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  
•       •       •

15813 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 07:12:23 PM
STOP THE PRESSES! We've found a way to save OVER $220,000!!!
 
2013-05-04 07:12:53 PM

aerojockey: 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.


Baloney.
Getting fossil fuels is expensive and labor intensive.
But it profits because we've had no other choice for 100+ years.
Every person mining coal is one less person developing cleaner energy.
There is no shortage of land or crops... we're throwing the stuff away.
 
JVD
2013-05-04 07:15:13 PM
You know, I've never really liked paying taxes. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either.
 
2013-05-04 07:18:11 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.


Wow, 7.2 billion gallons, that's a lot.

Will it be enough to get your SUV to *and* from K-Mart?
 
2013-05-04 07:18:30 PM

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


Saturn5: 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.


Came here to say this.
 
2013-05-04 07:19:15 PM
HoratioGates:
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?

Jesus buddy, why not ask for a pony while you're at it?

Anyway the military using green jet fuel is basically a joke.  Putting jets, particularly high-performing military ones, in the air is hands-down one of the least "green" things a civilization can do.
 
2013-05-04 07:23:09 PM
Alleyoop: "But $59 a gallon? Oh what the hell, I'm drunk."

$59 / gallon

3785.41 ml / gallon

$0.0156~ / ML

$11.69~ for a 750 ML bottle

That's not exactly expensive for alcohol unless you're used to drinking champipple
 
2013-05-04 07:25:25 PM
See, what we do is, see, we make you give us money?  Or else we'll put you in jail?  See? Then we, like, need something done to like, what we call "serve, protect and make strong the republic". see?  So we call up somebody who gave us enough money to land our phony baloney job?  And we say, "Hey, how much is this sh* here?" and they say "Shoot, man, at' there is a least a billlllion dollars!" and then we say "well, OK THEN!" and we, like give them the money for it?  See?  And then they give us some of the money back?  And man, there ain't sh*t you can do about it!  Haw!  ain't that a hoot?
 
2013-05-04 07:26:01 PM

Belias: STOP THE PRESSES! We've found a way to save OVER $220,000!!!


I agree not a big deal but I'm always offput when people dont think 100k is not worth saving.
 
2013-05-04 07:28:21 PM
I thought about being outraged, then realized I probably couldn't provide it cheaper.
 
2013-05-04 07:29:06 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.


your talking about Shale oil

they are not putting that trash in a muti-million dollar Jet

i mean really, i wish the right would understand the lie that "Shale oil" is, is is expensive as hell to extract and refine, and even post refinement it is still so dirty it not really any good for any type engine that needs a highly "pure" fuel

i mean damn, the stuff isn't even really oil it's bitumen, and to refine the stuff it is a ton more environmentally damaging that traditional oil extract/refinement processes  and a ton more costly

the ONLY reason the Shale and "Oil-Sands" are booming right now is the high cost of traditional crude, when crude starts dropping like it did in the 80's your going to see a lot of Ghost towns in the Dakota's and surrounding areas, and a lot of out of work kids who where told they could make a ton of cash with little to no education or training
 
2013-05-04 07:30:36 PM

DubtodaIll: Belias: STOP THE PRESSES! We've found a way to save OVER $220,000!!!

I agree not a big deal but I'm always offput when people dont think 100k is not worth saving.


Few hundred G, here and there, every day and before you know it, you got some money, Jack.
 
2013-05-04 07:32:32 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


$3.73/gallon. It was the single line of article on page 2.
 
2013-05-04 07:32:35 PM

HoratioGates: 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?)


I'd try McMaster Carr or MSC Industrial Supply. Also check out the Newark catalog. Tons of assembly components and ICs.
 
2013-05-04 07:35:17 PM

DubtodaIll: Belias: STOP THE PRESSES! We've found a way to save OVER $220,000!!!

I agree not a big deal but I'm always offput when people dont think 100k is not worth saving.


its part of the "The Federal Budget is like my Household Budget" Fallacy, and "Anything can be made to sound stupid in a headline"  like shrimp on treadmills, until you look at the full research

The US government has a long tradition of being early adapters to new tech that ATM is too costly for the the private sector to embrace
 
2013-05-04 07:39:31 PM

JVD: You know, I've never really liked paying taxes. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either.


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-05-04 07:45:47 PM

lordargent: Alleyoop: "But $59 a gallon? Oh what the hell, I'm drunk."

$59 / gallon

3785.41 ml / gallon

$0.0156~ / ML

$11.69~ for a 750 ML bottle

That's not exactly expensive for alcohol unless you're used to drinking champipple


Interesting route to get the number for a bottle of alcohol. I'd go like this: there's about 4 liters to a gallon, so $59/gal ~ $60/gal ~ $15/liter. 3/4 of that would be for a 750ml bottle, so around $12/bottle.
 
2013-05-04 07:48:19 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


Almost worth linking to snopes, but I prefer to leave him ignorant; the world needs a laughing stock or two.
 
2013-05-04 07:51:17 PM

Ivo Shandor: 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.


True. There might be some confusion because while oil isn't used, most nitrogen based fertilizers are produced with hydrogen from natural gas.
 
2013-05-04 07:51:17 PM

DubtodaIll: I'm always offput when people dont think 100k is not worth saving.


Somebody yammering about 3,000 gallons of fuel is not concerned reducing government spending.

It's just an excuse to write "GREEN = BAD!1!!  and OBAMA = BAD!1!!".
 
2013-05-04 07:57:58 PM
Jet fuel is essentially certified kerosene with a couple of additives.  Considering the amount of gallons it takes to keep an aircraft flying it makes no sense to spend this money.... You all are crazy....
 
2013-05-04 07:58:25 PM

Tony_Pepperoni: 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.


From what I've read; it's kerosene-like. But, who knows; it could be kerosene-like the same way that Tri-nitrogen toluene is toluene-like.

/ not a biochemist, nor do I play one on tv
 
2013-05-04 07:59:34 PM

HoratioGates: 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?)


HoratioGates, - Is strength an issue when testing your prototype? If not, you could consult with a cad person and 3D print your parts to verify size compatability during assembly.  Then utilize the design file to order the needed mass quantity.
 
2013-05-04 08:03:36 PM
dericwater : Interesting route to get the number for a bottle of alcohol. I'd go like this: there's about 4 liters to a gallon,

Accuracy is not an "Interesting route", it's the correct route.

There are 3.78541 liters to a US Gallon, not four.

In my line of work, accuracy is important, I do a rough calculation like you did someone's project is short 3.1 million (vs 31 cents).
 
2013-05-04 08:04:37 PM
$59 for jet fuel? An F-18 burns almost 2 gallons/mile on afterburner.

A gallon of jet fuel is almost 7 ibs. As an ex. a F-22 carries about 20K lbs of fuel internally or equivalent to about 2800 gallons. At $59 it cost almost $165K in fuel just to fill it up one time. HOLY SHIAATS!

A KC-135 would carry almost $2 million worth of fuel then!!!

No wonder our Defense budget is $600 billion!
 
2013-05-04 08:06:39 PM
SuperNinjaToad : No wonder our Defense budget is $600 billion!

angryczeck.com
 
2013-05-04 08:15:33 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?


1) It would take about a decade to build the necessary infrastructure and
2) that's only about a year's supply of oil for this country
 
2013-05-04 08:48:11 PM

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


Think kerosene.
 
2013-05-04 08:55:40 PM

Ivo Shandor: 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.


I've never had good results from pouring my used motor oil on the lawn.
 
2013-05-04 08:56:34 PM

Ivo Shandor: 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.


Yes it is.  Or at least, fertlizers that are entirely derived from petroleum-sure it doesn't look it, but does the keyboard under your fingers look like the the petroleum that was used to create the plastic it was made from?

Reference, just to get you started:    http://www.azcentral.com/style/hfe/outdoors/articles/2006/03/09/20060 3 09fertilegarden0309.html

Then there's the diesel-fueled mechanized planting, harvesting, and transport machines...you know they aren't running those off of peanut oil, either.
 
2013-05-04 09:05:46 PM

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

No? Didn't think so.


They feel the same in the sense that they signed contracts such that the F35 programs didn't get gutted by the sequester. The reality is that the sequester is intended to cut meals on wheels, punish people with cancer, force janitors to take unpaid time off... it's not supposed to hurt defense contractor buddies. The point of the sequester isn't even really to cut spending, just to cut efficiency... they want to be able to point at the government and say "see, it doesn't work!" The sequester gives them that chance... look at all the money we pay in to a government that isn't supporting meals on wheels, isn't supporting transition programs for the troops (fortunately, the VA healthcare isn't affected), the government that isn't helping our own citizens who are struggling to pay for cancer medicine.
 
2013-05-04 09:11:18 PM

chumboobler: Jet fuel is essentially certified kerosene with a couple of additives.  Considering the amount of gallons it takes to keep an aircraft flying it makes no sense to spend this money.... You all are crazy....


Well shiat, you're right.  It's madness to try to figure out how to use plants that are growing on top of the surface of the earth, and that we might in turn be able to figure out how to grow within our own national borders, in order to keep our favorite machines running.

It's far more sensible to drill miles below the surface to extract a hazardous liquid that's known for creating environmental clusterfarks when mishandled, then ship that liquid over rough seas to refining plants...or have to do business with guys halfway around the world that may be overthrown by people who hate our guts...

I mean, what were we thinking?
 
2013-05-04 09:16:25 PM
The sign of a poorly written article is when someone, or many people have to chime in and say "what I think the author was trying to say...."  While I do believe the author was trying to make the point that with the Sequester in place maybe this program could be suspended, or eliminated.

Unfortunately for the author and as many on this thread have pointed out, is the fact this is a demonstration project and even if DOD exercises the entire contract of 16,000+ gallons, the cost to DOD is "only" about $1 million.  IMO, it is more damaging to suspend, or cancel a demonstration project as opposed to stretching a buy out over a couple of additional years; like ordering 16 F-35's this year as opposed to 19 which would initially "save" roughly $ 400 million in year one.

It appears to me the author of this article is pushing too hard to make a political statement at the expense of being rational.
 
2013-05-04 09:23:50 PM
well, see you guys again soon.  I'm off to work.  Today in Ishidan's Life Adventure:  continuing an assignment wherein I am involved in the environmental and safety aspects of the maintenance of a small refinery, believe it or not.  How timely...wanna know what we all have to wear so that just in case somebody screws up, we don't all die horribly?

/okay I'll tell you.  First, a Nomex IIIA jumpsuit-it's resistant to flash fires, so in the event of an explosion-it won't protect me from shrapnel, but it won't melt onto my skin like polycotton "mechanic's shirts" will.  Second, a small badge we call the "H2S meter"-it measures hydrogen sulfide, a common byproduct from refining sulfur-rich crude oil into sulfur-free end products.  If that goes off-RUN!  Depending on what I'm doing, I may have to add additional sensors such as the "4 gas meter", which adds monitoring of surrounding oxygen, carbon monoxide, and flammable vapor levels--the first two so I don't suffocate, the third so I don't blow myself up.  Then there's the reason I'm there, which I won't tell you, but it involves searching for yet another toxic chemical byproduct, and my respirator stands ready in case I find it...and I have.
 
2013-05-04 09:26:50 PM

revrendjim: Ivo Shandor: 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.

I've never had good results from pouring my used motor oil on the lawn.


I got good results throwing it on an old couch to burn.
 
2013-05-04 09:30:55 PM

Ishidan: Reference, just to get you started:


Your own link says natural gas, not oil, and it's only used as a hydrogen source to produce ammonia. You can make nitrogen fertilizer from nothing but air and water (generating hydrogen with electrolysis) but it's more expensive and impractical unless you have a spare nuclear or hydroelectric power plant.
 
2013-05-04 09:38:08 PM

Begoggle: I guess I'm supposed to be outraged because of the word "green" and OBUMMER!!!
Durp.


You really are. There was an article up just the other day about a study showing that conservatives will go out of their way to avoid things which are labeled as environmentally friendly, even if it costs them more money. Being "green" *is* an outrage to them.
 
2013-05-04 09:40:19 PM

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



It's basically diesel.
 
2013-05-04 09:45:45 PM
SR-71, fastest aircraft on the planet:
upload.wikimedia.org  uses JP-7 ($6.60/gallon) LINK
 
2013-05-04 10:15:47 PM
This being Derby Day, I thought the article was going to be about the cost of beer in the Infield.
 
2013-05-04 10:23:02 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.


www.outhousedesigns.com
not arguing with you
 
2013-05-04 10:29:21 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? That would be much better than paying $59/gallon for gas now in the hopes that eventually it would be cheaper.

Then we'd be stuck buying oil from the exact same unstable region after ONE YEAR.
Because the USA uses 7 billion barrels of oil a year.

And notice that I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you really meant barrels, not gallons.
 
2013-05-04 10:42:56 PM
How to Cut the Military Budget Without Touching Defense

"Office of Naval Research's recent effort to track how babies interact with robots, which concluded after much observation that "if you want to build a companion robot, it is not sufficient to make it look human ... the robot must be able to interact socially."

"disease victims and medical specialists have pressured the Pentagon into spending more than a billion dollars annually for research that is often not related to injuries experienced on the battlefield, such as breast and prostate cancer. The Government Accountability Office concluded last February that these programs are often poorly coordinated with civilian health agencies, and their administration by the Pentagon eats up around $45 million in overhead and management.

Overall Pentagon spending for research and development now totals $73 billion, Coburn's report states, an amount that exceeds the total spent for that purpose by all other federal agencies and includes much research that does not "enhance the technological superiority of our soldiers or improve the defense of our nation."

"military ranks are now top-heavy with generals and admirals, pushing up defense costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars because each has a large retinue of aides. The current proportion is seven general officers for every 10,000 troops, two more than during the Cold War. "We almost now have an admiral for every ship in the Navy,"

"the military is needlessly operating 64 schools on 16 military installations around the country, at a cost averaging $50,000 per student. The national average for other schools is $11,000 per student. According to the report, the Pentagon picks up the tab mostly out of inertia, continuing a practice begun when public schools were not as integrated as military families were."

"$1.5 million the military is spending to create more palatable beef jerky -- on top of more than $600,000 being spent by others in the government. "
 
2013-05-04 10:58:45 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


To be fair, DoD wanted to terminate the second engine - it was Congress and John Boehner (the rejected GE engine was built in his district) that kept that one alive.
 
2013-05-04 11:54:29 PM

Parmenius: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

To be fair, DoD wanted to terminate the second engine - it was Congress and John Boehner (the rejected GE engine was built in his district) that kept that one alive.


Wait, I thought the navy insisted on a twin engine jet? Something about having a backup in case one engine failed.
Or am I thinking of something completely different?
 
2013-05-05 12:06:20 AM

fusillade762: Wait, I thought the navy insisted on a twin engine jet? Something about having a backup in case one engine failed.
Or am I thinking of something completely different?


Different.

The F-35 is a single-engine jet.

Pratt & Whitney builds the engine.

GE and Rolls Royce were building an alternative engine which was canceled in 2011.

/ Not an expert, I Googled all that out of curiosity
 
2013-05-05 12:18:43 AM
I'm overwhelmed with information now! Oh noes!

Also: page 2 has one sentence? WTF?
 
2013-05-05 12:19:42 AM

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


Yes it does.
 
2013-05-05 12:56:12 AM

HoratioGates: 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?)


Is Google down?
 
2013-05-05 12:57:50 AM
General #1: "So they want us to use environmentally friendly fuel or something..."
General #2: "What kind of commie hippie crap is this?"
General #1: "We don't have a choice."
General #2: "Sure we do.  Watch... we'll just order the most over-priced crap there is and let the media find out about it."
General #1: "What good does that do us?"
General #2: "When they find out how much we're spending on that stupid commie hippie gas then they'll do a complete about-face on the whole thing and insist we go back to using good old fashioned, God-given he-man black death smog gas to save money."
General #1: "Brilliant!"
 
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