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."
and the carrier will be powered by organically grown uranium
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.
It seems unlikely that the navy has any particular interest in doing this as a cost saving measure(especially in the near term); and a much greater interest in knowing that they have the option of doing this in the relatively likely event that they'll be called to do something when one or more oil producing regions go further to hell than usual and prices and availability reflect that.
If they happen to save money at some point, so much the better; but the enthusiasm is presumably for being able to set sail with a tested fuel even if the usual supply chains are shot. Plus, testing it in ships is probably a convenient starting point. Big marine engines are less touchy than fighter aircraft or the like.
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.
Damn tree huggin communist hippies! Make love and war! :)
This started as a cost saving measure when oil was above $100 a barrel. However as Afghanistan wore on and the Taliban would target the fuel tankers that provided the fuel for the generators of american bases, knowing that if they could disrupt those they could take out the base. The navy began to have a second thought.
If a Naval Ship could gather enough algae from the ocean it could create it's own diesel. While not self sufficient it would help alleviate supply logistics that only deployed personnel have. Food can be air dropped, so can bullets, but you can't air drop fuel very safely. It would extend the range of aircraft carriers and other ships significantly.
And that is the real reason for the biofuel push. When you hear about war, you think guns and tanks and planes. You don't think about where the bullets, food, and fuel those things need every day come from and how they get to the battlefield.
A tank requires a lot of fuel. a couple hundred miles is a lot of ground to cover but if you are 50 miles from base and run out of gas in hostile country it is a long walk back,
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
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...
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.
Of course a ship could run on algae -- of you don't mind 16 year transit times from Norfolk to Key West. One suspects that sails would be more reliable and faster.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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
I would assume that, at least for anything large enough, they'd want to go nuclear-navy unless otherwise pressed. That's certainly the most mature option; and if they ever get their lasers and railguns working they aren't exactly going to need less energy in the future.
That said, both the army and the navy would probably be interested if you could get a small hydrocracking/reforming apparatus, sturdy enough for field use with a variety of assorted lipids, for on-site synthesis of fuels in a pinch. No matter how optimistic you are about either classic nuclear, contemporary 'renewables', or both, it's pretty hard to beat hydrocarbons for things like aviation.
Nothing wrong with sails for commerce if the economics work. Conceptually at least, wind powered freighters might eventually require neither an engine nor a crew except maybe to get into or out of port. It'll be a few decades before something like that can be deployed though.
The military however, is prone to impatience. I doubt we'll see headlines like US INVASION OF MADAGASCAR DELAYED BY UNFAVORABLE WINDS any time soon.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
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
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.
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