I think this is a bad idea: "Promotion boards to look at energy efficiency"

While it pains me to say it, the Secretary of the Navy continues to assert a mythical "energy vulnerability" while inserting what can only be construed as a "green" component into Navy officer promotions, as reported at Promotion boards to look at energy efficiency - Navy Times:

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has spent the past two years trying to wean the service off of fossil fuels, said promotion boards will consider an officer’s energy management when deciding whether to move him up. Furthermore, Battle E commendations will be based, in small part, on a command’s ability to sip fuel instead of guzzle.

Look, if the SecNav wants to cut fuel costs that's arguably a good idea, though I would assert it is not necessary to take drastic measures that will hurt combat preparedness. What fries my bacon is his persistent assertion that there is an U.S. strategic fuel shortage and that it requires drastic steps, including pumping millions of DON money into creating a "biofuels" market. Why isn't he screaming for more nuclear powered ships? That's the ultimate effective "energy management" to beat the SecNav's concerns of reducing

. . . the sea services’ dependence on oil from adversaries while reducing the need to refuel, which takes ships out of combat while making them vulnerable to attacks.

As I have said before here, and here, the U.S. has plenty of fossil fuels to operate our Navy for hundreds of years. In the latter post I wrote, "When we claim we're "hostages" to foreign energy, we're just being stupid. Politically correct, but stupid." Develop the energy we have, and stop this nonsense.

This program of the SecNav is a another misstep in already overly "politically correct" environment.

Chart from here

On the other hand, sail makers should be out in force, selling "new" wind energy tools for optimum fuel savings for promotion hungry officers.

Or, hey, just tie the ships up and send the crews home to practice being at sea by playing video games and following other silly guidelines.

An Unimportant Navy News Release

Pilotless aircraft in a pilot program (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler)

Fire Scout Completes First Navy Unmanned Flight on Biofuel

To which my mind says, "So what?"

What did the testers think was going to happen? Hadn't they tested the fuel ahead of time?

If it's fuel that burns in a gas turbine, it's gas turbine fuel. I don't believe there will be much chemically different from a fuel based on petroleum. In fact, I bet it is almost like a petroleum product.

The question of whether or not Department of Navy funds should be diverted to support this "biofuel" industry is not answered by this sort of rigged test. As I've noted over and over, the U.S. has plenty of fossil fuels available to help us become energy independent - the announced goal of the Secretary of the Navy and his ultimate boss, the President. SecNav's pitch, which we heard repeatedly during a DoD Bloggers Roundtable with him earlier this year, is that he is seeking alternative fuels that, essentially, cost the "same" as fossil fuel products. Oddly enough, fossil fuels cost the same as fossil fuels and don't require a dime of Navy (taxpayer) money to develop a market or to build refineries, pipelines and the like.

The "Green" Navy and "Energy Independence" were the topics of DoDLive Bloggers Roundtable: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. From the transcript:

SecNav: ***The most overarching or broadest goal was by no later than 2020, at least half of all Navy energy, both afloat and ashore, would come from non-fossil fuel sources. I did this to address a vulnerability. We simply buy too much petroleum from volatile places on earth, and we need to address that vulnerability to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.

My translation: "So, instead of focusing on buying fuel from non-volatile places (like say, the U.S. and Canada), we have decided create a whole new industry using your tax dollars."

The U.S. Navy's least polluting ship?

SecNav: The Navy will do two things. One is, we will make our contribution of about $170 million to help either build or retrofit biofuel plants for -- to produce biofuel. We will also be willing to sign offtake contracts so that we will provide the market for these biofuels. And finally, earlier this summer, the Defense Logistics Agency, on behalf of the Navy, issued a request for proposals for 450,000 gallons of biofuels for our test purposes, which we think is the largest biofuel purchase ever undertaken in the United States.

My translation: "Biofuel production is not 'shovel ready' so we are going to take taxpayer money and try to push production of this product into a market in which the only real demand will be the taxpayer funded military. Building plants and all that is needed to get the biofuels ready for real production has yet to be accomplished."

Background: "Biofuels of No Benefit to Military" says Rand. Navy rejects report.

Back in January 2011, the New York Times published an article on a controversy brewing on the subject of biofuels and the military, in which the headline read Biofuels of No Benefit to Military -- RAND. The Times reported the report stated,

Fuels made from plant waste or algae will not be achievable in large or cheap enough quantities to make sense for military applications in the next decade, concluded the report penned by the RAND Corporation.

"The use of alternative fuels offers the armed services no direct military benefit," it added, urging the military and Congress to rethink dedicating defense appropriations to alternative fuels research.

Though the Defense Department has said using more renewable energy will reduce the need for fuel convoys in the battle zone, RAND questions biofuel's role in that effort, saying that any alternative fuels -- either with biofuel blends or coal-to-liquid technology -- would still require those fuel convoys or compound logistical challenges on the front lines.

According to the Times, the U.S. Navy vigorously rejected the Rand report:

The Navy, which has been on the front lines of biofuel research, blasted the findings. Tom Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of energy for the Navy, said that the findings do not "square with what we have encountered or heard from industry."

"We have been engaged with the biofuels industry. We know what they are capable of doing, and we are confident they will be able to deliver the fuels at the quantities and at the price point we need," he said. The Navy is calling for 8 million barrels of biofuel per year by 2020, he said.

Ultimately, the best processes and feedstocks will rise to the surface, but Fischer-Tropsch won't work for us, said Hicks. "We are going to continue on with what we're doing. It's the right thing to do for energy independence and energy security, and for us it's about enhancing warfighter capabilities," he said.

You can decide for yourself starting with reading the Rand report which is available here. Here is one excerpt:

Defense Department goals for alternative fuels in tactical weapon systems should be based on potential national benefits, since the use of alternative, rather than petroleum-derived, fuels offers no direct military benefits. While Fischer-Tropsch fuels and hydrotreated renewable fuels are no less able than conventional fuels to meet the Defense Department’s needs, they offer no particular military benefit over their petroleum-derived counterparts. For example, even if alternative fuels can be produced at costs below the prevailing costs for conventional fuels, they will be priced at market rates. Also, we are unable to find any credible evidence that sources to produce jet or naval distillate fuel will run out in the foreseeable future. If conflict or a natural disaster were to abruptly disrupt global oil supplies, the U.S. military would not suffer a physical shortage. Rather, the resulting sharp increase in world prices would cause consumers around the world to curb use of petroleum products. Less usage would ensure that supplies remained available. As long as the military is willing to pay higher prices, it is unlikely to have a problem getting the fuel it requires. If problems do arise, the Defense Production Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-774) contains provisions for performance on a priority basis of contracts for the production, refining, and delivery of petroleum products to the Defense Department and its contractors.

Nevertheless, despite the absence of a specific military benefit, there are nationally important benefits to be gained from the use of alternative fuels. If the Department of Defense were to encourage early production experience, government decisionmakers, technology developers, and investors would obtain important information about the technical, financial, and environmental performance of various alternative fuel options. If favorable, that information could lead to a commercial alternative-fuels industry producing strategically significant amounts of fuel in the United States. Once established, a large, commercially competitive alternative fuel industry in the United States and abroad would weaken the ability of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to assert its cartel power. Lower world oil prices would yield economic benefits to all fuel users—civilian and military alike. Lower prices would also decrease the incomes of “rogue” oil producers, and thereby likely decrease financial support to large terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hizballah.

Now, go read it. Read Galrahn's positve view on the Navy's move.

Then, I suggest you read my post on how much proven and retrievable energy the U.S. has without using Navy money to funding biofuel research here. See U.S. Tops in Energy Resources

You will note that I am not saying that algae biofuels may not be a great and wonderful thing. Someday.

But . . . I agree with the Rand report.

More Defense Money Baloney: "New Biofuels "Market" to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence"

Runnng on empty

I guess discovering that in the real world biofuels still are an expensive novelty, the decision has been made to dump a few hundred million dollars of Department of the Navy dollars into an attempt to create a "market" for them, as reported at New Biofuels Market to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence

The Department of the Navy is providing the market share for the nation's nascent biofuel industry as part of a White House initiative to kick-start the alternative energy sector, administration officials announced Aug. 16.

The Navy, in partnership with the departments of Energy and Agriculture, is working with the private sector to create a sustainable U.S.-based alternative energy industry as part of a plan President Barack Obama announced in March to reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, along with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, announced the latest part of the plan in a conference call with reporters Aug. 16.

Under the plan, the Navy, Agriculture and Energy departments will share equally in a $510 million investment over three years -- estimated at half the private sector's cost -- in the production of advanced "drop-in" aviation and marine biofuels, which can be used with existing fuels to power military and commercial vehicles, they said.

The White House's Biofuels Interagency Work Group and Rural Council will oversee the initiative with the simultaneous goal of boosting America's rural economies, they said.

"America's long-term national security depends upon a commercially viable domestic biofuels market that will benefit taxpayers while simultaneously giving sailors and Marines tactical and strategic advantages," Mabus said.

"Having energy independence in the United States is one of the most important things we can do from a security standpoint," he added.

The United States imports more than $300 billion in crude oil annually, and "price shocks and supply shocks" of the international oil market are "too much for the military to sustain," Mabus said. Every dollar per barrel increase in oil adds $30 million annually to the Navy budget, he said.

"Today's announcement not only leverages our home-grown fuel sources to support our national security, but it also helps advance the biofuels market, which ultimately brings down the cost of biofuels for everyone," Mabus added.

The initiative is in line with Mabus' goal to cut in half the Navy's oil usage by 2025, and supply its growing use of biofuels, which the secretary estimated at 8 million gallons per year.

"We've already flown an F/A-18 on biofuels," said Mabus. "We've flown a MV-22 Osprey on a mixture of biofuels and petroleum. We've tested our riverine craft, are sea hawk helicopters, so we are, well down the road to making sure we meet this goal tactically and strategically."

"The Navy can be the market," Mabus said. "We have a big need for biofuels. It will make us better warfighters, it will save lives, and it will reduce a vulnerability in our military that we simply shouldn't have."

The Energy Department already supports 29 biofuels projects in which producers manufacture fuels from cellulosic feedstalks -- wood, grasses and nonedible parts of plants, Chu said. Under the initiative, there can be no negative impact on U.S. food supply, they said.

The initiative is important, the secretaries said, to diversify the nation's energy supply, remove risk from the burgeoning biofuels industry, and create economic opportunities in recession-hit parts of the country.

The departments plan to release a request for proposals soon from biofuel manufacturers, and Mabus said the Navy conducted the largest-yet biofuels request of 450,000 gallons in a bid last spring.

"There is a market there that is real, that is solid," he said of producers, and added that it is growing enough that prices already are starting to decline.

The Navy will "repurpose existing funds" for its $170 million share of the investment, Mabus said. "It's a matter of setting priorities," he added.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus laid out five aggressive energy goals in October 2009 to improve the Navy's energy security and efficiency, increase the Navy's energy independence, and help lead the nation toward a clean energy economy. This initiative assists in achieving the energy goal of increasing alternative energy afloat and ashore where by 2020, 50 percent of the total Department of the Navy energy consumption will come alternative sources.

As I have noted in previous posts (see Baloney at the Navy Top: "We use too much fossil fuel", Shale Gas and U.S. National Security), the U. S. has plenty of domestic energy which is being and can be developed further without taking money from the Navy and giving a "special deal" to the biofuels people who have already spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money.

Instead, the administration prefers to attack the gas and oil energy industry for receiving special "tax breaks" while taking tax money better spent on ship and aircraft repair and giving it to different politically-favored gaggle of "projects."

As I said in prior post:

The problem is not that we use too much fossil fuel, the problem is that we have allowed ourselves to become dependent on imported fossil fuel, despite sitting on the world's largest deposits of "fossil fuels."

It is the importation of foreign oil that is a strategic issue, not their use. It's the long lines of commerce that bring oil to our shore that are vulnerable.

If every dollar increase in a barrel of oil adds $30 million to the Navy budget, perhaps, now that the price of a barrel of oil has dropped, we should be stocking up . . . at current prices, assuming that oil is $10 a barrel lower than it has been, the Navy has "saved" $300, 000, 000. [Using Sec Mabus's $1bbl figure to assume Navy usage of 30 million barrels]. That's enough to build a ship. He should be celebrating!

If there is "a market that is real, that is solid" for biofuel, as Sec. Mabus asserts, then there is absolutely no need for this money to be diverted in this fashion.

I have no problem with the development and use of biofuels, I just think the Navy has little or no business funding them to "remove risk from the burgeoning biofuels industry"  - if it's a real "market" then let that market work. 

And let the existing energy industry assist us in being energy independent. "Drill, baby, drill" is not just a political slogan, it's a way to energy independence while allowing the scientists to work their way toward biofuel heaven.

Let these "projects" bid on the same basis as all the other energy providers. Let them develop the pipeline, storage tanks and associated equipment necessary to make delivery of the fuels they can provide.

I can't wait to see how we handle refueling our ships and aircraft around the world with this stuff. Will we have a fleet of new Navy oilers carrying only the finest vintage biofuels following each of our ships? Or will we still be buying fuel in foreign ports, using "carbon based" fuels when deployed while keeping up the pretense of "green-ness" domestically? Potemkin ships?

One final thought. The energy markets are global, so that if the U.S. does succeed in becoming energy independent by using biofuel, those nasty old oil and gas products being sold to us will simply be sold to some other country with an appetite for energy and an indifference to the environment. The net result will not be much of an improvement in the "clean energy economy", will it?