$3 a gallon is what the fuel costs today when it comes straight out of the ground. Claiming to be able to build and run a nuclear reactor and then synthesize the fuel through multiple energy inefficient steps all for the same price is a pipe dream.
It's not competing against the price straight out of the ground; it's competing against fuel that's been refined and delivered to a moving ship somewhere potentially very far away. Instead of $3 a gallon, it could be up to 10X more.
And, dollar cost of the fuel is not the only cost of maintaining a "long supply tail." There's also the dollar cost of all the ships and sailors on that tail, and there's the logistical opportunity costs: we have to protect that tail with military resources that might otherwise have gone to more directly military purposes, and the head of the tail (the military activity at the front) is held back and slowed down by a "heavier" supply tail.
This doesn't eliminate the tail (we still have to deliver ammunition, lubricating oil, food etc. to the fleet) and it doesn't eliminate replenishment at sea (we still have to get that stuff from supply vehicles to ships), but it does lighten the supply load and create more military options.
Exactly. Less replenishment means more flexibility.
Lots of people killed by IEDs on long supply lines in Afghanistan is an extreme example of the human and military costs. Some of those died to fuel A/C for uninsulated tents... madness.
The amount of energy needed to refine crude oil is much less than the energy it takes to synthesize it. Think about it: people refine the crude, transport it, and use the end product in an energy net positive manner. To synthesize hydrocarbon fuel, you need to put in at least the amount of energy you're going to store, and with current technology probably 2 times as much at least due to inefficiencies. Then you need to still account for building and running the nuclear reactor. Try to imagine the systems as a whole, the number of steps and losses at each step. The scheme does not make sense.
1) uranium -> nuclear power -> expensive synthesis -> local transport -> fuel
Asking me to imagine a system as a whole doesn't prove your argument.
Instead of the energy system, consider the cost of military supply lines. There's more than the financial cost of delivery; long supply lines are vulnerable to attack and disruption. You don't need to imagine an example: consider IEDs in Afghanistan. Many of those were trucks delivering food and fuel to bases. Efficiency (i.e. insulating tents so less fuel is needed for A/C) results in less deliveries and less deaths.
The same principle applies at sea. Oil ships are a vulnerability and another thing to plan, as well as a major cost that can be more important than the energy efficiency issues.
I missed the part where you brought the argument back to the military. Yes, it makes sense for the military, as I acknowledged in my original post. The Parent, however was claiming that electric cars for general use are made moot by this technology, which is certainly not the case.
