This morning's article in NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/business/energy-environment/25fuel.html?emc=eta1) cites a document from the RAND Corporation making very provocative statements (see some highlights below). What do you think?
"...The United States would derive no meaningful military benefit from increased use of alternativefuels to power its jets, ships and other weapons systems, according to a government-commissionedstudy by the RAND Corporation scheduled for release Tuesday...
"...The report also argued that most alternative-fuel technologies were unproven, too expensive or toofar from commercial scale to meet the military’s needs over the next decade.In particular, ..."
"...the report argued that the Defense Department was spending too much time andmoney exploring experimental biofuels derived from sources like algae or the flowering plantcamelina, and that more focus should be placed on energy efficiency as a way of combating greenhouse gas emissions..."
Read and comment!