This is great news. A giant step. When the navy says they're going to do something they're not just blowing smoke. I just don't know where they're going to find that much green fuel by 2020. The navy is a huge consumer of fuel.

"save us 127,000 barrels of fuel per plane per year, amounting to $15 million per plane per year at today’s fuel prices."

This is an astonishing number and does not involve nuclear power. Navy planes take LOTS of fuel and using alternatives can reduce the oil used in a major way. I am glad the Navy is doing this, the other branches of the armed forces need to do the same ASAP.

Crude price has not gone up 20% to %40 lately. The USD relative real value has gone down 20% to 40%.

Crude price in Euro or in $ CAN (and many other currencies) has not changed much while it has gone up from $50 USD to $75 USD.

Assuming that the current trend continues for another 6 to 24 months, crude may go up another 20% to 40% in USD without realy going up. One Euro may be worth $2 USD within a few months/years.

The current financial disaster is progressively taking its toll on the USD. A 50 + % devalued USD may not be that bad for USA's economy. It would effectively reduce most of the current high (foreign) Fed debts by 50%. It would also help export of all USA made goods and services since they would be 50% cheaper. The $76/hr paid to Big-3 workers would in reality become competitive at $38/hr in 2007 $.

On the other hand, all imported goods and services would cost twice as much, making locally made goods more competitive.

An overly devalued USD may provoke worldwide commercial and financial stress and require more recovery and stabilization programs.

In the longer run, lower USD value = lower standards of living. That's when the grudge will multiply.

Wonder if US overpaid bankers, and the previous Administration, realized that their doings would provoke such a chain reaction.

Yes and a devalued dollar will no longer be the reserve currency for settling international debt payments. It will also be a disaster for retirees on fixed income. It may even come to pass that the green back will be scrapped and replaced by a new currency so that everyone will be made poorer overnight.

Think Argentina in the 1980s.

Good move that I got out of dollar denominated assets sometime ago.

ejj,

I believe you are correct, the navy is thinking of expanding its fleet of nuclear powered ships to reduce its carbon footprint. The navy does not currently have any nuclear ships other than carriers and subs.

Congress passed a directive that all future large combat vessels should be nuclear powered. In response to this, the navy started planning a nuclear heavy destroyer series. It was actively pursuing this before the economy hit the toilet. The economy will probably cause a multiyear delay in this program if it doesn't sink it altogether.

Bill

Naval Task Force Energy appreciates the comments and attention to our recent energy forum. To learn more about our efforts toward energy efficiency and alternative fuels, please follow us on Facebook at http://tinyurl.com/yh8kffs and on Twitter @NavalEnergy

Very wise move by the US Navy! By 2015, automakers will start putting out FCV's run on H2. The USN can be among the first bulk purchasers, helping to jumpstart this technology. Imagine this: Portable Nuclear reactors or ship-borne reactors brought to the operational theater will produce H2 near the point of consumption for these vehicles, eliminating all the expenses of handling gasoline and diesel all the thousands of miles, hence a significant cost saving in the fuel budget. In desert areas, a large collection of solar panels can also produce some or all of the H2 needed for military operation.

Another plus: Compressed H2 tank is practically bullet proof, making military FCV's even safer than current petroleum-burning vehicles.

Eij, I have lived in several of the countries you mention and believe me, the vast majority of the population wants US forces OUT. Americans are so delusional! Well it's not so surprising considering the crap you are fed by the US media (with a few exceptions, e.g. NYT). Read Backlash by Chalmers Johnson, an American, to learn why having such a large presence overseas and intervening in the internal affairs of countless countries actually HURTS America.

I think this is a great idea, if for only two reasons: setting an example for the rest of the country, and saving money for fuel. And that latter won't be only in the fleets; think of all the shore-based naval installations and their not-inconsiderable fuel demands.

I also like the sea change in military thinking, and that doesn't apply only to the Navy. Recall how our high command resisted increasing airpower after WWI (such as putting impossible requirements on General Billy Mitchell when he was trying to persuade the brass to expand aviation assest). Or the thinking of calvary officers in the 1930's, who ruled the day; they mocked armor. (Patton taught them the error of their ways, with a helping hand from Rommel.)

Today, the military is leading the way, and doing so in so *many* ways. Look at the stuff coming out of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) -- the Skunk Works of the armed forces.

The *only* point at which I paused was when the Secretary made the point that fuel savings would allow the Navy to buy another aircraft. As a taxpayer, that's fine by me -- as long as there is a strategic need to *buy* another aircraft in the first place.

BTW, some have made a point of saying the best way to save is to stay home. In the first place, a Fortress America is about as dangerous a possibility imaginable. In the second place, as others have already noted, we *do* leave when asked. I live in Thailand, where there was a large U.S. military presence during the Vietnam War. After that ended, the Thais wanted us out -- and we left. (Not me personally; I've never been in the military, though had I been, Vietnam would have been my war.)

I hadn't known about the Secretary's speech, so was glad to read this.