The lifeblood of a modern military is oil. Even the Navy, with all of its nuclear-powered vessels, still needs prodigious quantities of dino juice to power the multitudes of support ships and aircraft that make up the bulk of our fleet. Now, top brass understand that relying on an increasingly volatile commodity isn’t helping out national security, especially with Iran prone to sabre-rattling in the Strait of Hormuz. But do congressmen get that? Of course not.That’s why the Navy, whose first large-scale demonstration test of biofuels as drop-in replacements for the regular stuff was a month ago, has been under fire from shortsighted budget hawks for trying to increase logistical security while going green at the same time. The problem is that the fuels commissioned by the Navy are ridiculously expensive; the biodiesel used in the Navy’s $12 million Pacific demo ran about $27 a gallon, versus around $3.50 for the old stuff.So, yes, the Navy’s biofuels are indeed expensive, but here’s the thing: biofuel production costs will only go down as American producers refine algal and animal fat rendering production processes. Meanwhile, traditional fuels, whose costs have only risen, are influenced heavily by adversaries.In total, according to the Times, the so-called Great Green Fleet demo is part of a $510 million multiagency effort to develop alternative fuels for military purposes. The three-year program is a miniscule fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget of close to $650 billion.But while the military is interested in paving a path to cheap, secure biofuels, congressional Republicans — and some Democrats representing fossil fuel interests — have lambasted the program. From the Times:Representative Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican who introduced House legislation that would limit biofuel purchasing and production and has been critical of the Great Green Fleet, said Democrats were using the military to pursue an environmental agenda. "We just want to require the Department of Defense to do exactly what every other American does when they buy fuel: they try to get the best price they can," he said.
Many of the lawmakers objecting to the biofuels program — including some Democrats who crossed the aisle to support new limits — represent coal country or take money from those in the coal and natural gas industries. Mr. Conaway, who introduced a measure that would open the door for the military to pursue alternative fuels made from coal and natural gas, gets a large share of his campaign contributions from oil and gas interests, according to OpenSecrets.org.The military’s massive size and purchasing power will, and has, help biofuel producers lower costs via economies of scale faster than any other group of consumers. But as the Pentagon has noted, the issue will be more than just cost for as long as world markets are influenced by oil producers in volatile regions. That’s why the rhetoric displayed by Conaway’s ilk is so shortsighted: ignoring all developing fuel options for favor of cheap oil means our military will always be reliant on a technology that’s increasingly scarce, and that does no wonders for our own security.Follow Derek Mead on Twitter: @derektmead
Advertisement