Featured Blog Posts All Blog Posts
 

The Great Green Fleet

By Dana Blankenhorn
March 3, 2011   |   21 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

21 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 21
Aloha Dana.....self-sustaining, integrated, alternative energy "Hubs"; (Wind, Solar, OWGs, WtEs, Algae-culture, Aquaculture, Mariculture, Aquaponics, BioDynamic Agriculture Systems) is where we need to go in order to get the 'Petro-Monkey' off our back. I am seeking the Navy's help to install & test a near-shore OWG (the "Oyster-2)off-shore the Big Island of Hawai'i. I'm stoked to hear of the Military's commitment to act on AE Development. (just recently, the Navy, State of Hawai'i, and USDA RURAL, entered into a cooperative agreement to develop AE in the Pacific.....maybe, things'r lookin' UP!).

Best Regards,

Palani Cipriani
BioFarms Hawaii
Comment
2 of 21
March 3, 2011
frank-palani-cipriani-158201 I was on the Big Island about 10 years ago this week. (Time sure flies.) What I remember telling my wife then, as gassed up at the "incredible" price of about $3.50/gallon, was that Hawaii should be "f'ing Saudi Arabia" for its wealth of alternative resources - the Sun, the Earth, the tides. The environmental cost of tapping those resources is minimal, and Hawaii will in time become an energy exporter.

That's what I said then. I think it will happen in less than 10 years.

Hope to see you soon.
Comment
3 of 21
March 4, 2011
There are two issues being side-stepped here. First, it is almost impossible to compete with fossil fuels IF you ignore the consequences of carbon pollution. Second, climate change is not a 'crock'. It is real and the second(maybe first) most important issue that we face, after controlling WMD's. These Republicans are the most irresponsible people on the planet. Close behind are the environmentalist's who fail to realize that the Gulf oil spill, mountain top removal, etc are insignificant compared to climate change.
Comment
4 of 21
March 4, 2011
Another benefit of the military using renewables is that they can help drive down costs of biofuels should they increase their use significantly.

I blogged about other the other benefits here: http://greenenergyinsiders.com/alternative-fuel-benefits-the-army/
Comment
5 of 21
March 4, 2011
MaxieCoale That's a great point. Big customers can drive demand, and drive down costs, allowing suppliers to scale up and amortize the cost of their research.
Comment
6 of 21
March 4, 2011
Great article Dana! Love the imagery of the "Great Green Fleet!"

The DOD has been demanding "green" proposals for many years...companies like UT, GE, Raytheon and others have feasted on these opportunities and the DOD are driving innovation..you know its a big deal when a UT Division such as Sikorsky is winning contracts because they're making "green" helicopters!!

There are huge military benefits (not just cost, but life saving too!), and much like other industries spawned out of the organization with the largest purchasing power on the planet - Clean Energy Technology will too!!
Comment
7 of 21
March 4, 2011
As someone who most often votes Republican [although my wife still calls me a 'damn Democrat'] I understand the rancor against those in the GOP who blindly cling to fossil fuels.

It takes moments to discover that we lack the technology to use most of our oil shale and tar sands, that shifting to FT fuels from coal will drive prices through the roof, that converting everything to Natural Gas will quickly make our "huge surplus" look small, and all of the above come with their own environmental nightmares, usually involving fouling the water for states that have little of it to begin with.

However, not all of the GOP think this way, and thirty years of watching Democratic intentions bow to the highest bidder or the lowest common denominator has convinced me that politics is the biggest problem with government.

That said, those who are interested in National Security have been looking at fuel sources other than petroleum for thirty years. Ideally, the military would like something that does not require shipping monstrous loads of fuel across the globe, but powering every truck and plane on nuclear is abhorrent, making every vehicle a dirty bomb.

The military planners were the first to envision an "all of the above" fuel policy.
Comment
8 of 21
March 4, 2011
There are two issues, Dana.

1) Increased oil drilling
2) Increased biofuel consumption

Your article suggests that to compensate for less drilling, we must increase biofuel production.

It is a pipe dream to think we can replace the amount of oil we import with biofuel for less cost and without creating more environmental destruction than oil is causing.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/01/25/great-green-fleet-neither-great-nor-green/

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/12/01/cellulosic-ethanol-reality-begins-to-set-in/

Effort should be directed towards finding ways to use less liquid fuel, not trying to find a substitute for oil. If the Average American used the same amount of oil as the average Brazilian, we would be oil exporters.

Military intelligence is an oxymoron. Only the military would spend hundreds of dollars per gallon of biofuel. It's simplistic and naive to think that the military can make new biofuels economically viable with large purchases regardless of cost.

"...He also claims the oil catastrophe that hit his Mississippi coast last year was just an accident..."

Does he also think the Gulf of Mexico dead zone is an accident?

Hawaii plans to burn a lot of biodiesel for electricity. It will mostly be imported and will all come from feedstock that competes with food and natural habitat:

http://www.brighterenergy.org/22130/news/bioenergy/hawaiian-utility-seeks-biodiesel-for-110mw-power-plant/
Comment
9 of 21
March 4, 2011
It seems obvious to me that the solution is to drastically reduce our fossile fuel use. If Volkswagen can produce a 261-mpg diesel-electric (coming out in 2013), certainly we can produce cars that get us where we need to go with a fifth the amount of gas we currently use. That would be around 100 mpg. There are so many incremental ways to improve mpg (many of which do not even involve hybrids), it seems obvious that this is obtainable. The biggest obstacle is politicians (usually Republicans) who are firmly in the pockets of the oil and coal industry and will fight any attempt to reduce energy use.

I also agree that using the military to develop clean enrgy is brilliant. Let DARPA make it a top prioroty to develop renewable energy for our fightling forces as a national security project, then plowshare it into civiian use.
Comment
10 of 21
March 4, 2011
Russ - I don't agree with much of what you say...but - you do make a good point about lessening the amount of oil we currently do consume. Any which way you slice it, the global demand for oil is outpacing supply. With a mere 1MM barrels taken offline with the Libyan Revolt - the effects have been dramatically felt - $.35 increase a gallon in just a few days. So what will happen when demand outstrips supply by 2M or 5M or 10M...

Globally, we need to diminish our oil consumption by vast amounts if we are to avoid the unthinkable...in addition, by doing so we can slow the carbon gas pollution hopefully enough to keep it below 400PP (maybe wishful thinking...). Most all of the funding has gone into power generation - and way more needs to be spent on carbon mitigation and reduction while we scale up the RE solutions...unfortunately, I don't see oil consumption declning without the pain needed to make it so.
Comment
11 of 21
March 4, 2011
Didn't we go through this in 1972? How many more times is this going to be debated?
Maybe these folks are correct in that politics and capitalism just won't let anything good happen.
Comment
12 of 21
March 4, 2011
Difference back in the 70's was not a lack of oil - it was that we were kept from it...(embargo).

This time there truly isn't enough of the stuff to go around...when this realy starts to crunch both politics and capitalism will play huge roles in concert. Politicians will send out kids to get more of it (military), while our entrepreneurial engine will take out the other hand it has tied behind its back and we'll out innovate the competition with below cost high quality solutions - and the Clean Energy Revolution will truly be launched...look back at history, use it as a guide and try not to get caught up in the moment listening to the commentators and those being replaced. Instead join the doers to get it done!
Comment
13 of 21
March 4, 2011
russ-finley-53703

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/03/joule-cranks-up-the-hype-machine

There is work going on aimed at reducing the environmental impact of biofuel production. Now if we could only do something about biofuel consumption....
Comment
14 of 21
March 4, 2011
Leithauser The problem for fossil fuel advocates is that even if they can control what the U.S. does, they can't control the rest of the world. North Sea Oil is priced $12 more than U.S. oil, and gas prices in Europe are double what they are here. China looks like a giant Pittsburgh or Cleveland circa 1960 and both people and the leadership there know it can't go on.

We still have the advantage because of our innovation system, and fossil fuel advocates can't kill that, either.

The point is I'm very optimistic, and I think all of us should be.
Comment
15 of 21
March 4, 2011
Donovan,

I don't agree with much of what you say. Your move.

Dana,

Thanks for the link.
No image available
Comment
16 of 21
Anonymous
March 4, 2011
Hey, just imagine. We may be able to one day kill people and other nations with renewable energy. USA; the country of sustainable conflicts. WOW, That's reeaaly kewel!
Comment
17 of 21
March 5, 2011
Imagine that Henry Ford had been Libyan rather than Michiganian, and we had turned our backs on his innovations while the rest of the world enthusiastically adopted them, where would we be now? Now is our Chinese Henry Ford moment - they are rushing into renewable technologies while we hold them at arms length...at great cost to our children's children!

Soon we will roast Republicans, who cannot see past rapidly disappearing oil company profits, under the Louisiana sun, as they attempt to kill the greatest source of new jobs in this country. They haven't lifted a finger to protect American jobs here, and now they want us to embrace the only affordable renewable technologies, Chinese, while they pocket the commissions. Let's rip their money-grabbing masks off, and support the President's scientific approach to creating jobs and technologies in the new green-only economy.

PS. Please see my suggestions for a 100% sustainable global infrastructure at www.greenmillennium.eu , based in Michigan! We've got to start now if our children hope to eat!
Comment
18 of 21
March 7, 2011
We should all know by now, if we paid attention, that using the military or space program to develop technology is always the norm. But why? Do you really believe that products or technology can only be developed for their use and then maybe eventually given to the public? Why can't it be developed for the public in the first place? Got the answer yet?.....Money. When the space program develops a pen to use in outer space at a cost of millions of dollars, do you really think all that money went into research? They could have just used pencils like the Russians did. So where is that money really going? Who knows but them. Couldn't that money have been used to make the world a better place and reduce military action? Do we really need to know what is on Mars and beyond? We can't even take care of this planet. My thoughts are that it is just a way to keep intelligent minds busy to keep them from doing things that would truly benefit the people of the planet and truly make this a free world. If these developers of technology were as smart as they think they are, they would realize and understand what they are doing and stop producing for the military to kill and conquer. Just like IRS employees, if they all quit their job and did something meaningful, there would be no way for the mob to collect their revenues.
As far as oil prices soaring, if you watch the news lately, with regards to what is going on in the middle east, it just seems like a ploy to start drilling in the US. And who owns this land and the oil fields within and who is going to profit? If you ever watched Ice Road Truckers on TV over the past few years, pay attention to what they are hauling and where they are hauling it to. They put it right in front of you so you don't see it. Why are they hauling all kinds of drilling equipment and temporary housing to northern Alaska? A new tourist site? A new oil theme park? The plan has been in the works for a long time. Pay attention people!
Comment
19 of 21
March 16, 2011
The last three wars the US has been involved in have oil as a root cause.

That should be reason enough for getting rid of the use of petroleum.
Comment
20 of 21
March 16, 2011
"Reduce consumption" -- To do that, we would have to change attitudes. I know people, by name, who are concerned about climate change, will even buy 'green' cars, but don't believe that trade with China has any effect. Wake up and smell the Bunker Fuel! Oceanic shipping has a huge effect on GHG emissions.

"Climate Change is the greater Crisis" -- You bet it is. There is no proof that the current Holocene Epoch is any more than an interglacial period, like a geological summer vacation. The ice age is returning, we just don't know when. Our addition to the GHG load may actually be staving off the end, we don't really know.

"Politics and government are the reason" -- No, culture is. Not because we are the culture of MORE, but because we are the culture of BLAME. It is never MY fault, for buying products made overseas, it is the Government's fault for allowing me to. It is not MY fault for speeding and driving in a manner that burns 20% more fuel, everyone else made me late.

"The GOP and Republicans" -- Political partisanship is ruining government, our view of the facts, and discussions like this. Shutting down US drilling in the gulf did not shut down Petrobras or the global oil market. The party that ran against bail-outs, The Patriot Act, war, and outsourcing moved the war to another front, renewed portions of The Patriot Act, started its term with bail-outs, and is full speed ahead with more trade deals to encourage more outsourcing. Two parties, same flavor. I will refrain, out of decency, from describing that flavor.

"Evil Military" -- The article is about MILITARY interest in alternative fuel. During WW2, there were a number of countries making alternatives, we had an ethyl plant in Nebraska, the Germans used FT fuels. Remember, that WAR was was about the US stepping into an alliance to save most of the world from the Axis. Not only did we save the world, we rebuilt most of it afterwards. Militarily.
Comment
21 of 21
March 16, 2011
Dana is absolutely correct, in that ALL OIL whether it comes from tar sands and shale [abominable stuff] or algae will end up being commercialized globally. Drops in the bucket.

Why is this politically okay? Politics runs on advertising [they don't have to live up to the hype, just suck you into the voting booth] Advertising costs money. Those who come up with the money win the election.

Does it matter if George Soros or Li Ka-Shing or the PRC or Asif Ali Zardari is behind some of the money? Not really. You take personalities that internally motivated, in the global climate of WIN AT ALL COST and you get the same rotten megalomaniacs running the show.

Why don't We The People get our way? The blame game. Those same media dollars

Why do we have gas and diesel pumps everywhere, but only token charging stations, almost no CNG, H2, LPG, ethyl, methyl, butyl? What would a true "all of the above" approach, a REAL free market, take?

However, We The People still comprise one of the greatest forces on earth. We have the votes to control the resources of one of the largest and most fertile nations on earth. Our nation's military may be #8 in size, globally, but our military technology still holds the #1 spot, and it belongs to us. We comprise it, we fund it, we vote in the budget committee, the arms committee, and the Commander in Chief.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Dana Blankenhorn

View Dana Blankenhorn's Profile
About: Dana Blankenhorn has covered business and technology since 1978. He covered the Houston oil boom of the 1970s, began making his living online in 1985, and launc... more »

Advertise With Us

Southwest Windpower Blue Sky Energy, Inc. American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) The Interstate Renewable Energy Council RussTech Language Services, Inc. Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative Total Energy USA
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters