Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Well... it for sure ain't Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet!" The Great Green Fleet Republicans critical of Navy's 'Great Green Fleet', $26 a gallon fuel The Navy is steaming ahead with an initiative to power ships with biofuel, despite criticism the so-called “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuel. This month marks the first time the Navy is using biofuel in an operational setting -- sending five ships to a multi-nation exercise off the coast of Hawaii. A Navy official told FoxNews.com on Monday that sailing the so-called “Great Green Fleet” this month on the 50-50 blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020. The spokesman also confirmed the fuel -- which does not require engine modifications -- costs $26 a gallon compared to $3.60 a gallon for conventional fuel. Criminies... I reckon they don't burn bunker oil no mo'! Interesting, though... Sassparilla Kid fuels his Mercedes on straight used veggie oil - sixty cents a gallon! But what the heck, it's just tax money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Not surprised since the government pays excessive high costs for toilet seats GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four-Eyed Buck,SASS #14795 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Didn't think they could make bio-fuel in that large a quantities Of course they want to make the greenies happy, just like the solar panel bit. Screw the cost, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Presidio Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Critical? I'm down-right inflamed about it . What a waste of money! Why isn't somebody trying to convert some of these ships to nuclear power? I mean really, the cost to convert, compared to the cost of the "green", can't be that big a difference. And nuclear would last a heckuva lot longer, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 I understand that at cruising speed a destroyer will consume about 2,500 gallons of fuel in a 24-hour period (roughly 100 gal/hr. Slightly more with maneuvering). Do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Balz, SASS#46599 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 One Word...Jackasses!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I wonder if all involved in that exercise will feel hungry because that bio-fuel smells like a donut shop ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 My guess is they are trying to boost the bio-fuel industry by providing a guaranteed customer base- namely the gov. Why isn't somebody trying to convert some of these ships to nuclear power? I mean really, the cost to convert, compared to the cost of the "green", can't be that big a difference. And nuclear would last a heckuva lot longer, too! There will never be another nuke ship other than CV's and subs. Nuke destroyers are much more expensive to build and much more maintenance-intensive. The build program which ultimately became the Ticonderoga class was originally going to be nuclear, but the cost led to a heavily-modified conventional Spruance platform. When the draw-down began in the early 90's the nukes were the first to go, and not only because of their age. And then, of course, nuke ships are more expensive to dispose of. Conversion would also be prohibitively expensive, since all existing CG/DDG/FFG are gas turbine powered. Oh, yeah: nuke power is evil. Otherwise we'd be building nuke electrical plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 My initial response was the same as everybody else's, what a waste of money, but then I started thinking about it. This is the initial start up costs for bio-diesel, I would expect that the prices would come down considerably if it becomes widely used by the US Navy. If operationally successful, it is likely that the other services would use it for the diesel powered equipment in their inventories and it could even lead to widespread civilian use as well. Also, It appears to be 100% domestically produced, so it isn't subject to the price fluctuations caused by international oil prices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Why isn't somebody trying to convert some of these ships to nuclear power? I mean really, the cost to convert, compared to the cost of the "green", can't be that big a difference. According the article, no conversion is necessary. What I'm wondering is how it'll affect range. A friend of mine converted his Ram pickup to burn bio diesel and mileage was significantly less. So much so that he only used it around town. When he went on longer trips, he'd switch to regular diesel (he had separate tanks). He made his own fuel, but it was so time consuming to filter the stuff he got from the fast food places that he abandoned the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 My initial response was the same as everybody else's, what a waste of money, but then I started thinking about it. This is the initial start up costs for bio-diesel, I would expect that the prices would come down considerably if it becomes widely used by the US Navy. If operationally successful, it is likely that the other services would use it for the diesel powered equipment in their inventories and it could even lead to widespread civilian use as well. And the price of corn will go to $19.00 an ear. I wonder how impressed our enemies (and our allies, as well) will be if / when we ever again go to war. "Wow, those Americans are going to be tough to beat. They're burning Wesson oil. Maybe we should surrender before we laugh ourselves to death." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 And the price of corn will go to $19.00 an ear. I wonder how impressed our enemies (and our allies, as well) will be if / when we ever again go to war. "Wow, those Americans are going to be tough to beat. They're burning Wesson oil. Maybe we should surrender before we laugh ourselves to death." It's made of seeds, algae and chicken fat, not corn oil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rusty Bore SASS#22739 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 But what the heck, it's just tax our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Dan Dawkins Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Thanks Hardpan for the info, but let me give it to ya straight. This election should be SO easy for Romney to win but I am afraid he's too eat up with the dumb ass to figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 It's made of seeds, algae and chicken fat, not corn oil Who really gives a damn? It's still an unproven technology as far as I'm concerned and we've spent years and dollars to destroy algae in lakes, ponds, and swimming pools. Now it's a fuel source? BS! Besides, both petroleum and coal are also "bio-fuels" and I don't see this new stuff eventually proving to be a more "renewable source" long term than the older ones. Our military shouldn't be a place to try new technologies for frivolous reasons nor social experimentation, nor to function as a "meals on wheels" for every disaster that occurs around the world. They are to defend the country, not to suit some non-military political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Woodrow Cahill, SASS # 54363 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I'm surprised someone hasn't just suggested we bring Old Ironsides out of mothballs, and maybe build a bunch more like it. Wind is free. Nothing quite like a square rigged frigate with 44 guns under full sail to strike terror into the hearts of our foes around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlicLee SASS #16638 Life Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 The Libs say the more we use the faster the price comes down. I have never heard of this product until reading about the Navy's using it. Right now its just a dream, an expensive dream this fleet will cost the American taxpayer more money than anyone could imagine. There are 3 aircraft carriers smaller than the Reagan using the fuel. One aircraft carrier at normal cruise speed burns 100K gallons an hour, 240K per day, 5 days to get to Mediterranean, the rest you can figure out. Thats not including upkeep,maintenance,people,salary,ammo and so on for the weeks ahead,all to protect us from Iran,who was given another sanction by the US and as soon as it was given,every single country was allowed to continue to purchase oil from Iran. Bush used fuel made by the govt to be used by all govt vehicles including the Navy and Airforce that cost about $1.50 a gallon.Look it up, dont ask. Obamas purpose is to spend,throw away every American penny he can before he's gone. Maybe you being a Liberal can figure it out,I cant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 4, 2012 Author Share Posted July 4, 2012 The Libs say the more we use the faster the price comes down. I have never heard of this product until reading about the Navy's using it. Right now its just a dream, an expensive dream this fleet will cost the American taxpayer more money than anyone could imagine. There are 3 aircraft carriers smaller than the Reagan using the fuel. One aircraft carrier at normal cruise speed burns 100K gallons an hour, 240K per day, 5 days to get to Mediterranean, the rest you can figure out. Thats not including upkeep,maintenance,people,salary,ammo and so on for the weeks ahead,all to protect us from Iran,who was given another sanction by the US and as soon as it was given,every single country was allowed to continue to purchase oil from Iran. Bush used fuel made by the govt to be used by all govt vehicles including the Navy and Airforce that cost about $1.50 a gallon.Look it up, dont ask. Obamas purpose is to spend,throw away every American penny he can before he's gone. Maybe you being a Liberal can figure it out,I cant. Slick, your math is off a decimal. But anyway, a destroyer burns 100 gallons an hour at a slow cruise speed (15 knots). A carrier is a LOT bigger. For an oil-fired carrier, check here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scatterbrain Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 The Libs say the more we use the faster the price comes down. I have never heard of this product until reading about the Navy's using it. Right now its just a dream, an expensive dream this fleet will cost the American taxpayer more money than anyone could imagine. There are 3 aircraft carriers smaller than the Reagan using the fuel. One aircraft carrier at normal cruise speed burns 100K gallons an hour, 240K per day, 5 days to get to Mediterranean, the rest you can figure out. Thats not including upkeep,maintenance,people,salary,ammo and so on for the weeks ahead,all to protect us from Iran,who was given another sanction by the US and as soon as it was given,every single country was allowed to continue to purchase oil from Iran. Bush used fuel made by the govt to be used by all govt vehicles including the Navy and Airforce that cost about $1.50 a gallon.Look it up, dont ask. Obamas purpose is to spend,throw away every American penny he can before he's gone. Maybe you being a Liberal can figure it out,I cant. Slick, your math is off a decimal. But anyway, a destroyer burns 100 gallons an hour at a slow cruise speed (15 knots). A carrier is a LOT bigger. For an oil-fired carrier, check here. There are no oil-fired carriers left, unless you mean LHA's or LHD's. Not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 4, 2012 Author Share Posted July 4, 2012 There are no oil-fired carriers left, unless you mean LHA's or LHD's. Not the same thing. I know. Just stated as reference. However, there are many other much larger oil-fueled ships. No diesel subs left, either (DBF~!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Rick Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 They may leave port with a 50/50 blend, but I'm not aware of a single oiler in the fleet that carries bio-diesel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlicLee SASS #16638 Life Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 He,the royal one had 11 ships converted to burn some kind of bio fuel, not diesel or a combo, just bio the cost is $26 per gallon, the info mentioned 3 carriers,smaller than the "Reagen" plus 9 other ships of the ;ine being sent to the Straits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.