In a move the service says is part of its strategy to float a “Green Fleet” by 2016, the US Navy demoed for media today a boat that runs — in part — on algae.
The so-called Riverine Command Boat — Experimental, or RCB-X, runs its engines on 50 percent “algae-based” fuel and 50 percent F-76 diesel fuel.
From a strategic perspective, we are reducing reliance on fossil fuels from unstable locations. Tactically, efficient use of energy resources extends our combat range and use of non-petroleum fuels assures multiple supplies are available.
The RCB-X has a total of 1,700 horsepower with its engines and is manned by four crew. It’s been operational since at least June but the first alternative fuel version was tested in October.
According to SecNav Mabus, the RCB-X is the latest in a host of green fuel initiatives for the service…
I am excited about what we’ve done with biofuels, because I think this has the potential to make a big, long-term dent in our fossil fuel usage,” said Mabus. “We conducted a supersonic flight of the Green Hornet in the spring on a 50–50 blend of camelina-based biofuel and JP-5. Biofuel testing has continued, and last week the first operational test of an algae-based biofuel was conducted on a Riverine Combat Boat (RCB-X) in Hampton Roads. In both cases, for the Green Hornet and the RCB-X, the engines didn’t know the difference.
Seems like something that makes sense to me for a service that consumes a huge amount of fossil fuels. But the Navy’s goal to have an entire strike group fueled by “green blends” deployed by 2016 (they’re calling it the Great Green Fleet) smacks of over confidence.
But hey, at least someone’s trying to save the planet, nevermind the organization doing it has enough firepower to get pretty close to destroying it…
– Christian
{ 58 comments… read them below or add one }
If the goal is to make ourselves less dependent on foreign oil, then wouldn't it make more sense to use more nuclear power and develop our own domestic reserves then to use green tech?
Green tech is about as domestic as it can get. Nuclear remains too expensive, storage problems still unresolved, and given the choice, I'd rather have the next plane attack hit an algae plant than a reactor.
Algea provides us with oxygen and fills out the base of our food chain. It may not be a great idea to use it as a fuel source when our consumtion is measured in exajoules.
While I support green energy in general to get us off oil, I think more should be invested in nuclear research. There are all sorts of things about thorium fuel, nuclear reprocessing, breeder-reactors, Gen IV reactors, and so that could enable us to get so much more out of nuclear power.
Where did you get that Nuclear is too expensive!?
Nuclear costs 2.9 cents / kWh and coal about 4.4 cents, compare that with wind that costs 12.5 cents / kWh.
Nuclear is the way to go, now if only we can get rid of all the hippy red tape blocking them.
Look up "industrial learning." It's currently highest for solar and wind, IIRC, though that is to be expected in young technologies. It's *negative* for nuclear.
It's only negative for Nuclear because of the piles of legislation holding it down, look how successful France is with their Nuclear reactors.
Solar and wind are not currently sustainable energy technologies, the only reason they have new projects going for them is their insane level of subsidization by the government; which is a disgrace.
And before you say something, just know that I have on top of my house a solar panel which is heating my water so I don't spend energy on that; which is viable.
Nuclear is the way to go for clean energy, period. And there is enough Uranium on Earth to last tens of thousands if not millions of years.
Nuclear won't really work for anything besides warships – too big. Domestic oil reserves simply aren't large enough to cover current American demand. Natural gas is very promising, but is harder to transport than oil (which is naturally a liquid at room temp). This is an attempt to cover all bets and find the best substitute.
You are wrong .We did a small aircraft nuclear reactor in the 60..Google Nerva,Pluto,and Tory
Cue nightmare scenario when one is shot down over hostile territory…
Or, in this context, nightmare scenario when one is breached in a torpedo (or suicide speedboat) attack, and proceeds to sink and poison the waters in an as yet to be determined range.
This algae stuff actually sounds kinda promising.
In a CNN report on, what I call, an "Algae Farm" the owner says, "If we took a tenth of the state of New Mexico, and converted it to algae production alone, we could do all the transportation needs for the United States."
Cool stuff.
Here's the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4
Oh, at the end of the video they have a toast and DRINK the stuff. They forgot to put their monocles on though.
I agree more. At this recession times the military, navy, airforce and country as a whole should focus on algae, bio fuel production, because more algae fuel/ bio fuel means more savings on oil imdependence and expenses, more savings means more capital or budget for more boats, ships, planes productions, lower deficit and more jobs.
And it’s clean energy, meaning its good for the environment.
Nuclear is the cleanest energy, since all that it releases is steam.
I heartily approve of flattening the state of New Mexico.
Okay we have an algae farm one tenth the size of New Mexico how long is it going to take to grow this algae so that you can start producing fuel, will it grow fast enough to provide a constant supply of fuel to the military or civilian sector. Can it be shipped through pipe lines o r what will the transportation of it be? Sounds good but will it be practical to produce. How much of this fuel is being produced as we read this article?
More significantly, the Navy is looking at using nuclear power to extract Carbon Dioxide from sea water (where it is up to 200 times more plentiful than in air) and use Fischer-Tropsch to convert it into Jet Fuel.
Fischer-Tropsch converts CO and H2 into hydrocarbons, not carbon dioxide.
One could use photosynthetic processes to convert CO2 into six-carbon sugars, then convert those to hydrocarbons.
Or, a catalyst to pull an oxygen off of carbon dioxide (which would have a significant thermodynamic penalty)…
Cool looking boat, for the 'bring back the PTs crowd', hope they like em…
It’s a Swedish Combat Boat 90. Pretty cool. Goes as fast as the LCS, costs about 100 times less and is almost as well armed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90
Idiotic comments like this are beyond ignorant. "Goes as fast as the LCS, costs about 100 times less and is almost as well armed".
The LCS isn't a destroyer. It is a support craft meant to be able to load different mission packages for different scenarios like MCM and ASW.
Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with 'saving the planet'. It's an attempt at developing a strategic hedge against oil shortages and to find an alternative that isn't as prone to large and unpredictable price swings. If the long term oil outlook was secure, the military wouldn't really care.
That's always the case, though – people only do something altruistic when doing so is altruistic and impacts the bottom line. If they're doing something that makes sense for several reasons, I think that's really good.
If it's done because it impacts the bottom line, then it isn't really altruistic. I fully support this at any rate, energy is the lifeblood of civilization and having as many sources as possible is a good thing. Having a source with fewer negatives than oil would be even better.
I agee with Chris T, tap ocean to fuel Boats & later ships, wow.
Radical concept.
The Ocean is the Fuel with std engines as Backup?
Produce this BIG Time.
Great, and when they thing is sent half way around the world for mission, they will have to bring the fuel halfway around the world.
Instead of just buying fuel locally……
While the intentions are good, I think this all show, no go…..
I'm sure they could find algae on the other side of the planet..
It's sounds more like an additive to regular fuel. So they would bring this additive to their staging area, buy the fuel locally (Not that you can just BUY jet fuel anyway) and mix it. Looks like it extends the fuel you can have. Not bad when you're stuck halfway around the world in the war that didn't get the money, and fuel only gets dropped once a week or so. Maybe they will figure out how to use this stuff for our generators.
These engines still are capable of using those local fuel sources as well. The only difference being, if we ever get into a conflict with Iran, Venezuela, or someone capable of cutting off certain sources of oil off from us, we'll still have a full supply line of fuel coming from our home country.
The story said 'the engines didn't notice the difference' – so normal fuel would still work if that's all you've got.
My initial comment obviously was off the mark.
I wish the article had been a bit more specific in engine design.
Are the engines gas, diesel or turbine?
And the fuel created from Algae, what makes it different from the "regular" fuel the engine uses? Lower/higher octane? PH level?
I probably should have reserved comment until I knew this information.
Algae at work.
<a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=algae+fuel+plant&FORM=IGRE&qpvt=algae+fuel+plant#focal=f540dc4b57fa87bde3aa78d4e77a1a8e&furl=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.energybio-sciencesinstitute.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fbioreactor.jpg” target=”_blank”>http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=algae+fuel+pl…” target=”_blank”>Fwww.energybio-sciencesinstitute.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fbioreactor.jpg
http://www.algaeatwork.com/images/farm_large.jpg
Aside from fuel alternative I bet its a good source of nutritional nurishment too.
They love it in Japan. The waffers were a little to fishy for me.
I think we make the error of confusing "clean energy" with energy independence.
Any combustion reaction with hydrocarbons and oxygen is producing carbon dioxide and water. Not exactly "clean" by any stretch. There is definitely energy independence if we keep all production in the states, and don't outsource it to China to cut costs (I'm looking at you energy companies!)
If this stuff is outsourced and not done here in the states, all we've done is break the Middle East's energy monopoly and give it to whoever can process algae for biofuels the cheapest, which is likely China.
It's actually both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECYL5QCfxc
I'm one of the guys standing on the boat in the video. Just wanted to drop by and let everyone know how awesome I am. Thank you. Also, the bio-diesel is a great idea (even though it's way too expensive at the moment).
Thats a marketing video…where one will say what you have to to get fans, funding, business, etc.
You are trading the environmental penalty of drilling and shipping oil for the environmental penalty of feeding and growing algae, plus waste management, rendering of algae for glucose and then conversion of glucose to hydrocarbons. Both will probably still feed into oil refineries for extraction of a variety of hydrocarbon products.
I know this is about "green" energy, but I think painting the boat in that camo was overkill.
This is the actual color scheme for RCB. This craft is designed as a combat craft used for patrolling rivers in most parts of the world. The paint scheme provides a layer of defense to prevent detection that would hamper the mission.
Maybe if they add 8 tubes of AGM-84 missile launchers, 2 tube of torpido launchers, single Mk 38 25mm Bushmaster cannon and 2 M60D 7.62mm GP machine guns would make it a fighting machine and can compete with the chinese 022 missile boats.
Nuclear power and renewable energy both require heavy subsidies, but nuclear is more practical than wind and solar- ask Germany.
Nuclear power is practical, I agree but we still have to develop or copy Israel's technology on how to convert nuclear waste to clean energy or usefull material.
http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/03-27-07/IsraelConv… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/0803…
water energy, algae energy electric energy, oil reserve, gas reserve and other natural reserve may boost the economy if we develop, and produce it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9iWaCMbw60 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/ http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/ http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti… http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/
As I understand it one of the benefits of using algae for fuel is that you can grow the stuff just about anywhere so you don't need to devote a lot of farmland and grow algae in favor of food crops like corn. I believe that it's even possible to have algae farms on top of buildings and I recall reading an article in Nat Geo where they were experimenting with growing them in canisters that allowed you to put lots of them into a given space.
Cellulosic ethanol/bio-fuel is probably one of the best options out there as far as bio-fuels go. Bio-fuels based on algae and things like switch grass offer a much higher return on the amount of energy used to produce the fuel than just about any other source, far better than corn or soy.
This is how to "go green?" Are we not, just brining on "Red Tides?" Less algae – that's needed for life in the sea, isn't it? Our basic life depends on the algae last time I checked!
I am looking into the fuel question, and I've found a link or two that may help.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/press/successf…
Here's a quote:
WASHINGTON – (Business Wire) The Algal Biomass Organization (ABO), the trade association for the algae industry, today applauded the U.S. Navy's successful test of a vessel powered by a 50-50 blend of the Navy's traditional shipboard fuel and algae-based renewable diesel. ABO member Solazyme, a renewable oil and bioproducts company, produced and delivered the 100% algal derived naval distillate fuel, known as Soladiesel®HRF-76 Renewable F-76 Fuel.
I assume they meant it was a mix of Soladiesel HRF-76 and "traditional shipboard fuel".
I assume they figured out a process to convert algae extracts to a diesel fuel. I assume they grow the algae, lyse the algae (optional step? see next step), convert the organics into diesel (high temperature/high pressure just like nature does it), and bang presto, a mix of hydrocarbon products. Bring in conventional distillation infrastructure, separate lightweight products, diesel, and the heavy tar.
The military is an intensive petroleum user, accounting for “132.5 million barrels in petroleum sales in fiscal year 2008, totaling nearly 18 billion dollars.” As it currently stands, “every dollar increase in the price of petroleum costs DOD up to 130 million additional dollars.” Imagine if we substitute the petrolium to algae fuel and produce the algae fuel here in US. Thats a big savings per fiscal year.
In a fantasy world, perhaps we could set up algae cultures and refinement systems to make diesel on board supertankers, then park them in the oceans as mobile gas tanks for fleets. Depending on how well this kind of thing scales, if one can make enough algae fuel onboard a ship, it may allow for extended range; or indefinite fuel without nuclear power.
This is about getting new boats — that they're green is a great side benefit, but it's not really the main reason behind the purchase of the boats. ;)
Energy is used in everyday's life. From the time we turn on the hot shower, to the time we turn on the television, on the time we go to switch the engine of the automobile to go to work. Energy plays a major player in our life from the time Benjamin Franklin discover electricity and Thales of Miletus discover static electricity, Michael Faraday, Andre Ampere, Georg Simon Ohm, Luigi Galvani, and (perhaps the most well known) Alessandro Volta whom was known to work on electricity and magnetic forces to produce energy. Energy plays a vital and major role in everyone’s life. Just imagine if we can make that energy free, clean and accessible to everyone. The energy as we know today would not be difficult and expensive. Base on my research natural gas and oil will decline by 20 to 30 %. The need for an alternative energy and fuel is very important especially on today’s economy. Algae fuel is the one of the answer to our energy problems and economic difficulties. It is the fuel of the future.
Algae fuel trades the oil prospecting, extracting and shipping for the algae growing, lysing of algae and conversion to fuel. Both still have to be refined, so at least part of the legacy infrastructure is useable, which saves billions in refinery construction.
You can use high temperature and pressure to turn organics into oil, I remember previous pilot projects using farm waste and converting it to fuel (a logical place to start and it removes a pollutant from the water supply). I imagine that over time, those cost savings you mention will be realized, as the costs of finding and recovering oil from the ground will go up as we continue on past peak oil.
Now let's use the Algae fuel on the navy's carreir and distroyer ships. That will save the navy billions of dollars from buying petrolium.
We needed to be inovative. We all know were on the recession we need to invest on clean energy like algae fuel and replace petroleum with clean energy to help save and help the military, navy, airforce and the economy in the process.
Nuclear power tends to require heavy subsidies, and government guarantees when it comes to nuclear waste. Both France and the United States are committed to figuring out the long term storage industry for the nuclear power industry.
Without those subsidies I suspect the profitability of nuclear power drops. However for military applications where private sector rules don't apply, nuclear power shines.
It's a good thing nuclear has never received any subsidies, huh?
There are a few promising projects in the nuclear realm (fast breeder reactors come to mind), but they're all a decade or more away from being functional.
Regardless of whether your pointing to legislation as the reason for nuclear's cost is correct or not (and it isn't anywhere near as simple as that), simply pointing to the legislation doesn't make that issue go away. Great, so legislation is at fault. Guess what? The legislation isn't going away.
Nuclear power normally requires subsidies because of the incredibly high startup costs. It's very cheap once it starts running, but it costs billions to build the average nuclear power plant.
Imagine if you could buy a car that ran on rainbow sunshine and happy thoughts, lasted 50 years, and never needed to be refueled. Great, huh? Solves the energy crisis, right? If it costs half a million dollars, most people will never be able to afford it, even if it saves money over the long run. Nuclear power is the same way. Financing costs make it unaffordable, even if the technology works fine.