backtop

Print 32 comment(s) - last by ayat101.. on Sep 14 at 10:02 AM
The U.S. Navy is testing several different biofuels

The U.S. Navy is interested in powering fighter jets and ship engines using biofuels ranging from algae to oilseeds. Navy tests involving coal and natural gas have been carried out for several years, as Navy officials are working alongside private contractors to iron out bugs.

"These are probably the tip of the iceberg in terms of future procurements," said Frank Pane, Defense Energy Support Center director, who spoke with the AP.  "There's great interest within the (Defense) Department in alternative fuels and renewable energy."

In addition to reducing the Navy's dependence of imported oil, it would also help the military branch reduce its carbon footprint.  Contracts related to military biofuels -- totaling more than $11 million -- have been awarded to two companies already, with additional funds expected to be dished out.

Several commercial airliners also are testing biofuels -- even though it'd be cheaper than traditional fuel, there are still major performance concerns related to biofuel.  Even so, researchers continue to maximize performance output while at the same time reducing cost of production.

The U.S. Navy will test biofuels and compare them to conventional fuels at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, it was reported.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Considering...
By MrBlastman on 9/10/2009 10:32:29 AM , Rating: 5
How much fuel a conventional fighter such as an F-16 can burn just from takeoff to reach a cruise altitude of 25,000 ft--1000 lbs to 1500 lbs of fuel depending on the slope, rate of ascent and loadout, this makes total sense. These planes use an astronomical amount of fuel to keep us safe.

Algae based fuels make sense.

1. Input Water
2. Agitate Algae while it is exposed to sunlight
3. ???
4. Profit

The best part is when cars combust the fuel, water vapor is created along with CO2--which is absorbed again by the algae. Battery power might be feasible someday, but algae based fuels can help us now (with a little more research and could be a lot less resource intensive). Coupled with Nuclear power and we have a real win on our hands.




RE: Considering...
By HotFoot on 9/10/2009 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 3
I really hope this works out on a massive, economic scale. The more I learn about alternatives, the more I come to appreciate liquid chemical energy.


RE: Considering...
By Nfarce on 9/10/2009 11:09:19 AM , Rating: 4
Turbine engines can run on a lot of different kinds of fuels - even alcohol. However, each type of fuel puts different part wear characteristics from residues left behind in the combustion chamber(s) as well as valves, hoses, and other internal fuel transfer parts. Each type of fuel also reacts differently to altitude and temperature (especially low temperature) variations.

There are a lot of things to be worked out long term, not the least of which is the scale of algae farms needed to meed demand. With Russia claiming the north pole as their drilling refuge and China buying up more and more oil, we need to give alternatives serious consideration, not just for some sort of foot print reduction, but for national security.


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/10/2009 11:46:44 AM , Rating: 4
I imagine that you can control the type of oils produced by the algae by choosing/engineering the species and/or refining the fuel. Of course this requires research, testing and accumulated experience to bring it up to industrial level production. It's good to see more groups are starting to do research into algae.

In addition algae may also be a good FOOD CROP. Even if people do not want to eat it, it can be used as animal feed for livestock or even fish farms... leaving more traditional crops for human consumption.

THE ONLY thing I can not understand is why FAR MORE research is not being done into algae for BOTH fuel and food production? Anyone?


RE: Considering...
By Lord 666 on 9/10/2009 12:03:54 PM , Rating: 1
Or why the US government continues to fund $3billion in ethanol subsidies per year?

Those farmers can easily convert from corn to algae for their source of income. Fuel is much more profitable than food; algae based products will become the new black gold aka green gold.

Making a home brew version of this shouldn't be that hard. If I can fuel my TDI with this without hardware conversions (VW only supports 5% or B5) it should easily pay for itself after 3 months.


RE: Considering...
By Motoman on 9/10/2009 12:27:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Those farmers can easily convert from corn to algae for their source of income.


...somehow I don't see Iowa becoming the world's biggest swimming pool to grow algae. I have a feeling they'll probably keep growing corn and use it for food purposes instead of fuel.


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/10/2009 12:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
... ponds are not the only way to grow algae. Instead think transparent tubes filled with water, exposed to sunlight and fed with appropriate gases and nutrients... aka "Algae Bio-Reactor".

Though I guess it is unknown at this point if shallow sea water fed ponds absorbing CO2 directly from the air, located somewhere close to an ocean, or the more intensive and portable Bio-Reactors are a better economic bet. Hence the research is needed...


RE: Considering...
By Lord 666 on 9/10/2009 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a good link showing how its done vertically - http://science.howstuffworks.com/algae-biodiesel3....

Another picture showing the scale - http://www.electricitybook.com/algae-biodiesel/alg...


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/10/2009 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yep :)

Is anyone even testing this for food production? Even if it is for animal feed?

All I have heard of is that the bio-mass left over after oil extraction contains sugars and proteins that can be used for food or animal feed, i.e. just a PURE speculation, no mention of anyone even working on such a system.


RE: Considering...
By drmo on 9/10/2009 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
"Is anyone even testing this for food production? Even if it is for animal feed?"

Solazyme, one of the companies making the fuel is:
http://www.solazyme.com/market/nutritionals


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/11/2009 2:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks. A good thing to keep an eye out for. In a few more years, we are going to have another market driven "food supply crisis".


RE: Considering...
By elis on 9/11/2009 7:19:07 AM , Rating: 1
Can't believe it hasn't been said yet, but... SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!


RE: Considering...
By Motoman on 9/10/2009 2:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
...my point being that corn farmers are not going to "switch" from growing corn to growing algae. Corn farmers will continue to grow corn. They're not going to convert fertile farmland to any algae-production facility of any kind.

Do this stuff in areas where the land isn't conducive to traditional crops. Don't waste cropland on it.


RE: Considering...
By JediJeb on 9/11/2009 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, put this in the desert where there is plenty of sunlight and warmth to grow it. If it is alge that grows in sea water that could be pumped in without having to be desalinated, and probably recycled so there wouldn't be a very large water demand overall.

Leave the crop land for growing crops, and that also means stop building houses and WalMarts on it too. Yes, we have way more crop land now than we need, but you never know when you might need it in the future, and it would be difficult to turn parking lots back into good farmland.


RE: Considering...
By MrBlastman on 9/10/2009 12:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is such a horrible waste of time, our money, and our economy. :(

The only way makes any sense is with pure waste product as the production means--but even then I'd still rather have algae making the oil. It is absolutely amazing what they make using corn byproducts and waste products. Enough so that using any of it for ethanol is silly and a drain on our economy.


RE: Considering...
By JediJeb on 9/11/2009 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it isn't that bad because it only removes the sugars from the corn to make the ethanol in a traditional manner. You still have the celluose and proteins left over and the normal waste from a distillary is great animal feed. The corn oil is also a waste product from ethanol production that can still be used. Really the only product you would be losing would be corn syrup because the sugar is gone.

Also none of the corn used to make the ethanol is the type of corn that you would find in cans or frozen in the grocery store. That is sweet corn, not the field corn used for other corn products. People would probably even be healthier if we used the corn to make ethanol for fuel instead of the high fructose corn syrup that is added to most food.

Another thing that irks me is it seems people want farmers to just produce cheap food for them to eat, not caring if the farmers can make a living doing that or not. If is as if farmers would be traitors to mankind if they wanted to make more money selling crops for fuel instead of for food. Do farmers not have the right to better themselves? Or are they voluntary slaves to the rest of the world simply existing to provide us with cheap food?

Just remember, farmers are businessmen. If tomorrow it becomes unprofitable to be a farmer, they could all quit and take different jobs and we would be left without food. It is not a bad thing that some of what is considered "food" is used for fuel. It just might be what helps keep the food on our plates affordable for a long time to come.


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/14/2009 10:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, pay the farmers properly. Though, I think the point in this argument is that the food contains costs additional to what the farmer gets paid for crops. Transport and distribution can be a larger part of what we pay for food than the price the farmer gets. THOSE additional costs should be minimised.

The second point is that subsidies should be eliminated as they distort the market, making it more profitable to grow certain crops for certain purposes than they should be. If it is more proftiable for farmers to grow crops for fuel WITHOUT subsidies, by all means, they should be able to do it.


RE: Considering...
By Bateluer on 9/10/2009 12:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Likely because firms with financial interest in oil and petroleum products contribute funds so this research does not occur or occurs very slowly.


RE: Considering...
By werepossum on 9/10/2009 12:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Likely because firms with financial interest in oil and petroleum products contribute funds so this research does not occur or occurs very slowly.

I hope this is sarcasm. You can fund research or not fund research, but you can't anti-fund research. That would require suborning all possible funding entities. If that seems plausible to you, I suggest investing in a better grade of tin foil when making your next hat.

Excellent point on using waste, MrBlastman. Ultimately we'll have to do such dual-purpose projects, so starting now is the smart thing to do, and waste nitrogen is exactly what algae needs.


RE: Considering...
By ayat101 on 9/10/2009 12:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
What about GREED?

Pure simple take over of the oil market for anyone who develops, patents, and properly markets this technology? For that matter what about the take over of a large section of the food production market? In the long run we are talking about MOUNTAINS of money possible with this technology...

... I thought the free market was supposed to address this issues? Why block this technology if you can use it to make LOTS of money and help the world at the same time?


RE: Considering...
By drmo on 9/10/2009 2:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
"THE ONLY thing I can not understand is why FAR MORE research is not being done into algae for BOTH fuel and food production? Anyone? "

At least one of the companies funded in this research is doing both fuel and food production research: Solazyme.


RE: Considering...
By inperfectdarkness on 9/10/2009 8:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
one more point to consider...

a fuels change in our turbine engines (away from jp8) means we'll have to re-configure the entire fleet. not only are the burn characteristics going to be different (wear, maintaince, etc) but there's also a performance factor involved.

i'm not just talking about overall lbs of thrust or thrust/weight ratio. if existing engines can't be configured to run smokeless on new fuels--we've got a serious handicap in aerial combat.


Once again
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2009 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
What the military is doing makes more sense than what the federal governments stance on the matter is.




RE: Once again
By kattanna on 9/10/2009 1:13:24 PM , Rating: 1
i actually wouldnt mind if the nations power infrastructure was brought under military control. i mean after all, there is no other resource we have that is fundamentally more important then power.

first thing, build large GW level nuclear plants on every base. then we would have enough extra power to ensure clean water for all by desalinating water.

energy is our friend.. not the enemy.


RE: Once again
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2009 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't go that far. But privately run nuclear plants on military bases would be awesome since the excess power could be sold to the surrounding area. And with it being built on a military base, you can probably get around a lot of the rules for bullsh*t environmental impact studies. Maybe not though.


RE: Once again
By Spuke on 9/10/2009 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And with it being built on a military base, you can probably get around a lot of the rules for bullsh*t environmental impact studies. Maybe not though.
Nope. It's more stringent because the military doesn't like to just meet requirements.


RE: Once again
By Graviton on 9/10/2009 8:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
We don't want to distract the military with such things at this time. Our first priority must be to close the mine shaft gap.


RE: Once again
By sinful on 9/13/2009 6:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
i actually wouldnt mind if the nations power infrastructure was brought under military control. i mean after all, there is no other resource we have that is fundamentally more important then power.


The military = run by the government, so having the military in charge of the power infrastructure would be socialism.

Instead, we should just let the free market sort it out. If it makes sense to move all our energy production to China/Iran/etc, then let's do that - whatever's cheapest.

I mean, that's what we do with our oil, so why not?


There's a lot of Dessert
By SnakeBlitzken on 9/10/2009 11:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
in this country with a lot of sunlight that could grow a ton of algae. Even areas in California and Texas could probably use sea water. Anyone know if these algaes are specific to fresh water? This is basically solar energy through a different means.




RE: There's a lot of Dessert
By ayat101 on 9/10/2009 11:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
... different species require different waters. There is nothing preventing anyone from choosing species that grow in sea water. Bigger problems are probably finding suitable nutrients and "stiring in" sufficient carbon dioxide into the mixture to make this stuff grow fast enough for industrial production.

Nutrients for fuel production are relatively easy. Start the cycle, then after you extract the oil, recycle the rest for fertiliser.

For food productin you need to balance the nutrients you take out as food with inputs of something to function as fertiliser.


RE: There's a lot of Dessert
By drmo on 9/10/2009 2:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
"and "stiring in" sufficient carbon dioxide into the mixture to make this stuff grow fast enough for industrial production."

I think that's why they are thinking of connecting these to CO2 producing power plants. The power plant's waste is the algae's food.


RE: There's a lot of Dessert
By bigbrent88 on 9/11/2009 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
I still think there are problems like any agri-fuel. Water use, what happens if a specific species of algae is susceptible to some pandimic(look to our bananas, which have taken a hit), land use. But I think the pros are very real and better than anything we might have for the next 25 years, barring some special invention in elecrics.

I'd like to see less research into combustion from the oil and more into hyrdogen production from algae. If it's much easier than other methods then we could have a carbon negative fuel for use in fuel cell electric autos!


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki