Study says greener military isn't better military, DoD disagrees

[unhappycamper]

Study says greener military isn't better military, DoD disagrees
By Larry Shaughnessy, CNN Pentagon Producer
January 25, 2011 -- Updated 0502 GMT (1302 HKT)

Washington (CNN) -- The Department of Defense has put a lot of money and effort into finding alternative fuels to replace petroleum-based fuels it uses now, but a new study concludes the military will not benefit from alternative energy research.

No organization in the world uses more oil-based fuel than the U.S. Department of Defense, about 337,000 barrels of fuel a day as of 2008. In recent years it has been looking for ways to replace petroleum with fuel made from algae, coal, garbage, even a plant similar to the mustard plant.

The Air Force and Navy have been testing various ships aircraft and found they can operate on a 50/50 mixture of traditional fuel and alternative fuel. The Air Force hopes to use 50% alternative fuel in all it's domestic flights by 2016. And the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus also has set a goal to use alternative energy sources to provide half of the energy for all the Navy's warships, planes, vehicles and shore installations by 2020.

The DoD "has spent hundreds of millions of dollars" on these testing and research programs, but for all the cost and time, there is little promised benefit over using fossil fuels, according to the congressionally-mandated study by the Rand Corp.

"There is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense or the services from using alternative fuels rather than petroleum-derived fuels," the study said. But the authors conceded that the United States as a whole will benefit, somewhat like the American economy profited from the early space missions that gave us everything from smaller computers to better baby food.

[theophilus]

1. I guess they don't believe in peak oil. Also, the transfer of non-petroleum

technology to the private sector is worth it, imo.