Domestic Fuel Bill for National Security
The “Domestic Fuel for Enhancing National Security Act” has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) introduced the bill which would authorize the Department of Defense to continue its leading role in helping to commercialize next generation biofuels by extending the multi-year contracting authority for advanced biofuels from 5 years to 15 years. In his speech introducing the legislation, Inslee quote Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently commented that the Defense Department uses 300,000 barrels of oil every day. “”The energy use per soldier creeps up every year. And our number-one import into Afghanistan is fossil fuel.” Admiral Mullen understands how critical an energy supply is to a combat troop; but how safe are our troops if this oil comes from overseas? Our defense sector should adopt more sustainable fuels, which can be produced here in the United States; for the security of our troops.”
Brent Erickson with the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) says the bill would help scale up advanced biofuel production in the United States. “Expanding the military’s ability to engage in long-term contracts could provide leading companies and potential investors the certainty they look for before committing capital to large-scale biofuel production,” said Erickson. “The Department of Energy, for instance, has been asking for long-term off-take agreements as an eligibility requirement for its loan guarantee program.”
Erickson notes that the Department of the Navy recently established goals to cut petroleum use in the commercial fleet in half by 2015 and ensure 50 percent of its total energy consumption comes from alternative sources by 2020. “In order to reach the Navy’s goal, there needs to be a dramatic scaling up of advanced biofuel production in the United States. Investment in environmentally responsible technologies lessens dependence on imported fossil fuels,” he said.
4 Comments »
Matt Snyder
We have the ability to install modularized equipment specifically designed for being installed immediately inside the perimeter fence of a military base or airport to grow the quantities of algae required for 3rd generation biofuels demand onsite with the algae presscake being gassified to make 100+ octane bio-gasoline for ground service vehicles and piston engine aircraft.
Considering that the government has turned their backs to us at every inquiry for the past three years It’s obvious to me the USG has already (been paid off) to decide who they want to give the contracts to when equally productive( or bettter), purpose designed technology sits in a warehouse exactly one 3rd party certification test away from run-away commercialization where it has been for almost 18 months.
I know that meeting these goals fo 3rd generation biofuels seem steep to everybody else. But, to me this is “old hat” and when I eventually do find somebody with capital and just a glint of vision we’ll gladly demonstrate how to accomplish the military’s goal of energy independence almost anywhere on Earth CO2 and water are available.
Based on the production data from running previous prototypes, but without the ability to pay for a final 3rd party test that hadn’t been invented until after business planwas well underway, leaving us about $500K short of going bananas with our decentralized production model and creating jobs all over the country as quickly as it can be done.
I’ll say it because I like hearing the sound of exposing unethicl behavior, WHAT ABOUT US? DON’T WE AND OUR EFFORTS DESERVE EVALUATION AS WELL? WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS WE WERE PROMISED YEARS AGO?
I forgot, in washington, fairness costs money. Lots of it.
David E. Bruderly PE
Hey — don’t feel picked on; low carbon, non-liquid compressed gas motor fuels, such as natural gas motor fuels, not to mention renewable methane and hydrogen motor fuels, don’t get much respect (or money) from USDOE or the US Congress either.
Rather than establish rational policy goals and allocate money based on the degree of actual compliance with those policy performance goals, like lifecycle pollution prevention, lifecycle criteria pollutant reductions, lifecycle ghg emission reductions, petroleum displacement, affordability, scalablity and other practical and rational policy objectives the US Congress and the USDoE, the USEPA and the USDoT prefer to prescribe specific technologies. They seem to bend to the will of those interest groups with either the most money on the table or the most grassroots support from entreprenuerial dreamers. Unconventional, decentralized motor fuel systems that can be implemented TODAY are a big no-no; I’ve concluded that our government does NOT want to unduely upset market share of established liquid petroleum-based motor fuel oligopoly in the short-term while hoping for creative destruction of that oligopoly in the long-term by fostering high-risk battery-electric ventures.
Oil Independence Act Introduced - Domestic Fuel
[...] [...]
Bill Encourages Domestic Fuel Use for Military - Domestic Fuel
[...] Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who introduced the bill at the end of the last Congress, once again put forth the bipartisan bill which will allow Civilian [...]
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment