US Navy Warplanes Powered by Biofuel?

[JeepWJ19]

Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
It's cool that they found a way to use kitchen grease etc.

but...

Quote:
I hope that one day all diesel vehicles are operated with our fuel, I hope that all commercial jets are operated with our fuel


Biofuels have the lowest Energy Return On Investment (EROI). So low that there is almost no profit to be made.

Still, I think it's great to use them where they can like kitchen grease etc, but I think it's a waste in money and time to put significant interest and devotion into having all diesel vehicles running on it.

JMO


Not just diesels, commercial jets as well. Even so, that's not necessarily the point of the program...


Right, but my point wasn't to criticize the program, it was to criticize that one statement of all diesels and jets using it. Hence the reason why I quoted it. To have all diesels and jets using it would take serious dedication, investment, etc and again, looking at the facts, biofuels have the lowest EROI to the point that it is not and should not be a major dedication or investment. It should be more of a "use it when applicable and easy" situation.

 

[Astro14]

I'm in favor of the military exploring technology alternatives that improve combat capability. I don't care if it's caseless ammo, or it's battery powered, solar-charged Humvees...anything that reduces the logistics tail (and therefore, vulnerability) in combat, I'm in favor of it. That's what we did with nuclear in the 50s and our current CVNs, SSNs, and SSBNs all have tactical advantages because of the range and options that nuclear power provides.

But the biofuel, in its current state, is a very, very expensive option to petroleum. This isn't practical, it doesn't save money, but you have to start the experiment somewhere...

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

But the biofuel, in its current state, is a very, very expensive option to petroleum. This isn't practical, it doesn't save money, but you have to start the experiment somewhere...


You know I think you are the balls, but what's the difference in a load of fuel on a 50 million dollar jet? A couple grand? Someone farts on an aircraft carrier and it costs that.

 

[Merkava_4]

I just wonder what the jet exhaust smells like. JP-5 exhaust used to burn my eyes on the flight deck.

 

[Shannow]

If it's a national security push, then the effort HAS to be to make it widespread enough and cheap enough to allow all the drones to get to the factories, and the trucks to dig up and distribute the materials to support the war effort, all from within.

Which would mean ensuring that it was a fuel that could be used for widespread use in getting that stuff done...won't run 300M commuter vehicles that run on gas.

If it's to make fighter planes look expensively green, then it's silly.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Its more important to have an alternative than to produce the cheapest fuel.

I think we can all agree that having more options is a good thing.
...



Pretty much this, options are good. It's hard to say what impact it has on costs but my feeling is that they probably are not significant...

 

[Nickdfresh]

I might also add this fuel should be able to be used in M-1A1/A2 MBT's turbine engine, though they should really put a diesel unit in there...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I'm in favor of the military exploring technology alternatives that improve combat capability. I don't care if it's caseless ammo, or it's battery powered, solar-charged Humvees...anything that reduces the logistics tail (and therefore, vulnerability) in combat, I'm in favor of it. That's what we did with nuclear in the 50s and our current CVNs, SSNs, and SSBNs all have tactical advantages because of the range and options that nuclear power provides.

But the biofuel, in its current state, is a very, very expensive option to petroleum. This isn't practical, it doesn't save money, but you have to start the experiment somewhere...


It's only expensive when petroleum is cheap as in now. When prices skyrocket, it's about the same. Guess what happens in crises?..

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14

But the biofuel, in its current state, is a very, very expensive option to petroleum. This isn't practical, it doesn't save money, but you have to start the experiment somewhere...


You know I think you are the balls, but what's the difference in a load of fuel on a 50 million dollar jet? A couple grand? Someone farts on an aircraft carrier and it costs that.

The figure I saw was close to 200 bucks a gallon (delivered). Couple a grand, I don't think so.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Availability of crude is a strategic consideration, but changing to biofuel doesn't mitigate the transportation cost of the fuel, both in terms of human and capital costs. The supply chain is just as long regardless of what's in the tank.
I came back after digesting this “When I came in, the Marines were losing a Marine killed or wounded for every 50 convoys of fuel brought into Afghanistan. That’s too high a price to pay,” he said.. As usual you are miles ahead.


The explanation regarding losing Marines isn't quite right. That was indeed said, I was at the meeting when SECNAV made those comments and announced a variety of other efforts to reduce consumption as part of the overall great green fleet initiative. Biofuels was an element, but it was not an item that holistically helped to curb consumption, reduce logistics (if not an oiler, at least fewer convoys to the pointy end for the Marines, and longer time on station for conventionally powered ships), etc.

Even this isn't the full picture of what's going on.

http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/energy/great-green-fleet/

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I'm in favor of the military exploring technology alternatives that improve combat capability. I don't care if it's caseless ammo, or it's battery powered, solar-charged Humvees...anything that reduces the logistics tail (and therefore, vulnerability) in combat, I'm in favor of it. That's what we did with nuclear in the 50s and our current CVNs, SSNs, and SSBNs all have tactical advantages because of the range and options that nuclear power provides.

But the biofuel, in its current state, is a very, very expensive option to petroleum. This isn't practical, it doesn't save money, but you have to start the experiment somewhere...


And there is significant S&T and other efforts to do just that. But a lot of this stuff isn't as sexy as the things that go boom...

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
It has been found we are standing on top of 100's years worth of oil in the US ...Anywhere but fantasy-land economics will win the war. Our leaders getting hundreds of millions in Ahem ..."Donations" from the mid east. I don't suppose you know why that is?

To your post ...find out how much a gallon of Govt approved biofuel costs compared to Jet-A my guess 200:1. This is another moronic attempt to lessen our carbon footprint while delivering devastating destruction.
200 to 1 sounds about right when you factor in the government tax breaks, loans, and grants, ect, to the companies making the stuff. When the Sec/Navy says "it burns a little cleaner".. if THAT's important buy a cleaner turbine fuel. The F4 was a fine aircraft but their early engines really did smoke. It wasn't the fuel, it was the engine design.

 

[Merkava_4]

I heard that biodiesel made of peanut oil makes for some good smelling exhaust.

 

[Win]

Meanwhile, the Permian Basin has another 20 billion barrels in a new shale field, and other adjacent shale fields may have more than that.

Ethiopian ( or wherever ) mustard seeds grown by rag tag farmers for fuel. Beyond ridiculous.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
It has been found we are standing on top of 100's years worth of oil in the US ...Anywhere but fantasy-land economics will win the war. Our leaders getting hundreds of millions in Ahem ..."Donations" from the mid east. I don't suppose you know why that is?

To your post ...find out how much a gallon of Govt approved biofuel costs compared to Jet-A my guess 200:1. This is another moronic attempt to lessen our carbon footprint while delivering devastating destruction.
200 to 1 sounds about right when you factor in the government tax breaks, loans, and grants, ect, to the companies making the stuff. When the Sec/Navy says "it burns a little cleaner".. if THAT's important buy a cleaner turbine fuel. The F4 was a fine aircraft but their early engines really did smoke. It wasn't the fuel, it was the engine design.


The acquisition spec for F-76 and JP-5 (Navy doesnt run #2 diesel, JP-8 or Jet A at sea) has already gotten much cleaner inbthe last few years. Sulfur levels are much, much lower than it was just a few years ago. That means much fewer soot precursors, and a cleaner burn as it is.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Just for interest, here is a listing of oil imports from Saudi Arabia reported monthly since 1973. In the last 3 years, it has averaged around a half million bbls per day. If the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada was built, you could say adieu to Saudi Arabia.