Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kevin J waldroup

OM_! Hear the screams of Mother Earth as her children are cut down and burned!!!


2 posted on 07/05/2008 12:21:16 PM PDT by Coffee200am
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Coffee200am

What about the acid rain?


3 posted on 07/05/2008 12:22:28 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Coffee200am

Self-Preservation and Tactical Advantage
A research arm of the U.S. Department of Defense awarded $5 million to a North Dakota research and development facility to create a surrogate for military-grade jet fuel, JP-8. In a span of just 18 months, researchers plan to deliver a domestically produced, renewable fuel that’s virtually indistinguishable from its petroleum-based counterpart.
By Ron Kotrba

Projections from the U.S. Department of Defense estimate fuel losses during combat—not what is actually used to fight—will amount to $86.8 million in 2008. In-theater fuel supplies suffer losses from extreme desert heat where tactical “bag-farm” storage sites aren’t equipped with vapor recovery systems. Vehicles of war hit by enemy fire and those suffering from mechanical breakdowns, which are subsequently destroyed, also contribute to the loss of fuel in battle. Not only is actual fuel lost, but it also costs millions to transport and store multiple grades of fuels that can be accessed for effective tactical operations, especially in politically unstable regions. “The cost is anywhere from $100 to $400 to get one gallon of fuel to the battlefield,” says Ted Aulich, research leader with the Grand Forks, N.D.-based Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC), the recent recipient of a $5 million contract from the defense department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The U.S. military is working on producing solutions to mitigate these and many other economic losses associated with fuel use in war.

“The military has this ‘single battlefield-fuel’ concept,” Aulich says. “They are trying to use a single fuel for aircraft, Humvees, tanks and everything in between.” While this may not sound economical—burning high-quality jet fuel in Humvees—what’s another dollar or two per gallon when the transportation costs are already so high? Furthermore, national security naturally comes into play. Domestic rhetoric pushing for the proliferation of renewable fuels frequently hinges on national security, which is ultimately about preserving a way of life and proactively avoiding interruption if foreign oil shipments should cease.

http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1155


4 posted on 07/05/2008 12:23:14 PM PDT by Kevin J waldroup ( Go Duncan Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Coffee200am

It’s a shame that the price of wood pellet have gone up tremendously in the last couple of years as well.


5 posted on 07/05/2008 12:33:38 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Coffee200am

poor liberals, its seems like only yesterday that they were wishing for higher gas prices like they pay in europe to drive down CO2 emissions

be careful what you wish for

I always wonder if at the turn of the century people thought cars would elimnate the worst pollution of the day,
horse manure.


6 posted on 07/05/2008 12:34:23 PM PDT by edzo4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson