Slashdot Mirror
Biofuels Will Power Navy's Next Deployment (sandiegouniontribune.com)
mdsolar writes with news about the launch of the "Great Green Fleet," part of a Navy plan to use 50% alternative fuels by 2020. The San Diego Union-Tribune reports: "This Wednesday, there surely will be tears, hugs and excitement as sailors begin another deployment to the world's hotspots. On the surface, it will be a replay of a common occurrence in any Navy town when sailors go to sea, but in the ships' gas tanks will be fuel made from renewable resources that has officials back at the Pentagon exuberant. 'Underway on beef-fat power' might not have the same ring as 'Underway on nuclear power,' the historic message the Nautilus submarine beamed when it left the pier 61 years ago today. Nonetheless, the Navy is trumpeting the use of renewable biofuels as a game-changer. In 2009, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus announced that the Navy and Marine Corps would get half of their power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020, and that the Navy would deploy an entire carrier strike group using biofuels by 2016."
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil...
And our navy locks in bio diesel.
Let's see how long that resolve lasts, now that the US oil price dropped to 1.50$ at some point yesterday.
and the carrier will be powered by organically grown uranium
Yeah, that sounds real ecological. Last time I looked, you had to clear a lot of land for that stuff.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That kind of thermodynamic and/or economic efficiency never even enters into the equation. A navy dependent on a cheap globalized oil is a navy that is entirely useless when the shit hits the fan..
Used to be that USA and Saudi Arabia were allies of necessity. Not so much anymore. Once the US can project power without risk of getting strangled by OPEC they are no longer a necessary ally, only a convenient one.
I guess Obama telegraphed this message early on in his presidency when he gave that speech in the middle east where he basically said the US would no longer prop up leaders that are not supported by their people.
My theory is that China and the US looked at the projections for 20 years ahead: Oil production would no longer be able to keep up with demand at that point. So time to make the change, and screw over Russia while they were at it. No longer having to prop up a cluster of corrupt despots who desperately tried to hold back the future with guns and bribes is a nice bonus. ISIS and Al Qaida is basically what USA reaps from that :(
The reason that we have all of those ships in the first place is to have the option to use them, if needed. Here, the Navy is creating the option of sourcing fuel from domestic, non-petroleum sources. Add to that the building of the infrastructure and development of efficient techniques of production for military and domestic use, and you've got nothing but gravy (which is not quite a biofuel...)
So long as the admiralty keeps the options of nuclear and petroleum fuels as alternatives, I expect this will benefit far more than it will cost.
So long as they help keep oil cheap it is unlikely that they'll be edged out of the market; but that's one of the problems for a lot of the petrostates(not just middle eastern, Venezuela is having a hell of a time with this issue right now): if the product is too expensive, customers have an incentive to leave; but if it stays cheap enough to be attractive, you no longer have the same amount of money to spend on whatever mixture of guns and butter keeps you in office.
It's not entirely clear that Malaysian palm-oil barons will be any less unpleasant; but it'll be a change of scenery.
You think the USA hasn't: The USA had a civil war in the 1860s, it had the civil rights conflicts in the 1960s. It's the same thing with the difference being; holding "back the future" is way more effective under a dictator or a theocracy.
This was predicted in the 1950s but was continuously suppressed. The 1970s showed what almost-the-end of oil would be like but no government had a practical plan for it. GW Bush promoted fracking for his own benefit as much as for the hope of oil independence. It's ability to deliver was always questionable but now OPEC is undercutting its own market to ensure fracking isn't used.
Al Qaida was created by the Russian-Afghan war and empowered by the US abruptly withdrawing support for the war. ISIS exists because the USA wages war for profit (See 'War is a racket') or revenge, not actual empire-building. Imperialism requires the invading force to give back to the conquered lands, so peace and stability ensues. The USA gave Iraq an unreliable electrical grid and a collapsing political class: That did not foster stability so when problems from other countries spilled into Iraq, the country was unable to fight. That's how the USA is responsible for ISIS.
No longer having to prop up a cluster of corrupt despots ...
Did you see the earlier Slashdot article about Djibouti? The USA is moving to a flying (literally as well as the "rapid response" meaning) "assassination bureau" to protect its overseas 'interests'. Whether such policies will be used for regime-change or defense of corporate assets is an important question.
This further secures the Obama legacy as being forward thinking. By cutting ties with America's enemies who planned and executed 9/11. Obama has freed America to do deals with Iran which will now put the hurt on Saudi Arabia. About time those bastards paid for their crimes. Better to ally with Iran's secular population and conservative religious government, than remain allied with Saudi Arabia's Crazy Jihadist population and soon to be jihadist government. Just look at the Saudi foreign minister to see how messed up Saudi Arabia is becoming.
Yup, gasoline is currently less than 2$ at the pump. Thank $DEITY we didn't have to elect Newt Gingrich to make that happen :-P
Really how did they get around congress?
http://www.wired.com/2012/05/r...
Using whale oil would be much better - they could collect more while at sea.
Damn tree huggin communist hippies! Make love and war! :)
I wonder why the type of fuel is not mentioned. That would seem to be the key point in such an announcement. Maybe the Navy has found a way to capture all of the hot air that Trump is exhaling.
Brazil too. Here the newspapers (ferociously pro-US) are trying to use the low price of oil as a reason for the public oil company give up the pre-salt exploration and deliver (for pennies of course) the fields for American companies.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Except the military has to think beyond what the price is today to what availability will be tomorrow.
The biofuel concept didn't happen overnight. In January 2007, President Bush called for a sharp increase in the use of biofuels during his State of the Union address.
I wouldn't be surprised if the military planning went back even farther.
It wasn't that long ago that oil was ~$100/barrel and I saw some articles that said the DOD was having to move things around in the budget to cover billions in fuel costs. It also doesn't help that one big hurricane in the gulf can shut down a large percentage of US oil refining capability (see: Katrina).
Sure, biofuels are probably more expensive but if the market is less volatile and production is better covered by allies then it makes sense for the military to explore that option to protect itself from a middle east oil and as a buffer until we can develop something better.
We're obviously not going to be able to use oil from the ground forever...
s/middle east oil/middle east oil bust/
Don't know about biofuels, but there are proposals and some development work going on along these lines which actually do help the fleet. The reason for that is simple: you know which is the most valuable and important ship in the fleet? The aircraft carrier? The guided missile cruisers? The landing craft? Nope, it's the ugly, lowly oiler. Unless these ships are successful in their mission, the entire fancy multi-billion dollar fleet grinds to a halt within a week. You don't see spots on them being promoted in military advertising, but the oiler is really the centerpiece. When the fleet is out, all the oiler does is continuously hop around the carrier battle group while everybody sucks on its pipe like a total addict. And once the oiler is out, it's in a mad dash to the nearest middle eastern port for a refill and a mad dash back to the fleet. Without a continuous supply of fuel (and the fleet goes through *lots* of it), all your carrier escort ships stop and all flight activity stops. Essentially, at that point the fleet is useless, a victory to the enemy without a single shot fired.
So the new idea is at least partially solving this problem by synthesizing fuels directly in deployment. The carrier has plenty of nuclear power. At the very least, in theory, this can be used to synthesize jet fuel and keep the air superiority. This could help significantly lower the burden on the supply line to the fleet and thus increase the fleet's combat effectiveness. Current problems involve cost, buying fossil fuels is just too cheap. But it will not remain so forever.
Biofuel is not replacing nuclear. According to the article, carbon-neutral biofuel is replacing fossil oil in the same engines.
Deciding on the infrastructure for a military naval fleet based on today's price of oil is pretty darn stupid. I hope you're not making any decisions bigger than whether to mop the floor counter clockwise or clockwise.
I don't respond to AC's.
Yes. The US Navy in particular has an oil sensitivity since it and the Coast Guard cannot use JP-8. JP-8 doesn't meet SOLAS requirements (fuel vaporizes north of 100 F, which creates fire hazards on ships where you can't "run away"). The added insult/ concern is the F76 for the ships and JP-5 for the aircraft both cost more than JP-8 due to being specialized for maritime military services only.
The previous F-18 flight on "Green fuel" was the proving point for JP-5, since it is more expensive than F76 and air safety proofing is harder / more expensive than for ships (the LM-2500 turbines are capable of burning just about anything-not-solid, even if it's not a good safety fit).
SECNAV Mabus has been trying for the Green Strike Group for years. The original goal was around 2012. Keep in mind to do this the actually putting of the fuel in the ship is easy. The fuel infrastructure at Craney Island, Souda Bay, etc. to be configured and certified to hold the fuel, receive from various green fuel suppliers (many of who's yearly output was not enough to fill the tanks of a cruiser as of 2012), etc. Add in fleet oilers to the system certification mix and it was actually a pretty big undertaking.
[Disclaimer, did research on GSG for the Navy awhile back]
Because the US doesn't have PLENTY of sources of oil that it can ramp up quite quickly to meet demand nor the purchasing power to ensure more than a 5 year supply for the Navy should fecal matter impact the rotary impeller if production needs to ramp up. Oh wait, it does and you're a fucking moron. This is ENTIRELY a political stunt for idiots like yourself to ooh and ahh at like the trained monkeys you are.
Biodiesel is pretty close to mineral diesel wrt to energy density. And it'll burn in a diesel engine. What might be a problem is that although many of its properties are very similar to the mineral stuff, it's not identical chemically. Biodiesel is a mixture of vegetable fats whereas the mineral stuff is mostly straight chain hydrocarbons. The vegetable fats tend to gel when cold and tend to form varnishes when left on surfaces. Those are not necessarily desirable qualities in emergency equipment that may be unused or lightly used for long periods of time, but are expected to work reliably when called into service.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
You are an idiot who understands nothing about the way photosynthesis works if you think the carbon content of farmed crops is coming from the fertilizer.
Not to mention the fact that industrial scale fertilizers are composed of inorganic phosphate and nitrate salts which by definition contain no carbon whatsoever.
If it's beef fat as stated in TFS then it's hardly carbon neutral... but it might smell nice...
Are you cooking a steak or is there a Frigate in your pants?
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Every war we avoid through better logistics saves blood and treasure.
Fossil fuels aren't a renewable resource. Eventually they will get pretty expensive. Further, while the Romans or Incas or the Zhou dynasty could probably have run their societies on biofuels had they known how to build diesel engines, it seems unlikely that our overpopulated planet can grow enough fuel plants to run modern industrial societies. If we're going to grow our fuels, I think we're gonna need a bigger planet.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Cows don't eat fossil fuel. They eat grass that is fresh or which grew recently, absorbing carbon from the air. In the path from grass through cow to biofuel, the carbon that is finally released is recent carbon, not fossil carbon.
I know we are more in a posture to hunt down terrorists these days, but having the option to destroy rather than capture enemy controlled oil fields owing to strategic oil independence means an easier slog in the more traditional strategic posture. Always winning the last war faster is not a bad contingency to cover.
OP says mod parent up.
> Currently making biofuels from corn takes more energy (in planting, harvesting, pesticides, fertilizers, transport and manufacture) than it produces, so there's o benefit for the enviroment and doesn't reduce the amount of co2 produced, it increases it.
Close enough. Some corn ethanol has a small positive energy yield. Some is negative. Depends on crop yield. Either way corn ethanol looks to be more of a crop subsidy than a planetary salvation.
Biodiesel is, I'm pretty sure, better because it doesn't require an energy intensive distillation step. But I suspect that the numbers are probably pretty grim.
Filtering then burning used cooking oil in a diesel engine looks to be genuinely green. But how much used cooking oil can even Americans generate?
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Yes, and the low density of the production will make it much more difficult to obtain amounts needed without significant transportation effort to concentrate sufficient amounts.
So, they will switch from bombing oil wells to pipelines and rail junctions. Of course, they probably would hit those anyway.
Using food byproduct as fuel has had a very iffy record. I'm not against using meat oil or cow farts to run things, but it is definitely not the most efficient use of a military budget.
Seems to me that if they are hitting targets in the U.S., the Navy is pretty much out of the picture.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Seriously, all of our destroyers should be nuke powered. Smaller ships and boats that get in close to shore should remain non-nuke. But, Destroyers are going to head towards electric weapons, so all of them should be able to have excess electricity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, disregarding all the energy it takes to raise a cow, turn a into a nice steak or burger, and store and transport the finished product, there are other factors:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/opinions/sutter-beef-suv-cliamte-two-degrees
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
but liquid hydrocarbons are. You can make them from air, water, and enough energy to put in.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It used to me that the navy was about winning wars. Now it's about saving the planet with the fruitcakes running the country now. Build more nuclear warships!
Part of winning wars involves protecting one's supply chain. Biofuels make us less dependent on foreign sources. The more we use domestically sourced the better for the military and the trucks that bring food to your local grocery store.
Nuclear power is not practical for "smaller" ships. The US Navy experimented with nuclear power cruisers and found the cost of operation to be too high.
The Navy's interest in biofuels is not about being "green", its about better national security. The "green" part is just part of the PR campaign to sell the idea to the public. For the military to truly switch to biofuels a lot more money, research and infrastructure will be needed. That requires public support.
What difference does it make if it is 'recent carbon' or 'fossil carbon'...carbon is carbon is carbon...
Its about increasing the carbon in the atmosphere. Atmospheric carbon goes into plants, this carbon eventually finds its way into fuel, its burned and returned to the atmosphere, no net gain. Unlike when the carbon is sourced from petroleum removed and sequestered from the atmosphere for millions of years. When this sequestered carbon is burned there is a net increase in the atmosphere. In this respect not all carbon is the same, some carbon increases our atmospheric problems, some carbon does not.
Oil wells are strategic targets. That's why Rommel was in Africa.
Actually Rommel was in Africa to save Mussolini. The real strategic target for oil for Germany was the Soviet Union's fields at Baku.
Feedlots may end up being harder to capture or destroy.
Biofuel from food industry waste is probably only enough for these demonstrations, not ongoing operations. For ongoing operational needs of the US military we will probably need biofuel production infrastructure, for example facilities where algae are excreting fuel. Burgers and fries will only get us so far. While there would still be industrial targets they would be domestic, not industrial facilities across the oceans, not commercial oil tankers upon the ocean.
The carriers will still be nuclear, but many of the support ships aren't. Those are the ones they're switching over.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
So... the US military should wait until it DOESN'T have that safety net, before starting down the road of weaning itself off oil?
Reducing dependence on oil (foreign or domestic... they will both eventually run dry) is in the US's long term strategic interests. Period.
If you're arguing against that, you're simply not thinking long term enough.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Feedlots require significant energy inputs to operate. You didn't think all the corn and animal byproducts fed to the cattle were being grown on a small manually operated farm, did you? Did you think the tractors were solar powered? That the industrial fertilizers and pesticides were produced without usage of vast amounts of petroleum? Did you think that trucking that stuff across the country was done without fuel usage? Seriously, how exactly do you think feedlots operate?
Only I can judge you.
because will never ever go back up in price.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm afraid I've got some bad news.
It's a terminal case of acute ODS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No because biofuels will always be problematic
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...
It's the exact same reason the Germans turned to synfuels during WWII.
You wouldn't hit the feedlots but the refineries where the biodiesel is created. There would be a lot fewer of them. You would do the same thing with traditional oil refineries too.
Good thought, though ISIS seems to have a workaround.