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 39
    More: Asinine, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, fixed price, jet fuel, renewable fuels, U.S. Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency  
•       •       •

15816 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-04 03:33:03 PM
10 votes:
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 06:35:04 PM
3 votes:
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 06:16:11 PM
3 votes:

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 12:50:19 PM
3 votes:
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 09:38:08 PM
2 votes:

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 09:05:46 PM
2 votes:

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 07:09:42 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-05-04 06:32:46 PM
2 votes:
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 06:23:13 PM
2 votes:

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 06:07:41 PM
2 votes:
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 05:56:33 PM
2 votes:
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 01:25:40 PM
2 votes:
Printer ink?

/DNRTFA
2013-05-04 10:42:56 PM
1 votes:
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 10:29:21 PM
1 votes:
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 09:23:50 PM
1 votes:
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 09:16:25 PM
1 votes:
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 09:11:18 PM
1 votes:

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 08:56:34 PM
1 votes:

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 08:15:33 PM
1 votes:

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 07:51:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:39:31 PM
1 votes:

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 07:35:17 PM
1 votes:

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 07:29:06 PM
1 votes:

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 07:25:25 PM
1 votes:
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 07:23:09 PM
1 votes:
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 07:12:53 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-05-04 07:07:19 PM
1 votes:
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 06:35:15 PM
1 votes:
I guess I'm supposed to be outraged because of the word "green" and OBUMMER!!!
Durp.
2013-05-04 06:32:09 PM
1 votes:
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 06:18:02 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:29 PM
1 votes:

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 06:00:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:14 PM
1 votes:
wonder what the true cost of Jet fuel is once you factor on all the subsides and kickbacks
2013-05-04 05:55:06 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:46 PM
1 votes:

"It's green!"

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

"But $59 a gallon? Oh what the hell, I'm drunk."
2013-05-04 05:53:29 PM
1 votes:
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 05:52:25 PM
1 votes:
ZOMG 3,000 gallons!

Probably several seconds of a carrier group's consumption?
2013-05-04 05:12:41 PM
1 votes:

thamike: It's renewable.


Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable
2013-05-04 12:59:55 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report