In light of the recent debates in congress on whether to ban the military from purchasing renewable energy, mostly as a way to provide a market for new technology development, this report questions that reasoning:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/19/us-usa-defense-energy-idUKBRE85I06120120619
“There is no credible scenario in which the U.S. military would be unable to access the supplies of fuel it needs to defend the nation…”
While it is correct that the military cannot impact global prices, they can provide market demand for renewable energy, and encourage companies to invest in R&D and new technologies. Job creation right? How come everyone isn’t on board with this?
bobbincat
cshoagland
John
Paul
Sam
scottpfulbright
stevanalbers
Energy and the Future 
Ya, I don’t really understand the short-sidedness of people. When Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn visited CSU he explained that energy security is the most critical security problem the U.S. faces. Further, he went out about gas price fluctuations are a “hidden tax”.
Also, what is cost competitive? An event or other economic occurrences (i.e., speculation on futures) could push gas prices up to $5 dollars a gallon overnight….then alternatives are “price competitive”.
Regarding this quote:
“There is no credible scenario in which the U.S. military would be unable to access the supplies of fuel it needs to defend the nation,” Bartis said.
….I could think of a few scenarios….
Pingback: will suspending the ethanol mandate actually affect corn prices? | Energy and the Future