The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Floating US Biofuels: Should the Navy Support a New Industry?

Meg Cichon, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
September 17, 2012  |  37 Comments

Print

“We believe the ongoing military and civil aviation efforts must be continued and we strongly advocate that you prioritise and fund investment in aviation biofuels in what we all acknowledge is a difficult fiscal environment,” explained the coalition. 

“Ultimately, we are convinced that this is an investment that will pay off by saving taxpayers millions through achieving energy security and independence.” The coalition also argued that further investment in bioenergy will help reach their fuel efficiency and carbon emissions targets, which includes a lofty goal of a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 from 2005 figures.

The jobs and cost argument

The Department of Agriculture has teamed up with the military to further advance the biofuels industry, which officials claim could not only enhance energy independence, but could also create a robust, advanced jobs market and reduce consumer fuel prices.

Vilsack explained that with biofuels investment, the Navy is leading the way to create a bio-based economic opportunity in rural areas with manufacturing opportunities and new income sources with crops like algae, switchgrass and miscanthus. Farmers and other producers can enter this new economy without competing with food crops like corn.

“The biofuel industry in the U.S. currently employs around 400,000 people directly and indirectly, and once we reach the threshold of renewable fuels set forth in the renewable fuels standard that could actually increase to one million people,” said Vilsack. He also argues that military investment and biofuels growth, which create competition in the fuel industry, will help reduce fluctuations in prices and lower costs at the pump.

This point is echoed by Adam Monroe, president of Novozymes North America, which produces cellulosic ethanol with plants in Nebraska. He argues that a budding biofuels industry will not only benefit the military, but many private companies such as airlines, shipping and trucking.

“In the end, consumers will benefit with lower-priced goods and less-expensive fuel that is less bound to oil prices,” he said.

Proving the naysayers wrong

The military successfully launched the Great Green Fleet at RIMPAC in July 2012, using the advanced drop-in biofuels without issue. Mabus explained that the atmosphere at the demonstration was one of pride and hope for a biofuels future.

“It was absolutely worthwhile to show that biofuels can compete and can be used in every single thing that we do in the Navy,” said Mabus. “This shows that we can use biofuels and other alternative energies in an operational manner.”

Heather Zichal, Secretary of Energy, expressed the Obama Administration’s frustration with the Committee in a press call during the Great Green Fleet demonstration at RIMPAC. She explained that the Administration stands behind their “all of the above” energy strategy, which includes biofuels investment.

“We view the efforts of some in Congress to undermine the military’s ability to invest in alternative fuels as both disappointing and shortsighted,” Zichal said. “I believe that the successful demonstration by the Great Green Fleet [at RIMPAC] should help Congress better understand the tremendous opportunity we have with biofuels to help power our Navy.” 

After the completion of RIMPAC in August, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved a spending bill that allowed $70 million for Naval investment in biofuels. It also included $100 million for the Defense Production Act, which allocates money to increase production capacity of defense-related initiatives. The House version of the bill allowed $50 million in general funds for defense initiatives. 

Both measures are set to move to the full Senate for consideration and reconciliation of changes with the House in the autumn of 2012, which is also when a full vote is expected.

What's next?

Now that the Navy has proved that drop-in technology works, it plans to collaborate with the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to increase production and lower costs. The team is planning several pilot projects, accepting proposals and recruiting companies that are willing to work with nonfood feedstocks. Vilsack expects to choose participants by early autumn 2012.

Mabus also emphasized that the Navy will not buy large amounts of biofuels until they are cost-competitive, and this program will work to get them there.

“One of the ways [technologies] become cost-competitive is by the military providing a market for it, and we’ve done that with technology, after technology after technology,” said Mabus.

The Department of Energy is also committed to the Renewable Fuels Standard and believes research and development in biofuels is a major factor in reaching that goal. This is why, Vichal explained, the government has taken many steps to develop technologies and accelerate new technology R&D in labs and at commercial scale.

“Barriers to bioenergy programs send negative signals to the public and market about the ability and technology in our industry,” said Monroe. “Putting up barriers prevents industries from experiencing these benefits — and the savings they generate.” 

Viewing Page 2 of 2

  • Previous Page
  • View All

37 Comments

Register To Comment
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
September 29, 2012
Cliff your right - the DOE is wrong and the department of the budget is fabricating these numbers and the Easter bunny is real and all three are working together against us all - dream on BUT no matter how hard you do this the truth is the truth and this other stuff is your opinion based upon mythical data - good luck
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 29, 2012
@peterlynch: '$4.86B for 91 years = $442 Billion' is a complete fabrication. It correlates to no U.S. government budget lines or programs or recorded history. In my comment #13 above I provided subsidy data from agencies of the government reported to Congress with the sources cited. If you want to deal in the realm of facts as you say, then please be kind enough to cite reputable sources so that we all can investigate the facts ourselves and verify the sources and form better opinions.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
September 28, 2012
Cliff Everyone is certainly entitled to there own opinion. But NOT everyone is entitled to their own FACTS. Here are the facts and the actual data = NOW, WHO is being subsidized and why are we STILL subsidizing a 100 year old industry? We need the facts to understand a situation opinions based upon magical thinking are not going to help anyone nor will it make the US any more secure. Historical U.S. Annual Energy Subsidies •Total to end of 2009 for each Category: •Oil & Gas – $4.86B for 91 years = $442 Billion •Nuclear – $3.5B for 52 years = $182 Billion •Biofuels – $1.08B for 29 years = $31 Billion •Renewables – $370M for 15 years = $5.5 Billion ** Bottom line Oil & Gas has received 80 TIMES more subsidies than Renewables
Jim Warden
Jim Warden
September 28, 2012
GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. They use it every day. No subsidies. No drilling and spilling. With recent info showing PM Harper in Canadas link to big oil it is no wonder these alternates are not moving ahead, and might explain why Obama didnt do as much as we thought he was going to. If we could get away from these Oil controlled politicians we the people would be so much better off.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 27, 2012
If you add the TRILLION $$$ (and counting)cost of the Iraq & Afghanistan war to the price of oil; what is the amount of the 'subsidy' to big oil.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 27, 2012
I already explained this to you Cliff. 'Subsidized' oil is a 'fraud' on the people; you just are not counting the cost of the military 'insurance' that the people must pay in order to 'insure' oil's delivery,in the price of oil. You insist on the Iranian boogeyman as the excuse for the military expenditure. When the war starts on Iran you'll wish you had a viable biofuel industry for the nation. The 'Strategic Oil Supply' (SOS) is less then a 90 day supply and the war may draw it down even quicker unless the SOS is rationed. This is just another gift or 'subsidy to the oil industry to stifle competition and to stifle a new industry to compete with 'subsidized' oil.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 27, 2012
You're free to support any industry you want with your own money. The Navy is spending taxpayer money on a fool's errand. Flushing money down the drain of negative energy return on investment is not an industry, its a politically-motivated scam that hurts our national security as much as our national treasury. Fraud, waste, and abuse is a federal crime.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
September 26, 2012
Should the Navy Support a new industry ??

Very simple question with a very simple answer.

No - if you are strictly a short term thinker with no vision for the future well being of your country and family

Yes - if you do have the ability to think a little longer term. The Navy, in which I served and made two tours of Vietnam, is always looking ahead and thinking long term - so the answer, for them is OBVIOUSLY YES !!!!!!

Actually to the Navy - it is a silly question from their point of view.....it is obviously the thing to do.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 24, 2012
40% of veterans are coming home with 8-9 disabilities each that USA will pay for the life of the veterans (not shown in your subsidy figure). So you can add that to the list of 'subsides' that the oil companies get and that USA biofuels don't get. America is in decline because of their military misadventures (they still have not paid for the Vietnam war. You don't mind shelling out big $$$ for the military except for biofuels. The bill listed above only transfers money from biofuels to the military's famous $1K toilet seat.
I am older & wiser than you think and understand that USA wars are a scam on the people.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 24, 2012
@OneGreenDay: judging by your naiveté, I'd guess I first read Smedley Butler before you were born. It's good stuff. I'd recommend you read Thucydides. 'The strong do as they will. The weak endure what they must.' It's been true for six millennia. It's true today. Might also want to read Richard Feynman to brush up on physics and Milton Friedman for economics. A rational energy strategy for the U.S. depends upon leaders who understand the realities and limitations of both Mother Nature and human nature.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 24, 2012
I'd trust a Pakistan newspaper before the American media (where are the WMD's ?, where's the airplane wreckage at the Pentagon on 9-11?, Where is it reported that Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA on 9/11?)
Iran just launched their own home-build oil taker. USA talked Iraq into attacking Iran and launching a war. There was never a heroin lab in Afghanistan till the US military arrived and now they produce 90% of the World's heroin. The truth is the military is the biggest leech on the American economy and produces nothing but death and destruction around the World. You sound like a military man and I doubt you'd believe me , so I suggest "War is a Racket' by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

I stand by my initial statement: There is no military subsidy for USA made biofuels but there is a military 'subsidy' that applies to the oil/gas industry. Therefore the bill stated in the article is another 'subsidy' for the oil business, as the playing field is not level since the oil industry gets this military 'subsidy'.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 23, 2012
If you get your news from Pakistani editorials, then Osama Bin Laden is still alive in Afghanistan. The truth is that, 1. Iran doesn't export that much oil in the first place and is hardly irreplaceable. 2. There are over 80 nations currently exporting oil and OPEC solidarity died in 1986, so people can get their oil from alternate sources very easily. 3.The EU hasn't just written paper sanctions, but used a very clever economic tactic of refusing to insure all Iranian oil shipments. This has forced Iran to buy its own oil tanker fleet as no commercial tankers will take on uninsured cargo. That has done the most to physically throttle their export of oil. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran turned commercial ships and barges into disguised mine layers. The U.S. failing to have military assets prepared for them to do something to block the Strait would be criminal negligence. We've drifted pretty far off topic, but I hate to see the truth savaged. On topic, military biofuels are a way to waste high EROI and high power density petroleum fuel making low EROI and low power density biomass, and then wasting more petroleum energy trying to make the biomass more like the petroleum being wasted trying to transform it into petroleum. There is a fundamental logic flaw here that some people just can't seem to get. If the money was coming out of their own bank account instead of from the government and millions of nameless taxpayers, they would figure it out much faster. It's a continuing inexcusable waste motivated by politics and cronyism in defiance of the laws of thermodynamics. Dr. Chu should be ashamed.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 23, 2012
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/23/263207/iran-oil-embargo-ineffective/
A Pakistani newspaper has underscored the ineffectiveness of the US and European Union (EU) oil embargoes on Iran, noting that the Islamic Republic's quota in the global markets is irreplaceable.


"The reality is… [that] the effect of the US sanctions on Tehran is a grand total of nada," Pakistan Today wrote in a commentary on Sunday.

"It is being observed that Tehran is having no problem in selling its oil and that the crude export is on the rise, which is paving way for a currency influx," the paper wrote.


It added that Iran has countered any action aimed at hindering its crude oil exports. "The primary reason why Iran has managed to, and continues to, dodge the sanctions bullet is because it has found numerous ways to insure its crude oil tankers to the Asian countries which has meant that the nation has forestalled any legal maneuvers that could potentially throw a decisive spanner into the oil works."
snip
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 23, 2012
Israel and America are the biggest threat to World Peace and surveys prove this is what the rest of the World believes. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Bahrain and Qatar are puppets of America and only stay in power because of the armaments we sell them ( a big chunk of USA GDP)and the crimes they commit against their people (which USA never does a thing about)with USA blessings (like in Egypt)USA and gets 40% of it's oil from Venezuela. You have bought in to the radical right propaganda hook line and sinker. We could close every military base in the Middle east and never loose a drop of oil. This is the oil business and everone loves to sell their oil. The is no threat to oil supplies except from USA/Israel.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 23, 2012
Onegreenday: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Bahrain and Qatar desperately want the Strait open to move their oil and gas. And none have a navy of consequence because the U.S. has assured them it will do the job. This is not altruism, it is to keep the ME from escalating into a nuclear arms race. Muslims don't get along with each other if you haven't noticed. These Sunni Arab-controlled nations have a hostile Shia neighbor in the Gulf, with a different ethnicity, Persia (I mean Iran), which also happens to sit astride the Strait of Hormuz and have at least 3 submarines and a bunch of Chinese-made ship-killing missiles and a large and previously demonstrated capacity and inclination to lay mines, and which is not moving much oil itself right now through the Strait because of sanctions, and which has the means and motive and stated intention to close the Strait. Do you really think this is an empty threat or one somehow manufactured by the US Military? China and Japan haven't been on the same side of any issue since the turn of the last century, and it's getting worse, not better. Heard of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands? Paracels? Spratleys? DF-21D? Do you really think the US could just cash in its military and not create a power vacuum that would quickly fill up with a wealth of brutal bad actors that would undermine the economic and political interconnectedness and stability that has enabled an unprecedented explosion of wealth around the world since WWII? The military is an overhead cost, true. It is essentially an insurance policy, and, like life insurance, paying for it and not using it is a good thing. It is a better value to sail the navy and fly the air force around as a deterrent than to have a war. And if war comes, you'll be glad you paid your premiums. Sleep well, Onegreenday. Rough men (and women) stand ready to visit violence on those who threaten you, whether you appreciate it or not.
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
September 23, 2012
Browse these carefully: HHO gas generators, Best HHO gas generators, Cellulosic biofuels, Conversion electric vehicles, Using HHO gas with CNG and LPG. The US Govt, especially DOD [and the Navy] shud stop buying fuels from thieves and our enemies. We won WW II by using OUR fuels--not by paying robes, big internation- al oil CEOs, and Wall Street! Like local farms, dairies, brewers, we shud use local biofuels--sold direct to consumers for no more than $2/Gal--it can be done! Those driving less than 25 miles/day shud go electric. Downsize and cut unnecessary expenses; stop long-commuting if you can. Put kids in master bed rooms, reduce electrical loads...Aaron Allen...
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 23, 2012
Te military does not keep the Straight of Hormuz open (nobody is trying to close it) Countries with oil want to sell it and are ready and willing to do so it. It's a lie that we need the military to guarantee oil supplies. All oil producing countries need the $$$ for their economy,
now more than ever. Nor does the military keep sea lanes open as China, Japan, etc have no desire for war. It's simply propaganda that the military spending and war benefits USA.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 22, 2012
@Onegreenday: virtually everything on a Wal-Mart shelf and in an Apple store comes from overseas. If you want to count the military keeping the sea lanes open as a subsidy, then count it fairly across everything that imports or exports, including our wind turbines and solar panels from Germany and China. If the U.S. military didn't keep the Strait of Hormuz open, then the price of oil would go up for everyone around the world, and the net cost for US taxpayers would far surpass the bill they pay for that military service (about $90B a year by RAND estimates).
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 20, 2012
We'd have to include the cost of military/war to secure access to
Middle East oil fields. The gov always claim we need a presence in Bahrain/Saudi Arabia to protect 'strategic oil supplies', that's one 'subsidy' you won't find with 'alternate energy'.....
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 20, 2012
@Onegreenday: I think the $2.8B from the DoE and IRS is pretty accurate. Here is a link to a Congressional Research Service report that has more than most people probably want to know about the tax breaks. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33578.pdf The table on page 24 sums it up well. The "Intangible Drilling Costs" break that has been in the news was worth a grand total of $1.1B in 2008 (when oil consumption last peaked before the crash), and the rest of the breaks are far smaller. There are also special taxes that only the oil companies pay such as for oil spill cleanup. I'd personally be quite happy if the government stopped giving the oil companies their $2.8B tax breaks but also stopped subsidizing alternative energy at $14.7B in 2010. There should be equality under the law for businesses just as for citizens.
Howard Johnson
Howard Johnson
September 20, 2012
Anonymous, Cell phones and pcs came about in the early 90's, if you could afford one. My first pc was $1600.00, 20 years ago, cell phone after that. New items cost money. But the subsidies for renewable energy are small in comparison to the 66 billion of weapons manufactured here and shipped overseas. Google it. We as a country, need to do more for Americans and less for foreign countries or we will end up being owned by them, ie. Anheiser Busch and AMC theaters.
ANONYMOUS
September 20, 2012
Is it possible to re purpose existing oil tanks for anaerobic bio gas production and repurpose existing storage in neighborhood gas stations?
ANONYMOUS
September 20, 2012
First off the Author suggests that people have only had automobiles, PC's and Cell phones for a decade. Many have had these items for upwards of 3 decades, at least the first two.

Second the cost of biofuel is higher and even if it is made with green energy which is highly unlikely that all of it will be made with entirely green energy. There comes the costs to the Government and taxpayers in the fact that those ships,planes vehicles etc. will require a much higher maintenance cost than normal and also for ships they will require more frequent refits. All of this requires more funding meaning more tax money. Considering all of the across the board cuts in Federal Spending nomatter which party is voted in, there is no way for government cuts and the high costs will work out for any good to come out of it. What good is green energy if its parked for reasons such as required maintenance, no funding, and/or no one to actually operate the machinery because there is no one thanks to all of the funding or mandatory budget cuts. of coarse on the plus side, there hasn't been an approved budget in 3 years so as long as we keep playing kick the can everything will be hunkydory in a pretty clean bubble. We need ALL energy to be self sufficient not just fossil fuel and not just green. Most only see one side or the other. The main problem is over regulating of everything, we have people sitting around with nothing better to do but to come up with ways to make it harder to do things that we need to survive.
Then they want to spend millions of tax dollars on ways to try and see if it works at a time when we need those things the most. I don't just mean regular fossil fuels, nuclear, etc. You know these same people are coming up with ways to regulate solar, wind, bio, etc. as I am typing now. Just to make it safer and better for us. HOGWASH. Everything and I mean all of it is based on PROFIT.
(Supply & Demand)
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 20, 2012
Thank you Cliff. I think there are more subsidies to the oil, gas & coal than you cover but I can't research it right now. Here's one from your link for 13 billion (you list 2.8 billion):
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, referred to as the domestic manufacturing deduction, provides reductions in taxable income for American manufacturers, including domestic oil and gas producers and refiners. The value of the Section 199 deduction in FY 2010 is estimated at $13 billion and approximately 25 percent is energy-related. While domestic oil and natural gas companies utilized this provision to reduce their 2010 tax liability (snip)
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 20, 2012
Onegreenday, you deserve an answer. Here it is.
-2009 oil company corporate taxes collected by federal government: $13.7B
-2009 excise taxes on gasoline and diesel collected by federal government from consumers at the gas pump $42.4B
-2010 total federal subsidies and tax breaks paid to oil and gas companies: $2.8B
The federal government's position on oil and gas is net INCOME of almost $9 per barrel of domestically produced oil.
-2010 total subsidies and tax breaks to alternative fuels: $14.7B of which $7.7B went to biofuels.
-Geothermal : $7.52 per barrel of oil equivalent energy (BOE)
-Biofuels: $10.46 per BOE
-Wind energy: $31.33 per BOE
-Solar: $59.60 per BOE
Bottom line: big oil (and informed America) would love for all subsidies to end and for the playing field to be leveled. The government is not subsidizing oil, oil is subsidizing the government, and also subsidizing alternative energy.
(sources: 1. The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short History. Congressional Research Service, March 9, 2012. 2. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/. 3. EIA Financial Reporting System Survey - Form EIA-28 Schedule 5112 - Analysis of Income Taxes. Energy Information Agency, 2009. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/energy.overview/frs/s5112.xls.
Kim Hanna
Kim Hanna
September 19, 2012
Are not fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal)already subsidized by the government?
Why the big objections to biofuel purchases with the hope to drive down prices?
Gary Noland
Gary Noland
September 19, 2012
Partnership for a Sustainable Fuel

The US needs a fuel that can take the place of petroleum for transportation. This new fuel must be environmentally sustainable and made domestically using sustainable energy sources to avoid emitting pollution and greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, this new fuel should be safely implemented across the nation using US developed technology and manufacturing.

Today, the most attractive petroleum replacement fuel is anhydrous ammonia. It burns very cleanly in gas turbines and internal combustion engines and generates ZERO CO2 emissions when consumed. It can be produced using electricity from renewable energy sources to avoid CO2 emissions during production. The US has an extensive infrastructure in place today for transporting, storing and handling ammonia. The drawbacks to ammonia are that it is toxic and can be lethal to humans in concentrations as low as 5,000 parts per million. Furthermore, fuel storage for vehicles would need to be completely replaced to accommodate ammonia. Refueling apparatus would need to be designed for use by the general public.

However, it is highly likely that alternatives to anhydrous ammonia can be developed that offer the benefits of sustainable production and use while also minimizing or even totally avoiding ammonia's drawbacks. Establishing a team effort to develop a sustainable petroleum replacement fuel could be accomplished between the Federal Government and the Petroleum Industry working in partnership toward this important goal. The best model for this partnership is the Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle (PNGV) program conducted under the Clinton Administration. The result from that program was the hybrid power plant that is capable of greatly improving vehicle fuel economy.

Please read the remainder of this article at http://promiseofotec.blogspot.com.

Thank you.
Julie Rosenthal
Julie Rosenthal
September 19, 2012
Thought inspiring article and interesting reader comments
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
September 18, 2012
Biofuel from Agave,Biogas from Opuntia and Water Hyacinth and subsequent power generation is the need of the hour especially in developing countries.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
lee gee
lee gee
September 18, 2012
One sunny day in the latter part of January, 2013 , an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where
He'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
Like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President
And no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away. The following day the same man
Approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go
In and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer
President and no longer resides here." The man thanked him and again just walked away.
The third day the same man
Approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying,
"I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."The Marine,
Understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is
The third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I've
Told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer
Resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love
Hearing it." The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
"See you tomorrow, Sir.


Don't forget to vote
That old man is depending on you!!!
lee gee
lee gee
September 18, 2012
Obama and his cronies spend lavishly and we are 16+ Trillion $$$ in debt.

Could Obama be handing our kids a worse nightmare? I think not.

Vote early! Vote often!
Michael Keller
Michael Keller
September 18, 2012
The job of the Navy is to defend the US, not serve as a piggybank for the parasites of the government created "green energy" bio-fuel business.
Jim Warden
Jim Warden
September 18, 2012
GreenNH3 is 50 cents a liter and zero emissions. I want it now. Government is controlled by BigOil in North America and they try to hold back alternatives. Investors see this and delay investing also. Some voters know this but many have trouble understanding. We need politicians who owe nothing to anyone but voters.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
September 18, 2012
Not only is all modern agriculture totally dependent upon fossil fuels for fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, equipment fuel, processing plant energy and hydrotreatment of the "drop-in" fuels needed by the military and airlines, it also competes in its own sphere of agricultural market commodities, and land, and water, and financing. Making our nation dependent on biofuels is to increase our fuel price volatility by subjecting our energy economy to both the petroleum and agricultral markets, and to decrease our fuel security by making our fuel supply subject to drought, flood, and freeze. Nature is trying to teach us that lesson right now with the drought in the US midwest, but some refuse to listen. Ethanol and biodiesel prices have always tracked upward with every petroleum price spike and offered no savings. Today the poor E85 customer is paying 40 cents more a gallon than the price of premium gasoline when corrected for MPG--and this is after $6B a year of subsidies since 2005. The more far-fetched stuff the Navy and Air Force are playing with has the same endemic petroleum and ag market dependence, coupled with poorer thermodynamics and immature technology. That is why the $26.75 a gallon paid for Tyson chicken fat for the Great Green Fleet was the lowest so far paid by any branch of the federal government, the average price has been $48 a gallon, and the lowest price for Solazyme algae fuel has been $61.33 a gallon. RenewableEnergyWorld continues to offer mindless advocacy instead of critical analysis that also considers the risks and limitations of alternative energy approaches. The Chinese and Indians are about to take economic leadership from the western world while we contemplate our navels and hope our liberal governments can repeal the laws of physics.
Michael Bailey
Michael Bailey
September 18, 2012
I was in the Navy for 20 years and we always had to buy at the lowest cost we could get. Every dollar had to be spent wisely our budget was always under attack. Now the Navy wants to buy fuel for 5 times the cost to promote a new industry. How many ships will not be able to go to sea with this additional expense?
Let's say we decided to heat homeless shelters with this $15/gal. fuel, but to do it we had to eliminate half our beds? Do you think the cry from the environmental industry would be to go forward? Not a chance!
lee gee
lee gee
September 18, 2012
Here we go again: Government force feeding industry. This stinks of socialism - or worse.

Repeat after me: "If industry likes it, it is good. The Navy is not industry."
Aaron Allen
Aaron Allen
September 18, 2012
It's time we declare fuels to be 'strategic resources'--not speculative commodi ties. We did this in WW II and managed to keep both defense and the homefront going except for a few months when the war trumped civilian uses...With the own ership of Big Oil going offshore and the price of crude oil a Vegas game, it's time to stop treating fuels as a big, inflated crapshoot: This is against our national interests. Our working people cannot afford $30K vehicles that won't last 7 years and cost a fortune to maintain. $4 gas and diesel has become part of a trifecta [food/healthcare/transportation] and many cannot afford all three. There are cleaner, better, and cheaper fuels--more domestic oil that belongs to foreigners and banking cabals. Instead of 'drill, baby, drill,' we shud 'change, baby, change'!..Aaron Allen...

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Meg Cichon

Meg Cichon

As associate editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com, I coordinate and edit feature stories, contributed articles, news stories, opinion pieces and blogs. I also research and write content for RenewableEnergyWorld.com and REW magazine. I manage...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Renewable Energy World Magazine

With over 57,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed decision makers...

  • Archives
  • About
  • subscribe
  • advertise
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 3
    From the Sea to the Pump: Is Kelp a Viable Biofuel?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet
  • 1
    Renewable Energy Investments Shift to Developing Nations

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Natural Power
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Chaloux Environmental Communications, Inc. (CEC)
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Green Power Conferences
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • RussTech Language Services, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information