Laughing Matter: "The Great Green Fleet"

Fighting "climate wars" by using beef tallow to power the fleet as gushingly reported here

The Great Green Fleet is a Department of the Navy initiative highlighting how the Navy and Marine Corps are using energy efficiency and alternative energy to increase combat capability and operational flexibility. At the close of the ceremony, the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Stockdale (DDG 106) left the pier to begin its deployment, becoming the first U.S. Navy ship running on an alternative fuel blend as part of its regular operations.

"When it comes to power, my focus has been about one thing and one thing only: better warfighting," said Mabus. "The Great Green Fleet shows how we are transforming our energy use to make us better warfighters, to go farther, stay longer and deliver more firepower. In short, to enable us to provide the global presence that is our mission."

The blend fueling the JCS CSG's surface ships contains alternative fuel made from waste beef fat provided by farmers in the Midwest. It was purchased at a cost-competitive price through a partnership between the Department of the Navy and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aimed at making alternative fuel blends a regular part of the military's bulk operational fuel supply.

With the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and Stockdale in the background, Mabus and Vilsack explained why this milestone alternative fuel purchase is important to the Navy and Marine Corps, and how it supports America's farmers, ranchers and rural manufacturing jobs.

Mabus said, "Diversifying our energy sources arms us with operational flexibility and strengthens our ability to provide presence, turning the tables on those who would use energy as a weapon against us."

"The Navy's use of renewable energy in the Great Green Fleet represents its ability to diversify its energy sources, and also our nation's ability to take what would be a waste product and create homegrown, clean, advanced biofuels to support a variety of transportation needs," said Vilsack. "Today's deployment proves that America is on its way to a secure, clean energy future, where both defense and commercial transportation can be fueled by our own hardworking farmers and ranchers, reduce landfill waste and bring manufacturing jobs back to rural America."

So, vote buying, then.

The most energy efficient, non-CO2 emitting ship mentioned in the article is Stennis which is nuclear powered.

Given that Stockdale is gas turbine powered, the number of alternative fuels is not very limited. As noted here (pdf):

In broad terms, gas turbine fuels can be classified as gaseous or fliuid. Common gaseous fuels include:
• Natural gas
• LNG
• LPG
• Refinery gas
• Coke oven gas
• Coal gas
• Hydrogen
Liquid fuels include:
• No. 2 diesel
• Kerosene
• Jet A
• Naphtha
• Condensates
• Ethanol and methanol
• Heavy residual-grade oils and crude oils

You should also note that the price of crude oil is today below $30 barrel and the U.S. has a plentiful domestic supply as well as a enormous supply of natural gas.

Of course, those supplies are mostly in "red states" like Texas and so the jobs provided by the oil and gas industry don't appear to count as much as jobs "in rural America" wherever that is, though Texas and other oil producing states seem to have a lot of "rural" in them to me.

I'm really interested in the logistics train  that will have to follow Stockdale if the intent is to keep the ship running on this blend for an entire deployment. Will she have her own tanker carrying this "special fuel" or what? What does that add to the operating costs of the fleet and who is paying for it (other than the taxpayers)?

I might be wrong, though, so you can read all about the Great Green Fleet here.

Good stuff here in a Reuters report:

The U.S. Navy will formally deploy its so-called "Great Green Fleet" on Wednesday, sending warships to sea on biofuels even though oil prices have dropped 70 percent since congressional Republicans first criticized the high cost of alternative fuels.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told Reuters the deployment is the next step in a fleet-wide effort that has seen the Navy cut its oil consumption by 15 percent since he took charge in 2009 and the Marine Corps curb its use by 60 percent.

A focus on energy and energy-saving technology gives the U.S. Navy a military advantage, Mabus said. An amphibious assault ship like the USS Makin Island, which uses a dual electric-diesel propulsion system, can stay on station three times longer than a conventionally powered vessel, he said.

“It gives us an edge tactically, it gives us an edge strategically,” Mabus said. “It keeps … fuel from being used as a weapon against us.”
***
Mark Cancian, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former White House budget official, said the initiative is as much about environmental symbolism as cost savings or tactical advantage.

Many congressional Republicans objected three years ago when the Navy sought and won support for defense subsidies to help three private firms build biofuel refineries. With oil now selling around $30 a barrel, that skepticism remains.

"They have not changed their position, which is that these are too expensive and not needed," Cancian said.

***

The Defense Department uses about 14 million gallons of fuel a day, with the Navy responsible for about a quarter of that, according to figures from the Defense Logistics Agency.

When the Navy first tested biofuel versions of marine diesel and jet fuel in 2012, it spent eye-popping sums for small amounts.

In one case it paid $424 a gallon for 20,055 gallons of biofuel based on algae oil. In another it spent nearly $27 per gallon for 450,000 gallons of biofuel, later mixed into a 50-50 blend. The $15-per gallon-cost was four times the price of conventional fuel at the time.

The fuel being used for the Great Green Fleet deployment is a competitively priced blend of 90 percent diesel and 10 percent biofuel based on a beef tallow feedstock, Navy officials said.

A California firm, AltAir Fuels, is contracted to supply 77 million gallons of the fuel between Oct. 1, 2015, and Sept. 30, 2016.

The Navy pays $2.05 per gallon, thanks in part to a subsidy of 15 cents per gallon from the Commodity Credit Corp., a government-owned enterprise that supports farm products.

With fracking and all the new recovery techniques, it seems the issue of bad guys using "fuel as a weapon" is a ship that has sailed.

But "environmental symbolism?" That's a nice turn of phrase.

On the Clean Marine Fuel Front: Clean Glycerine Fuel?

Interesting little teaser at Maritime Propulsion by Eric Haun about an upcoming conference Glycerine Engine Featured at Seawork 2014: Glycerine Fuel for Engines and Marine Sustainability:

The Cummins marine engine will be on display throughout the exhibition on the Alicat workboat on berth V28, courtesy of Gardline Marine Services, who are partners in the GLEAMS (Glycerine Fuel for Engines and Marine Sustainability) project, and Dalby Offshore, the vessel’s new owners. The Technology Strategy Board funded project is investigating the use of glycerine as a marine fuel to comply with the highest regulations for sulphur and nitrous oxide emissions, as well as slashing carbon emissions and potentially reducing costs.

More at The Royal Institution of Naval Architects website:

Simon Powell, MSE operations director, says: “There is a global over-supply of glycerol, a by-product of the expanding biofuel industry.” GLEAMS intends to analyse the advantages and drawbacks of using this substance ­ and, according to MSE, initial information makes it an attractive contender. He tells Ship & Boat International: “The combustion of glycerol is more thermally efficient than that of MDO / HFO and, therefore, the basic carbon reduction calculation is improved. Glycerol has no sulphur emissions, reduces particulates to practically zero and produces very low NOx emissions.

“Glycerol is also non-toxic, water soluble and requires no criteria for vapour risk or fire risk ­ it is nearly impossible to ignite accidentally.” Regarding carbon emissions, Powell says: “The EU Renewable Energy Directive quotes crude glycerol as resulting in 0% carbon; however, cleaned fuel grade glycerol would probably result in 2-3% of the carbon level of MDO or HFO.”

He adds that glycerol has a low energy density when compared directly to fuel oils, but that this can be compensated for by an increased level of efficiency. Similarly, users would need to carry a larger volume of glycerol to attain the operational results expected of fuel oils, but the low-hazard nature of glycerol means that it can be easily incorporated into vessel hull space.

Sure, fill those voids with glycerine.

Some more from the GLEAM Forum FAQs:

Is Glycerine compatible with most existing diesel engines?

The holders of the patents (Aquafuel) tell us the fuel could be used in all suitably modified diesel engines. This applies equally to four stroke high and medium speed engines and large two stroke engines. The technology should be applicable across the range of diesel engines employed in shipping.

What are the price and emission reduction comparisons with LNG-fuelled solutions?

It is too soon for us to answer this question fully, that is part of the GLEAMS Project’s work. However we can say:
o The combustion of Glycerine is more thermally efficient than MDO or HFO and therefore the basic carbon reduction calculation is improved.

o Glycerine has no sulphur emissions

o However, EU renewable Energy Directive quotes crude glycerol as ‘0’ % carbon – cleaned fuel grade Glycerine will be ~ 2 -3% (97-98% carbon free ‘OFGEM’) carbon level of MDO or HFO.

If you, like me, are a little sketchy in your chemistry background, here's some background on glycerine.

I also highly recommend Vaclav Smil's Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines:

In Prime Movers of Globalization, Vaclav Smil offers a history of two key technical developments that have driven globalization: the high-compression non-sparking internal combustion engines invented by Rudolf Diesel in the 1890s and the gas turbines designed by Frank Whittle and Hans-Joachim Pabst von Ohain in the 1930s. The massive diesel engines that power cargo ships and the gas turbines that propel jet engines, Smil argues, are more important to the global economy than any corporate structure or international trade agreement.

Because this is all about energy to move goods and services around the world. Cleanly.

The rub, of course, is whether or not expanded production of glycerine is less damaging to the environment than continuing with the alternatives. Trying to avoid the "ethanol trap", you know.

Help Your Congressperson to Lower Your Gasoline Prices -Tell Them to Repeal "Renewable Fuel Standard" Mandates

From the Oil and Gas Journall, a little truth in why adding more ethanol to gasoline is a bad idea on a number of fronts:

. . . Congress set mandates for fuel ethanol far in excess of what the market safely and economically can use.

It did so under political pressure from agricultural interests. The ethanol mandate has been great for growers and distillers of corn.

For anyone else who buys fuel or food, it costs too much. And it will get worse.

The statutory requirement for ethanol from grain soon will exceed the gasoline market's capacity to use it at normal blending levels. Refiners and other blenders must buy credits to make up the difference. Prices of the credits are rising.

Meanwhile, a requirement for ethanol from cellulose is phasing in, although that material remains scarce. Blenders unable to meet sales mandates must pay fines.

Producers of gasoline thus face rapidly rising costs and have a growing incentive to export product rather than sell it domestically. Rising costs and diminished supply promise increasing prices at the pump.
...
The program is a disaster—and not because ethanol is bad stuff. It's a disaster because Congress, in order to make those grain growers and distillers happy —meaning rich— tried to outwit the market.

This never works. And it's inevitably corrupt.

A bipartisan bill to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard, as this fiasco is known, was introduced in the House in April. Now a group of Democrats and Republicans has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.

With consumers in jeopardy, the end of the RFS can't happen soon enough.

It won't remove ethanol from gasoline. It will, however, bring the amount of food burned in US vehicle engines back to rational and affordable proportions.

We have lots of natural gas, which burns cleaner than gasoline and doesn't "burn food." Perhaps this idiotic "Renewable Fuel Standards" effort is a backhanded way to encourage the market to expand NG availability for cars and truck and to help vehicle owners make the switch. Probably not,though, considering the source of the legislation.

According to an Exxon report, vehicles powered by natural gas have a 25% higher initial cost and is less "energy dense" so it may require more frequent fill-ups and other issues. However, these seem to be technological issues and I suspect that higher levels of production of NG vehicles would drive the price down and the availability of refill stations to expand. In addition, NG carries a lower price than gasoline so it is possible to recover the extra costs in a lifetime (unlike,say, with a hybrid car) . . . see here:

With so much supply that energy companies are pulling rigs out of the ground to cut back on production, natural gas is starting to look more appealing as a cheaper and cleaner alternative to gasoline and diesel.

As much as I hate to agree with Boone Pickens NG may be the way to go. And it may help remove one more seed of corruption in Washington.

Slicing the Baloney: Congress Stalls Expensive Navy Bio-Fuels Project

Money pit of algae

Remember the hoopla about the "Green Fleet" and the alleged need to ween the Navy from a dependence on foreign oil (see Baloney at the Navy Top: "We use too much fossil fuel", An Unimportant Navy News Release, Background: "Biofuels of No Benefit to Military" says Rand. Navy rejects report., More Defense Money Baloney: "New Biofuels "Market" to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence", Algae Fuel "Investment" Baloney).

Well, it seems various members of Congress are not as enamored with this sort of expensive "forward" "change" enough to believe in it and have, so far cut off its funding, as set out in Noah Schactman's Danger Room piece,
Senate Panel Cuts Off Navy's Biofuel Buys:

The Navy’s ambitious renewable-energy plans aren’t sunk quite yet. But they took a major hit Thursday, when the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to all-but-ban the military from buying alternative fuels.

The House Armed Services Committee passed a similar measure earlier this month. But the House is controlled by Republicans, who are generally skeptical of alternative energy efforts. Democrats are in charge of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And if anything, the Senate’s alt-fuel prohibition goes even further than the House’s. If it becomes law, if would not only sink the Navy’s attempt to sail a “Great Green Fleet,” powered largely by biofuels. It would also sabotage a half-billion-dollar program to shore up a tottering biofuels industry.

Tottering? You bet, because it makes no rational economic sense and they can't find any "greater fools" to toss money to the wind - except for, you know, the well-meaning U.S. Government spending your tax dollars to try to create a market where one does not exist at the prices this algae fuel demands.

Hey, the screwed up nature of this mess is evident to nearly everyone. See Congress torpedoes Navy, Pentagon agrofuel plans:

Both houses have approved legislation that blocks the Navy from buying agrofuels — petroleum substitutes derived from plants, typically grown on industrial Third World plantations — unless they cost no more than conventional fuels.

Their action also bars the Pentagon from funding agrofuel refineries, a major blow to the Obama administration embrace of plant-based fuels, driven largely by Energy Secretary Steve Chu.
***
Just how important is the Pentagon’s agrofuel agenda? Swell, consider one simple fact: The world’s largest single consumer of oil is the U.S. military.
***
What might the impact of the Congressional action be?

Consider the case of Amyris, the local company started by Chu protégé and former employee Jay Keasling with the help of some Bill Gates money.

Amyris hopes to make synfuel with the help of genetically engineered microbes, but the diesel fuel they’ve churned out costs a whopping $29 a gallon, no sale under the pending legislation.

If the measure makes it into law, we can expect a major shakeup in the already rickety agrofuel industry.

Amyris stock in the tank, as Mr. Brenneman notes in his post.

Rickety industry? Like stepping into quicksand.

Because its number don't add up.

Might as well just throw dollars into a pond full of scum.

Timely action by Congress on this one.

An Unimportant Navy News Release

Pilotless aircraft in a pilot program (U.S. Navy photo by Kelly Schindler)

Fire Scout Completes First Navy Unmanned Flight on Biofuel

To which my mind says, "So what?"

What did the testers think was going to happen? Hadn't they tested the fuel ahead of time?

If it's fuel that burns in a gas turbine, it's gas turbine fuel. I don't believe there will be much chemically different from a fuel based on petroleum. In fact, I bet it is almost like a petroleum product.

The question of whether or not Department of Navy funds should be diverted to support this "biofuel" industry is not answered by this sort of rigged test. As I've noted over and over, the U.S. has plenty of fossil fuels available to help us become energy independent - the announced goal of the Secretary of the Navy and his ultimate boss, the President. SecNav's pitch, which we heard repeatedly during a DoD Bloggers Roundtable with him earlier this year, is that he is seeking alternative fuels that, essentially, cost the "same" as fossil fuel products. Oddly enough, fossil fuels cost the same as fossil fuels and don't require a dime of Navy (taxpayer) money to develop a market or to build refineries, pipelines and the like.

The "Green" Navy and "Energy Independence" were the topics of DoDLive Bloggers Roundtable: Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus. From the transcript:

SecNav: ***The most overarching or broadest goal was by no later than 2020, at least half of all Navy energy, both afloat and ashore, would come from non-fossil fuel sources. I did this to address a vulnerability. We simply buy too much petroleum from volatile places on earth, and we need to address that vulnerability to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.

My translation: "So, instead of focusing on buying fuel from non-volatile places (like say, the U.S. and Canada), we have decided create a whole new industry using your tax dollars."

The U.S. Navy's least polluting ship?

SecNav: The Navy will do two things. One is, we will make our contribution of about $170 million to help either build or retrofit biofuel plants for -- to produce biofuel. We will also be willing to sign offtake contracts so that we will provide the market for these biofuels. And finally, earlier this summer, the Defense Logistics Agency, on behalf of the Navy, issued a request for proposals for 450,000 gallons of biofuels for our test purposes, which we think is the largest biofuel purchase ever undertaken in the United States.

My translation: "Biofuel production is not 'shovel ready' so we are going to take taxpayer money and try to push production of this product into a market in which the only real demand will be the taxpayer funded military. Building plants and all that is needed to get the biofuels ready for real production has yet to be accomplished."