US military biofuel plan ‘doesn’t work’ say critics

Critics are railing against the US military’s efforts to adopt biofuels for use in its vehicles, a US newspaper reports.

Processing costs and above-market prices have led to claims that the expensive technology is unlikely to yield positive results and has been unsuccessful so far. Biofuel used last year to power the US navy’s ‘green fleet’ was said to have cost $26 (€19) a gallon compared to under $3 per gallon of conventional fuel.

Critics also point to a 2011 report commissioned by the Pentagon which found that ‘there is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense or the services from using alternative fuels,’ but ‘millions of dollars’ are allegedly being provided to private companies to support their development.

‘We don't want to find ourselves with our backs against the wall in some future crisis where the availability and price of petroleum-based fuels limits all our options and makes them unattractive,’ says Dennis McGinn, assistant secretary of the navy for energy, installations and the environment.

‘This is really a house of cards,’ says Ike Kiefer, a faculty member at the US Air Force Air War College, who studies military fuel purchases.

‘When you look at the absolute limits of what is possible, it doesn't work.

‘This is not a question of waiting for another generation of technology.’

But the Pentagon argues that paying above-market prices can provide a way to jump-start an industry, citing the navy's use of high-priced US steel in the 1890s.

US secretary of the navy Ray Mabus says the military must focus on alternative energy to guard against the potential effects of oil price shocks and there is ‘absolutely clear and overwhelmingly compelling evidence that these efforts are vital to our national security.’