing a forward area and control the battlespace.
    2: How much is this crap costing us while we are slashing the defense budget 110 billion over the next 5 years?
    3: Does any of this garbage work?

    I may just be a dumb grunt, but I’d rather have a reliable weapon, lightweight durable body armor and a heap of ammunition than some solar powered microwave. And any grunt who says otherwise needs to take his happy ass out of the infantry.

  3. GL0120 says:

    Why am I worried that the military will be ordered to develop tanks based on Prius’?

  4. canary says:

    O’s quietest job killing machine mentions didn’t include U.S. Marines doing the jobs that will be sent overseas. And soon the EPA dust regs will stiffen the ROE.

    The New York Post: O’s quietest jobs-killing machine

    By James Inhofe October 5, 2010

    One insidious force keeping unemployment high is regulatory uncertainty: Companies that could hire (or re-hire), don’t — because they’re worried about what new restrictions will be coming down from Washington.

    …the Obama Environmental Protection Agency, which is issuing a daily barrage of rules and regulations threatening jobs in American industry.

    So concludes “EPA’s Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America’s Manufacturing Base” — a new report from the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (on which I serve as ranking member)…

    One example: the EPA’s proposed rules for industrial boilers — which the consulting firm IHS-Global Insight found could cost 800,000 jobs.

    The United Steel Workers union says the proposal “will be sufficient to imperil the operating status of many industrial plants . . . Tens of thousands of these jobs will be imperiled . . . many more tens of thousands of jobs in the supply chains…”

    … The Obama EPA is now expected to demand, in some areas, ozone levels lower than what occur naturally in the ambient air.

    The economic impacts are sure to be disastrous. Nearly 600 counties across the nation could be in “non-attainment,”…

    Several New York counties — Monroe, Seneca, Fulton and Essex, among others — are at risk of “non-attainment” status, meaning more job losses.

    Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an organization of 12 national and international labor unions (including the United Mine Workers, the Teamsters and the Sheet Metal Workers) warns that the ozone rules “would lead to significant job losses…”

    The Obama administration clearly knows these numbers won’t sell with the American public — it has delayed announcement of the ozone rules from August to the end of this month, too late (it hopes) to register before Election Day.

    … will lead to onerous new regulations potentially covering over 6 million sources in the economy…

    Yet, by EPA estimates, the net effect of these regulations would be to cut global mean temperature by about one-hun dredth of a degree by 2100.

    Of course, reducing global warming is not the point. As the report shows, the EPA’s proposals have negligible environmental benefits. Instead, they are the vanguard of President Obama’s anti-industrial policy agenda — pushing America’s manufacturing base overseas….

    James Inhofe represents Oklahoma in the US Senate.
    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/quietest_jobs_killing_machine_xAlRo2nRYjtYKaWKAwe7fN#ixzz11W5Vc4wb
    —————————————
    The Oklahoman: Environmental Protection Agency considers additional restrictions on dust
    By Sonya Colberg 10/04/2010

    Oklahoma farmers say you can’t raise a crop without raising a little dust. And now that a federal agency is looking to regulate that dust, they’re raising Cain.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has engaged a team of 23 independent scientists to assess how much dust and other material is floating in the air….

    “It seems like a stupid idea to me,” said Sam Knipp, Oklahoma Farm Bureau spokesman. “It’s impossible to grow food without stirring up dust. How are we going to stop Mother Nature? We could show her the EPA regulations.”

    …The assessment called for regulations twice as restrictive as the current ones.

    “How do you control that stuff? On days when there’s a stiff breeze, which are common where I live … Mother Nature will exceed most of the thresholds,” Hitch said.

    Nolan said two possible solutions may be spraying water to keep dust down or embracing no-till or low-till farming that reduces the routine plowing of fields, and, consequently, the dust. But Knipp said many farmers already use low-till methods. Hitch said dragging a water tank after a tractor to wet the ground would be expensive and a waste of water.

    “Dust is raised by cattle walking across the pasture or trucks traveling down a dirt road,” Hitch said. “Are you going to make the county pave the roads?… fee?”

    Read more: http://newsok.com/epa-considers-more-dust-rules/article/3501211#ixzz11W7YxRLp

    The Obama’s have the answer. Michelle’s home plantation gardening will bring the dust in to our homes.

  5. Liberals Demise says:

    Next we’ll be policing the battlefield for spent rounds ’cause God knows how much ammo costs.

    God….I need a California Welfare vacation!!

  6. pamypo says:

    What is being left behind.? You either add more carrying equipment or you cut something you were carrying. Hope it is not ammo!

  7. canary says:

    it also says they are exploring the Marines take illegal poppies and turn into fuel. Can’t imagine the fumes from that.

    “The Marines are exploring solar-powered water purification systems and looking into the possibility of building a small-scale, truck-based biofuel plant that could transform local crops — like illegal poppies — into fuel.”
    —————————–

    TIME: The Navy Goes in Search of a U.S.S. Prius
    By Mark Thompson Apr. 27, 2010

    If you think of a puny, 3,000-lb. Toyota Prius when someone says “hybrid,” watch out for the U.S. Navy’s version: a 40,000-ton behemoth carrying attack planes, helicopters, missiles and more than 1,000 Marines. Much like the Prius, the new 844-ft. U.S.S. Makin Island is powered by thirsty gas-turbine engines for top speeds but uses electrical motors for slower travel.

    Navy Secretary Ray Mabus raved about the new vessel last week, saying its ability to sip fuel rather than gulp it gives the Navy more punch…

    …: the Navy estimates that the Makin Island’s hybrid power will save the U.S. $250 million over its 40-year life span (at the current cost of oil), … (Unlike the Prius, which gets its electricity from the car’s braking system, the Makin Island’s electric power comes from a pair of diesel generators.)

    “Our military leaders recognize the security imperative of increasing the use of alternative fuels,…” President Obama recently said. “It’s about the future of our planet.” (See the history of the electric car.)

    The Navy wants to deploy a “Great Green Fleet” by 2016, with all the task force’s ships and aircraft powered by nuclear, electric or biofuel. Last week, a Navy F-18 — dubbed the Green Hornet — flew for the first time on a 50-50 mixture of standard jet fuel (about $3 a gallon) and camelina oil ($65 a gallon), an extract from the camelina plant, part of the mustard family, which is grown in Montana. The price of camelina oil will drop as demand for the fuel increases, Navy officials say…

    So when might the entire Navy take the next big step and go all nuclear? Currently, about 17% of the fleet — aircraft carriers and submarines — are powered by small nuclear reactors. Mabus noted that the cost of nuclear propulsion goes well beyond the price of the reactors and includes costly infrastructure and training ashore….

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1984626,00.html#ixzz11Y55MoTt


« Front Page | To Top
« | »