Section 526 – for a "Green National Defense"

Guest opinion by David Archibald

“Men” said Charles Mackay in 1841,”go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” Recovering from groupthink is a slow process, as evinced by Section 311 of the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2017 which was passed on 18th May, 2016.

Section 311 on page 139 simply says:

Rule of Construction Regarding Alternative Fuel Procurement Requirement

This section would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) to clarify that this section shall not be construed as a constraint on any conventional or unconventional fuel procurement necessary for military operations.

The Section 526 referred to says:

Prohibits a federal agency from entering into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use (other than for research or testing), unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

This section was included in the 2007 bill largely to thwart the Defense Department’s intentions to acquire coal-based jet fuels. So a bill with a title that suggests it is about promoting energy independence and security was doing the opposite of that. Section 526 was the work of Congressman Henry Waxman representing California’s 30th District. Wiser heads wanted to repeal Section 526 straight away via amendments to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill. That didn’t happen. Efforts to repeal were ongoing and the White House noted the totemic importance of Section 526 in 2011.

Back in 2011 the oil price might have been conducive to a synthetic-fuel-from-coal effort. A cheap start might have been to convert the Great Plains synthetic natural gas plant in North Dakota to making diesel and jet fuel. Instead that plant is now being converted to make 380,000 tpa of urea. Now a synthetic liquid fuels plant will have to be built from scratch with the big capital cost items being the liquid oxygen plant and the coal gasifiers.

Nevertheless, Section 526 has been repealed after eight years of trying. A couple of other attempts in the National Defense Authorisation Act of 2017 to undo the madness of prior years did not get up. Roll call vote no. 2 (page 644) would have:

Description: Prohibits funds for executive order mandates from 2013 and 2015 related to green energy benchmarks, climate change boards, councils, and working groups and inclusion of climate change review throughout DOD operations, acquisition, logistics, and planning.

That was lost 29 to 30. Roll call vote no 3 (page 646) would have:

Description: Prohibits DOD from using FY17 funding for the construction or refurbishment of a biofuels facility, subject to a national security waiver.

That was lost 29 to 32.

The good news is that attempts to undo the damage are ongoing. This is in an environment in which President Obama has directed that commanders of naval bases be rated upon how much they promote global warming in their commands. And there are also reversals in the march of progress. In Australia the government-funded CSIRO had fired 61 climate scientists because “the science was settled” and therefore there was no use for them. The recently re-elected government has ordered the CSIRO to rehire 15 of these witchdoctors. Geopolitical events might sweep all such nonsense away before the year is out.


David Archibald is the author of Twlight of Abundance.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 4, 2016 5:29 pm

The US could end up with Hillary Clinton authorizing even more useless green projects to try to appease her green contributors.

4TimesAYear
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 5, 2016 12:25 am

God forbid….

Ziiex Zeburz
Reply to  4TimesAYear
August 5, 2016 11:36 am

Human nature being what it is,,, the catastrophic event of today is forgotten the day after tomorrow.
I would think that the Donald’s team will play the” Pillary go to jail card” at the appropriate moment. And then the world will see how s//t is shoveled in American politics. With millions of embarrassed Democrats hiding under the bed come polling day.

Felflames
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 5, 2016 2:30 am

She will sell those out in a heartbeat .
I expect there to be an “Open for business” sign on the whitehouse lawn 2 minutes after she is elected.

yam
August 4, 2016 5:29 pm

Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Mackay – http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24518?msg=welcome_stranger

prjindigo
August 4, 2016 5:31 pm

I don’t really see climate freakiness in those paragraphs, more SOP US government politics and industry wishywashyness. Technically any research into alternatively sourced fuel sources is the domain of DARPA and __NEVER__ beholden to a military budget qualification of that nature. This seems to be more to keep the actual military from engaging in boondoggles that will have no useful outcome of any kind.

August 4, 2016 5:31 pm

Shall we have a kill quota for air conditioners ? Those air conditioners are sneaky. You gotta watch em. They blend in with houses and businesses pretending to be all innocent, when we know the real truth.
They’ll make movies about the daring endeavors of our armed forces going after air conditioners. Wiping out air conditioners, one at a time. Sigh! A new combat Ribbon!

Griff
Reply to  rishrac
August 5, 2016 12:43 am

There’s no problem with aircon… aircon use exactly matches availability of solar power… solar will power the aircon.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 2:14 am

Never been in The South on a hot humid summer night, I take it……
One needs air conditioning even at 3 AM… Despite my best efforts at turning the darned thing off in that Alabama hotel last week, sleep required it on, so I used ear plugs….

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 4:40 am

Funny thing – coal and gas power is available 24/7, and is a lot cheaper.

Griff
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 4:59 am

max aircon use is during daylight hours…
and you can always get a tesla battery – or use solar CSP

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 5:39 am

Still living in your Greenie, irrational dream-world, huh Griffy?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 5:42 am

That’s not a 100% solution, Griff. It’s barely even a 70% solution. Air conditioning is necessary even in the rain and at night. If not for cooling, for dehumidification. Mold growth is only kept in check by routine cleaning and constant dehumidification.
For my qualifications on this matter, I suggest you read my handle.

MarkW
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 7:38 am

Tesla battery? Really? You are going to take a power source that is already 10 times as expensive and add storage to make it 20 times as expensive.
You really must hate people.

BrianK
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 8:38 am

Max building cooling load is normally 17:00 to 19:00 solar, which is several hours after peak solar.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 10:39 am

Wrong again. You would need a solar conversion efficiency well above 50% in order to provide enough power to cool all those homes and businesses on a hot day. There are a lot of losses along the way from the solar plant to the air conditioner, and the sun is really good at heating up all those buildings. There is currently not even a theoretical way to get those kind of solar conversion efficiency numbers, so “improving technology” is not an answer. You can’t get there if you don’t even know which direction to head in.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 11:47 am

Yeah, Griff. Let them eat cake.
That’s another refrain I often hear from progressive/greenie elitist-types: ‘They can just… do without, use less, eat less, use something else, move, or whatever … basically check for what we approve of before you try and live on your planet.’
Of course, if you don’t we’ll prosecute you, slander you, regulate you out of business, etc. Let this not be construed as a choice.
I totally get why they cut off Antoionette’s head.

Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 8:36 pm

especially at night when its hot and humid. You won’t die, but it sure is uncomfortable.

catweazle666
Reply to  Griff
August 6, 2016 9:26 am

“aircon use exactly matches availability of solar power…”
You’ve never been to the tropics, have you?

jmichna
Reply to  Griff
August 6, 2016 9:58 am
Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 5:39 pm

Only one way out for our American friends “Donald” , as for us Aussies I notice The one nation party now has four senate seats which is a start .
Pauline much like Trump can be a bit erratic but with the counselling of others hopefully the load can be shared , one things for sure is now she is established her vote will increase in the next election .

Duncan
Reply to  Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 6:50 pm

“Pauline much like Trump can be a bit erratic”. I am no Trump supporter per say (I wish the Americans had better stock), but that erratic behavior does not bother me like some. Living in a business environment and as a Project Manager myself, minute by minute, you are constantly adjusting. What seems erratic is the pro/con game being played out on TV (unfortunately), he has no control of it. He is not a ‘schooled’ politician with a ‘cool’ plan that he will stick to come hell and high water, he’s a businessman running for politics. Some don’t like it because it makes them feel uncomfortable. Visit any boardroom in a high stakes venture, you are not coming out un-offended if you have a definite opinion. That is him in a nutshell as I see it. Today you are the best employee, tomorrow your Fired!

Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 5:42 pm

Hilary may decide to downsize the American naval fleet back to sail powered , imagine that an aircraft carrier powered by sails !

CodeTech
Reply to  Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 6:23 pm

And solar aircraft. That way it gives the enemy a chance to simply walk faster than the plane is flying.

Duncan
Reply to  CodeTech
August 4, 2016 6:29 pm

Or a sneak attack on a cloudy day.

milwaukeebob
Reply to  Robert from oz
August 6, 2016 5:16 am

Imagine an aircraft powered by sails!

KevinK
August 4, 2016 5:59 pm

Heck wasn’t it the Germans (way back about 1944) that had to resort to converting coal to oil so they could power their air force and tanks…
Reminds me of the MASH (copyright, this should be covered by “fair use”, I think) episode where the US Army General is explaining how they are hiding their ammo dumps by their hospitals because the enemy won’t think to look there. The General says; “We learned it from the Germans in WWII”, and then Hawkeye quips; “Oh Great, now we are taking lessons from the losers…..”
Yeah, that’s exactly what you want to fight a war with, expensive, unreliable energy…. Heck the other guys would never ever use fossil fuels against you, it would ruin the climate….
Cheers, KevinK

Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 6:06 pm

Me thinks peak stupidity has been reached and now they are just trying to outdo each other’s stupidity .

Editor
Reply to  Robert from oz
August 4, 2016 11:26 pm

Peak stupidity? I wish. To these people it’s just “the trend is your friend”.

commieBob
August 4, 2016 6:34 pm

Geopolitical events might sweep all such nonsense away before the year is out.

Oh crap! China is looking to pick a fight in the South China Sea and Australia looks like a prime target.
Australia should be thinking seriously about energy security. As the linked article points out, China could easily prevent tankers from getting to Australia. Time to redevelop the oil shale. Time to start prosecuting enviro-loonies as enemy agents.
China is a lot more capable now than it was during the Korean War. I can’t think of any way this would end well.

TA
Reply to  commieBob
August 4, 2016 7:09 pm

A united front of all the nations affected by China’s creeping aggression is the best way to handle them.
China may be pushing their aggression envelope extra hard now and in the next few months, because they know they can bully Obama, and they own Hillary (no doubt they have a copy of her server). But if Trump gets in, their bullying window of opportunity may close pretty fast. Trump will be holding the threat of Japanese nukes over the Chinese heads so they will proceed cautiously with him.

nc
Reply to  TA
August 4, 2016 9:12 pm

I believe Trump understands the wariness Russia has with its new relationship with China and would forge a better relationship with Putin to counter China.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  TA
August 5, 2016 5:58 am

Also, the Chinese are a practical people. They might want expansion, but they aren’t going to openly move agaisnt Australia or anyone else in the Anglosphere. Tick off the country who is their biggest customer and their biggest rival? In a way that would alienate all of their neighbors and potential allies? They aren’t stupid.

Felflames
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2016 2:37 am

Australia is floating in oil, coal and natural gas, and the biggest supply of artesian water on (under) the planet. Raw resources are not the problem, we just need them to be developed and processed locally.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2016 5:04 am

hmm?
really?
or is a NON signatory to the seas pact hint USA shitstirring the UN via p pines..and geeing up morons like the termite bishop to mouth off re sending boats etc into the area they claim?
chinas not said or seemingly intended thing one re blocking anything
theyre a big trade partner for Aus
of course if you want to try n flog markets with TPP deals then souring the good relationship we have with china, is in usa interests.
id say chinas worried re the almight Hegemony usa thinks it has,
because usa could block their vital trade routes.
curious how usa goes the long way round across all asian areas for oil?
when you could use the other coast?

Goldrider
Reply to  commieBob
August 5, 2016 6:38 am

Really! I WISH all we had to worry about was “global warming!”

En Passant
August 4, 2016 7:15 pm

So we lose the war and become slaves to the Chinese or Islam. So what? After all, we have saved the planet for the winners. Anyway, isn’t martyrdom all the rage these days? Just ask Frank in Rome as his flock of sheeples are slaughtered. He is convinced that we all seek peace, even those who say they will kill us all.
Tell me again that we, the people, deserve this, or have I fallen down a rabbit hole (along with Alice) into a completely bizarre world?

BFL
Reply to  En Passant
August 4, 2016 9:33 pm

When “elite” Harvard students don’t know an actual working definition of “racism” or “xenophobia” and social media blather is the rule of law (there is no such thing as an “illegal”) then it’s just a matter of time for complete decay. After all the rule is that a civilization in it’s prime has a limited lifespan and the West is about to meet theirs based on those in charge at present and those in line to run things. So it’s definitely the “rabbit hole”; just sit back and marvel at the psychedelic mental states of civilization going down, down, down……

Barry Sheridan
Reply to  BFL
August 4, 2016 11:58 pm

But I do not want to see civilised life go down. I see every reason for optimism given our grasp of technology, yet all this stupid negativity and fear mongering ignorance that is inducing a decay in life is completely incomprehensible. Doubtless you see the point.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  BFL
August 5, 2016 2:29 am

It is very comprehensible.
The Elite want more power, money, and ownership. Freedom offends them and real competition reduces their ‘take’. So, via The Club Of Rome, they cooked up the “Running Out!!!” scare and published it via the book “Limits To Growth” by Meadows et. al. in the 1970’s complete with the use of bogus computer predictions, oh, pardon, projections…
They have been milking this via subsidy farming and NGO money laundering ever since.
They don’t care if civilization is damaged, as long as they win.
It is easier to herd the masses with fear than reason.

Reply to  BFL
August 6, 2016 12:17 pm

Barry and E. M. Read the ( and watch) an interview with a Muslim that converted to RC and was part of the Brussels crowd on :therebel.media, he has been close to the top and a well respected French citizen ( ex Egyptian with very high connections if half of what he says is true it is worse then you think. ( sorry Barry understand your point of view but reality can be cruel).

Johann Wundersamer
August 4, 2016 7:22 pm

If an army were in possession of more ‘advanced batteries and energy storage technologies’ it would’nt tell that via official paper.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 4, 2016 7:49 pm

True. But they do not. Been there, done that. Got near $3 mil grant on this, 2/3 to ONR– google rail guns as one non-classified hint about what is important. I had no security clearance, so there always a lot of people showing up at our nonclassified energy storage materials meetings with no business cards…

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 4:09 am

Thx!

Johann Wundersamer
August 4, 2016 7:29 pm

This paper only tells ‘we have no clue’. Sigh.

Tom Judd
August 4, 2016 7:38 pm

I wonder if Obama was similarly concerned about the fuel source or climate change impact of the unmarked jet that flew 400 million dollars to Iran; or if that ‘mission’ trumped (he hates it when I use that word) national security?
Yeah, I know, stupid question.

George Tetley
Reply to  Tom Judd
August 5, 2016 11:53 am

Ah, Tom, are you referring to B. Hussein Obama ? in about 3 months we are going to find out about the first Muslim president

August 4, 2016 7:59 pm

ISIS just chuckles at such nonsense. Encourages them.

August 4, 2016 11:50 pm

When reading this, it at first sounds like they are against bio-fuels. But then upon further reading it gets muddled. What are they for, what are they against? I don’t know cause it sounds like legalese…Why don’t they just say what it is they want, or don’t want?
Regards,
Confused.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 5, 2016 12:33 am

JP,
For the future, the Department is pursuing a wide variety of fuel and energy alternatives to promote and maintain a strong national defense, including solar, wind, advanced batteries and energy storage technologies, biofuels, coal-biomass-to-liquids, geothermal, waste-to-energy, and marine energy.
_____________________________________
That’s what the U.S. forces want. Solar and wind. And besides priorities. Too.

Griff
August 5, 2016 12:44 am

US armed forces are one of the larger users of solar power… reduces the amount of diesel you need to ship into a theatre of operations… highly effective.

Marcus
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 2:14 am

…ONLY because Obama forced them too…And mostly on their U.S. bases…

BrianK
Reply to  Marcus
August 5, 2016 9:26 am
BrianK
Reply to  Marcus
August 5, 2016 9:30 am

Furthermore security of power systems has been a goal of military installations for a long time. Putting micro grid plus solar capability within the base boundaries goes a long way toward that goal.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 2:42 am

You do know tanks can run on a variety of liquids that don’t have to be diesel? I have never seen solar powered soldiers, transports, tanks, weapons and munitions. Comms equipment maybe, but in the theater of war you need reliability and you simply do not get that with solar.

Griff
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 5, 2016 5:01 am

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/12/03/marines-and-army-portable-solar-power/
“The Marine Corps’ Renewable Sustainable Expeditionary Power program has just announced an initiative to develop a portable alternative energy system that can ensure a 15-day supply of electricity in the field without the need for any fuel convoys or air drops”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 5, 2016 10:05 pm

You post many links to Cleantechnia, biased much?

catweazle666
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 6, 2016 11:41 am

What’s Santa bringing you this Christmas, Grifter?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Griff
August 5, 2016 10:16 am

Solar is sooooo effective for submarines…..right ?

Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 12:45 am

the top priority is that U.S. forces have the energy they need to get the job done, solar, wind and so on. + some
‘advanced batteries and energy storage technologies’ would be good.

Bohdan Burban
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 12:58 pm

If a bomb is not a form of energy storage, what is?

Roy
August 5, 2016 12:49 am

Chemical explosives release CO2 into the atmosphere and should be banned. Atomic warheads would be greener but we don’t really want a nuclear winter. Back to bows and arrows, swords, spears, lances, battle axes etc. After all, if they were good enough for generals of the calibre of Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar etc. they should be good enough for anyone.

H.R.
Reply to  Roy
August 5, 2016 12:17 pm

Samson was pretty effective using the jawbone of an ass*, Roy. Took out a large number of pesky Philistines with that weapon.
(*Hmmm… didn’t realize there were CAGW advocates back then. History is often incomplete.)

catweazle666
Reply to  Roy
August 6, 2016 11:49 am

How about “Green” propellant systems for nuclear-tipped missiles?
An Evaluation of Green Propellants for an ICBM Post Boost Propulsion System
https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/6323
How nice to know that when we have a nuclear war, at least the missile propellant will be ecologically friendly, isn’t it?

Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 12:59 am

That’s why the Department of Defense is investing in efforts to use less fuel in the first place;
maybe biofuels, if it’s cheaper. And good stuff.

George Tetley
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 11:57 am

Yep”, biofuel ” at $4,500,99 a gallon, sounds about right.

Marcus
August 5, 2016 2:31 am

More hyperventilating at The Weather Network…
“Melting Greenland ice may expose entombed hazardous waste” (from abandoned army base..)
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/melting-greenland-ice-may-expose-entombed-hazardous-waste/70851/

Not Oscar, just a grouch
August 5, 2016 3:21 am

I like the idea of ‘advanced batteries.’ If we can just get the capacity up to high enough levels, we won’t need nukes anymore. Just set a short and throw the batteries at the enemy. Gigajoules are your friends, until they come to visit.
/yep, sarc, just for in case folks can’t figure it out.
Or, . . . is it?
Am I kidding?
Or, am I kidding about kidding?
How recursive would anyone like to get?
Ouroboros, anyone?

Johann Wundersamer
August 5, 2016 3:27 am
Dr. Bob
August 5, 2016 7:16 am

Section 526 started a whole industry effort on evaluation of GHG emissions from all fuel sources. Although directed at Coal-To-Liquids (CTL), it hit oil sands from Canada as well. There are a number of reports on this including work from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) by Ken Kerns and others showing that many crude oils have much higher GHG emissions for processing than the average crude.
(I tried to google some of the references I have on my computer on this, but it seems some have been disappeared from the NETL site.)
What is really interesting is that very thorough analysis of all impacts of ethanol from corn shows that the GHG emissions for EtOH may be higher than for conventional gasoline. One must include all impacts such as albedo change, N2O emissions, fertilizer run off to the Gulf of Mexico creating a 200 mile dead zone of the coast of Mississippi, etc., in the analysis to be complete.
This is a very poorly understood area (GHG emissions from biological sources) and the “science”, if you can call it that, is constantly changing so the results change as well. What was thought to be a good alternative fuel with low GHG emissions is now a poor choice for any number of reasons. But the DOE still funds hundreds of projects that are trying to produce fuels from biomass sources but none are commercially viable.

ossqss
August 5, 2016 7:25 am

Sure seems like disarming via rearming.
Then there is this ………..
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-nuclear-farewell-1470353727

Resourceguy
August 5, 2016 7:45 am

Here is another use of robots and automation. Set them in motion spewing propaganda nonsense while going about the real work of national defense. That will solve it and further confuse the North Korean missile offensive teams.