If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   And it is a bargain at only $59 a gallon   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 108
    More: Asinine, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, fixed price, jet fuel, renewable fuels, U.S. Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency  
•       •       •

15838 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2013 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-04 12:50:19 PM  
Do they feel the same way about the funding the F-35 when cheaper models already exist?

No? Didn't think so.
 
2013-05-04 12:59:55 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Do they feel the same way about the funding the F-35 when cheaper models already exist?

No? Didn't think so.


Hells no.  Not only that but they wanted $1 billion for a second engine.
 
2013-05-04 01:25:12 PM  
or you could just use Mountain Dew
 
2013-05-04 01:25:40 PM  
Printer ink?

/DNRTFA
 
2013-05-04 03:33:03 PM  
So, a testing phase of a product that is not mass produced, so there is no economy of scale from infrastructure...

And paying a fairly low price per gallon of a replacement for a *STRATEGICALLY VULNERABLE AND IMPORTANT* product that lacks, as said above, the economy of scale infrastructure?

Please, do go on about wasteful spending. While this does seem like a large cost to you and me, it's a drop in the bucket for the DOD *AND* targets an item that has strategic implications based on bottlenecks from a traditionally(1) unstable region.

(1) Traditionally in this sense meaning since the late Modern Period.
 
2013-05-04 03:47:12 PM  

propasaurus: Printer ink?

/DNRTFA


that's quite a sale.  stuff normally goes for $302 a gallon
 
2013-05-04 03:58:14 PM  
Hey It's gone down in price. It used to be $2k/gal

/don't feel like looking for the link
 
2013-05-04 04:02:13 PM  
It's renewable.
 
2013-05-04 05:11:17 PM  
I wonder how much of a markup that is
 
2013-05-04 05:12:41 PM  

thamike: It's renewable.


Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable
 
2013-05-04 05:42:43 PM  

cman: thamike: It's renewable.

Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable


Every fossil fuel is zero-emission, those damn hippies just aren't taking into account a several hundred million year carbon cycle, am I right?!
 
2013-05-04 05:48:55 PM  
Av gas is expensive; it's leaded 110-120 octane. I have no idea what jet fuel consists of.
 
2013-05-04 05:50:27 PM  

iheartscotch: Av gas is expensive; it's leaded 110-120 octane. I have no idea what jet fuel consists of.


high fructose corn syrup and ethanol

it's quite delicious
 
2013-05-04 05:52:25 PM  
ZOMG 3,000 gallons!

Probably several seconds of a carrier group's consumption?
 
2013-05-04 05:53:29 PM  
Article doesn't give the price for standard jet fuel so I can decide for myself if this is an outrage? Why am I not surprised?

/infromed
 
2013-05-04 05:54:46 PM  

"It's green!"

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

"But $59 a gallon? Oh what the hell, I'm drunk."
 
2013-05-04 05:55:06 PM  

zerkalo: Article doesn't give the price for standard jet fuel so I can decide for myself if this is an outrage? Why am I not surprised?

/infromed


Never mind. It's right there buried at the bottom, under the fold
/double infromed
 
2013-05-04 05:55:32 PM  

cman: thamike: It's renewable.

Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable


Don't be silly. Even fossil fuels are renewable. This layer of topsoil that we humans inhabit now will eventually be covered by others, and the lizard and/or cockroach people of the future will use us to run their SUVs after we've turned into hydrocarbons.

I'm sure the occasional Twinkie will pop up through the wells, though.
 
2013-05-04 05:56:14 PM  
wonder what the true cost of Jet fuel is once you factor on all the subsides and kickbacks
 
2013-05-04 05:56:26 PM  
I think JP-8 costs 3 or 4 bucks a gallon.
 
2013-05-04 05:56:33 PM  
I'm in the process of prototyping something.  It means buying some very tiny parts.  The parts run about 25 cents a piece and I'm not sure until I get them if they will work just perfectly (I'm not an engineer, and my caliper skills are okay, but I'm working with extremely small tolerances.)  I order the 25 cent part and pay $7 because they will only ship in flat rate envelopes.  Sure, I can spend a couple extra dollars and hedge that this part will be the part I need, or I could go out and get a custom part built for a few hundred dollars.  New products always cost more than a finished product.  When I'm done, I expect it will cost about $2 per unit.  (Anyone know where I can get 12 mm long, 2 mm wide hanger bolts with the threading in the middle instead of on the ends?  Or 8 mm wide by 2 mm deep pot magnets with a 2 mm x 2mm nub?)
 
2013-05-04 05:57:47 PM  

zerkalo: Article doesn't give the price for standard jet fuel so I can decide for myself if this is an outrage? Why am I not surprised?

/infromed


You didn't read the whole article, did you?

Conventional JP-8 jet fuel costs $3.73 a gallon, according to the Defense Logistics Agency.
 
2013-05-04 05:58:39 PM  
I keep telling you idiots to stop patronizing Starbucks.

/dnrtfa
 
2013-05-04 05:58:46 PM  
I am all for renewable energy but at some point you have to draw a line due to the cost and this this that point.
 
2013-05-04 05:59:16 PM  

zerkalo: zerkalo: Article doesn't give the price for standard jet fuel so I can decide for myself if this is an outrage? Why am I not surprised?

/infromed

Never mind. It's right there buried at the bottom, under the fold
/double infromed


[sigh] the comments, they appear too quickly
 
2013-05-04 05:59:20 PM  
Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.
 
2013-05-04 06:00:32 PM  

Summercat: So, a testing phase of a product that is not mass produced, so there is no economy of scale from infrastructure...

And paying a fairly low price per gallon of a replacement for a *STRATEGICALLY VULNERABLE AND IMPORTANT* product that lacks, as said above, the economy of scale infrastructure?

Please, do go on about wasteful spending. While this does seem like a large cost to you and me, it's a drop in the bucket for the DOD *AND* targets an item that has strategic implications based on bottlenecks from a traditionally(1) unstable region.

(1) Traditionally in this sense meaning since the late Modern Period.


This. Thank you. You explained it much better then I ever could.
 
2013-05-04 06:04:30 PM  

Summercat: So, a testing phase of a product that is not mass produced, so there is no economy of scale from infrastructure...

And paying a fairly low price per gallon of a replacement for a *STRATEGICALLY VULNERABLE AND IMPORTANT* product that lacks, as said above, the economy of scale infrastructure?

Please, do go on about wasteful spending. While this does seem like a large cost to you and me, it's a drop in the bucket for the DOD *AND* targets an item that has strategic implications based on bottlenecks from a traditionally(1) unstable region.

(1) Traditionally in this sense meaning since the late Modern Period.


There are at least 7.2 billion gallons of recoverable oil in South Dakota. Why wouldn't we just pump that instead of relying on that unstable region? That would be much better than paying $59/gallon for gas now in the hopes that eventually it would be cheaper.
 
2013-05-04 06:05:29 PM  

fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.


If it's made in your district it's patriotic. If not it's an outrageous abuse by the military/industrial complex.
 
2013-05-04 06:07:41 PM  
Forty years from now, renewable fuel will not only be cheaper than it is now, it will probably be cheaper than non-renewable fuel.

If you want to talk about an outrage, get mad about corn ethanol. We pour oil on our crops (petrochemical fertilizers) to grow corn and then turn it into ethanol. It is a pipe dream.
 
2013-05-04 06:09:44 PM  

untaken_name: Summercat: So, a testing phase of a product that is not mass produced, so there is no economy of scale from infrastructure...

And paying a fairly low price per gallon of a replacement for a *STRATEGICALLY VULNERABLE AND IMPORTANT* product that lacks, as said above, the economy of scale infrastructure?

Please, do go on about wasteful spending. While this does seem like a large cost to you and me, it's a drop in the bucket for the DOD *AND* targets an item that has strategic implications based on bottlenecks from a traditionally(1) unstable region.

(1) Traditionally in this sense meaning since the late Modern Period.

There are at least 7.2 billion gallons of recoverable oil in South Dakota. Why wouldn't we just pump that instead of relying on that unstable region? That would be much better than paying $59/gallon for gas now in the hopes that eventually it would be cheaper.


You say that like its alot. Lol.
 
2013-05-04 06:10:09 PM  
A quick survey of the googleverse shows that the only non-right wing media outlet covering this story is Russia Today.
And they're a mouth piece for the Russian Government.
 
2013-05-04 06:10:25 PM  

iheartscotch: Av gas is expensive; it's leaded 110-120 octane. I have no idea what jet fuel consists of.


Jet fuel is basically kerosene.
 
2013-05-04 06:16:11 PM  

grimlock1972: I am all for renewable energy but at some point you have to draw a line due to the cost and this this that point.


3,650-12,000 Gallons is not going to go very far in a jet engine.  The F15 burns 1,580 gallons per hour. This is just about enough gas to run a few tests to ensure that we can actually power our equipment on domestically produced fuel.  It is really hard to beat oil as an energy storage medium for high performance equipment.

The fighter jets and drones of the future are still going to be powered by gas or jp-8.  The only difference will be that we might not be pumping that fuel out of the ground.  While I care about renewable energy, I see this as a strategic national security issue.  I am willing to pay a premium to ensure that we can work around shortages of strategic resources if they suddenly become un-available.
 
2013-05-04 06:17:12 PM  

iheartscotch: Av gas is expensive; it's leaded 110-120 octane. I have no idea what jet fuel consists of.


JP-5 is under 6 bucks a gallon. Not sure about JP-8.
 
2013-05-04 06:18:02 PM  
FFS, it's for 3650 gallons of an alternative fuel for a test, that's a little over $200K.  I can guarantee you they spent way more than that to do the administrative work in preparation for the test.

So many, many better things in DoD procurement to get outraged over, this is in the weeds.
 
2013-05-04 06:23:13 PM  

untaken_name: There are at least 7.2 billion gallons of recoverable oil in South Dakota. Why wouldn't we just pump that instead of relying on that unstable region?


There are not oil wells in South Dakota?

Do you get your information from well-known petroleum expert Sarah Palin?

/ US and South Dakota oil production are at all-time highs
 
2013-05-04 06:30:03 PM  
Do the Koch brothers fund these young conservative stars because they look creepy?

Or do they cultivate that look after they get hired?

content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com
photos1.blogger.com
img805.imageshack.us
www.freeadsindiabiz.com
 
2013-05-04 06:32:09 PM  
Just remember the cost of jet fuel isn't everything.  The larger expense is getting that jet fuel where you need it.  Transporting it to Afghanistan or to a carrier at sea and the costs jumps up enormously.  So while it may be $4 a gallon at an airport near a pipeline, where that fuel is actually used has a larger impact on costs.   The renewable jetfuel likely won't leave  the states and is still in testing so the economies of scale aren't yet built in.  Now if they can get it down closer to $10 a gallon, then it is in the ballpark as being able to domestically produce what we need is far more more important should reserves not exactly to live up to estimates.
 
2013-05-04 06:32:46 PM  
Also, how much is this going to help giving a jumpstart to what may have been an idea that died as uneconomical unitl it scales up?
 
2013-05-04 06:35:04 PM  
a repeated quote:
"There's an old West Wing episode which explained this in the case of pharmaceutical companies. One guy complains that a company is selling pills for a large cost when the only cost four cents to make. The other corrects him: "The second pill costs them four cents, the first pill costs them $400 million." With any new technology, there are development costs. But those costs aren't repeated every time you sell a new copy of something you've developed."
 
2013-05-04 06:35:15 PM  
I guess I'm supposed to be outraged because of the word "green" and OBUMMER!!!
Durp.
 
2013-05-04 06:38:06 PM  

jaytkay: Do the Koch brothers fund these young conservative stars because they look creepy?

Or do they cultivate that look after they get hired?

[content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com image 165x190]
[photos1.blogger.com image 352x240]
[img805.imageshack.us image 352x146]
[www.freeadsindiabiz.com image 352x426]


You got the order wrong.  They're young conservatives BECAUSE they're creepy looking.
 
2013-05-04 06:46:53 PM  

fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.


The incumbent president is a dagburn Dimmycrat varmint, and a ni*BONG* to boot.  So we're supposed to hate it, and hate him for not attacking Iran and/or Syria.
 
2013-05-04 06:52:23 PM  
$59 a gallon?  I think I paid that much for my last fill-up.

THANKS, OBAMA!
 
2013-05-04 06:59:54 PM  

fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.


Obama's a Democrat, so it's not excessive.  It's well thought out and reasonable expenses because Bush.
 
2013-05-04 07:00:41 PM  
Subby's jizz?
 
2013-05-04 07:06:45 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: We pour oil on our crops (petrochemical fertilizers) to grow corn


No you don't. Despite what you might have seen on a billboard in Fight Club, oil is not used as a fertilizer.
 
2013-05-04 07:07:19 PM  
Get used to it.  This is the cost of green economy.  (Not this exact ratio, but you know what I mean.)

You can say it's worth it, and maybe you're right, I won't argue.  But don't try to argue that green alternatives have a purely economical benefit.  They don't: green fuels require more resources--way more--to produce the energy equivalent of fossil fuels (more land, more labor, more equipment probably) and that expense gets passed onto everybody.  Every piece of land devoted to biofuel is land not available to grow food or other crops.  Every laborer working on biofuel is a worker not available to work in industries like medical, agriculture, engineering (not necessarily as engineers, either, but as technicians and support).  So it'll take it's toll on thing like science as well.  If UPS needs to purchase $15/gal biofuel instead of $4/gal diesel, your package from Amazon is not going to get free shipping much longer.

So let's just drop the crap about "green jobs" and "green economy".  We have to be honest with ourselves that helping the environment, while a worthy goal, comes with a cost.
 
2013-05-04 07:09:42 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.

The incumbent president is a dagburn Dimmycrat varmint, and a ni*BONG* to boot.  So we're supposed to hate it, and hate him for not attacking Iran and/or Syria.


Only until he DOES attack Iran or Syria. THEN it becomes an illegal action or something.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report