Comments on: Military Seeks Fuel Efficiency With Ships and Electric Vehicles

By: Will Woodman

Will Woodman — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:21:33 +0000

In retrospect, it is no surprise that the Navy managed to “save” $79 million in fuel costs during these two quarters. Even the Navy is struggling with a budget in these turbulent financial times. A quick comparison to previous quarters will reflect that fewer ships made fewer deployments, and overall steaming-time was much shorter. Obiously, this will result in lower fuel expenses. A better, or at least less incomplete, comparison would be between total fuel expenditure against total running time for all ships.
This article is just another reflection upon the dangers of statistics.

By: Lani Allen

Lani Allen — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:19:50 +0000

I agree with Tony, but I’d like to propose that some new definitions of the word SAVE are in order, or rather for this word to not be used when it is trying to explain a concept. Case in point, This article has “The new fuels are expected to save 11.5 million gallons of gas per year.” Save is to put away for later. Clearly what this sentence is saying is that ‘ 11.5 MILLION GALLONS WILL NOT BE PURCHASED. ‘ NOT PURCHASED is not the same as SAVE. Anytime SAVE is used to describe paying less money, it is a twisting of the actually meaning of the word. We all have advertising executives to thank for this mixing up and confusion of the word save. Think about it.

By: Tony Cable

Tony Cable — Sun, 24 May 2009 10:23:06 +0000

It’s good to see the military taking energy use seriously. It also shows that everyone benefits by these efficiencies. Not only do they save money but presumably they extend the range and availability of the vessels.
The taxpayer saves money too and foreign imports are reduced. Everybody wins.