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.

Energy Wars: Fuel From the Sea

What's cooler than an "electromagnetic weapon at sea?" How about converting seawater to fuel?

Those wild and crazy Naval Research Lab folks and some Navy Reserve help have found way to convert sea water into hydrocarbon fuel. Proof of concept including fueling a model airplane for a test flight, as set out in "Scale Model WWII Craft Takes Flight With Fuel From the Sea Concept":

Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, demonstrate proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.


Fueled by a liquid hydrocarbon—a component of NRL's novel gas-to-liquid (GTL) process that uses CO2 and H2 as feedstock—the research team demonstrated sustained flight of a radio-controlled (RC) P-51 replica of the legendary Red Tail Squadron, powered by an off-the-shelf (OTS) and unmodified two-stroke internal combustion engine.

Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2. The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system.

"In close collaboration with the Office of Naval Research P38 Naval Reserve program, NRL has developed a game changing technology for extracting, simultaneously, CO2 and H2 from seawater," said Dr. Heather Willauer, NRL research chemist. "This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition, from the laboratory, to full-scale commercial implementation."

CO2 in the air and in seawater is an abundant carbon resource, but the concentration in the ocean (100 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) is about 140 times greater than that in air, and 1/3 the concentration of CO2 from a stack gas (296 mg/L). Two to three percent of the CO2 in seawater is dissolved CO2 gas in the form of carbonic acid, one percent is carbonate, and the remaining 96 to 97 percent is bound in bicarbonate.

NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules. In the first patented step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins). These value-added hydrocarbons from this process serve as building blocks for the production of industrial chemicals and designer fuels.

In the second step these olefins can be converted to compounds of a higher molecular using controlled polymerization. The resulting liquid contains hydrocarbon molecules in the carbon range, C9-C16, suitable for use a possible renewable replacement for petroleum based jet fuel.

The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years. Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution.

The minimum modular carbon capture and fuel synthesis unit is envisioned to be scaled-up by the addition individual E-CEM modules and reactor tubes to meet fuel demands.

NRL operates a lab-scale fixed-bed catalytic reactor system and the outputs of this prototype unit have confirmed the presence of the required C9-C16 molecules in the liquid. This lab-scale system is the first step towards transitioning the NRL technology into commercial modular reactor units that may be scaled-up by increasing the length and number of reactors.

The process efficiencies and the capability to simultaneously produce large quantities of H2, and process the seawater without the need for additional chemicals or pollutants, has made these technologies far superior to previously developed and tested membrane and ion exchange technologies for recovery of CO2 from seawater or air.
- See more at: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept#sthash.2gphEDJC.dpuf

So, let's see - with a large enough ship with a large enough plant on it, you could fuel the gas turbine powered fleet and its aircraft for . . .

Ashore? Making fuel from seawater? Why that's enough to help everyone with ocean access toward energy independence . . . I assume a small nuclear power plant could provide the energy to drive this process . . .

More from Physics.org. Might help with countering ocean acidification, too.

And about this from India's Economic Times "game changer" :

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as "a game-changer" because it would signficantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.
***
Dr Heather Willauer, an research chemist who has spent nearly a decade on the project, can hardly hide her enthusiasm.

"For the first time we've been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that's a big breakthrough," she said, adding that the fuel "doesn't look or smell very different."

Now that they have demonstrated it can work, the next step is to produce it in industrial quantities. But before that, in partnership with several universities, the experts want to improve the amount of CO2 and hydrogen they can capture.

"We've demonstrated the feasibility, we want to improve the process efficiency," explained Willauer.

Way, way cool.

Fueling the Military: "Rand studies question synfuels' role in meeting military needs"

Not a surprise to me, but it might be to some others, as the Oil and Gas Journal reports on some Rand reports, "Rand studies question synfuels' role in meeting military needs":

The US Department of Defense can meet its fuel supply needs more effectively by using petroleum products more efficiently and protecting major transit corridors than by embracing synthetic fuels, three new Rand Corp. studies concluded.

Proponents contend that biofuels and other synthetics can provide US military services an alternative with fewer environmental impacts than crude oil and products from politically unstable suppliers. Prices also would not be as volatile, they add.

But Rand researchers concluded in the June 19 reports that alternative liquids do not offer DOD a way to appreciably reduce fuel costs.

Rand press release, with links to reports covering the topic, can be found here:

"While the Department of Defense is one of the world's largest fuel users, its consumption of about 340,000 barrels per day is a small fraction—less than one-half of one percent—of global petroleum demand," said James Bartis, a RAND senior policy researcher and the author of the first volume. "Considering that the United States produces more than 8 million barrels of oil per day domestically, there is no credible scenario in which the U.S. military would be unable to access the supplies of fuel it needs to defend the nation."

The report emphasizes that future oil prices cannot be predicted. "Too often military planners are afflicted with petroleum anxiety," Bartis said. "They think prices are heading in only one direction: up. But history teaches us otherwise."

Bartis said that although the military will have access to the wholesale fuel supplies that it needs, the purchase price could be uncomfortably high. The study finds that as fuel consumers, the military services have only one effective option to deal with high petroleum prices: use less fuel.

This can be done by purchasing more energy-efficient equipment, by adopting maneuver schemes that are more energy efficient and, in the short term, by implementing other energy conservation measures. The studies find that alternative liquid fuels do not offer the Department of Defense a way to appreciably reduce fuel costs.

"Pending a major technical breakthrough, renewable jet and marine fuels will continue to be far more expensive than petroleum-based fuels," Bartis said.

Not the first time Rand has take this position, see Background: "Biofuels of No Benefit to Military" says Rand. Navy rejects report.  SECNAV Mabus was directly asked about that earlier Rand report during a DoD Bloggers Roundtable as set out in An Unimportant Navy News Release (yes, it's there, you just have to keep reading) and again rejected it.

I suspect SecNav won't like this collection of reports much, either.

Some in Congress, on the other hand, already know that bio-fuels is a money pit, since they already acted see Slicing the Baloney: Congress Stalls Expensive Navy Bio-Fuels Project

 

 

Photo credit: The guided-missile destroyer USS Stockdale conducts a refueling at sea with the Miltary Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Henry J. Kaiser during heavy seas in the Pacific Ocean, Jan. 17, 2011. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class James R. Evans