Navy Gives Another Push for Biofuels

On 16 August 2011, the US President Obama announced that the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Navy will invest up to $510 million during the next three years in partnership with the private sector to scale up the industry for next-generation biofuels by producing advanced drop-in aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial transportation. Back in June 2011, the secretaries of the three Departments mentioned above had signed a memorandum of understanding for that.

President Obama and the Department secretaries proclaimed once again that biofuels are an important part of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and it will pave the way to energy independence. As usual, no mention about the costs to tax payers due to generous subsidies.

Nevertheless, again as usual, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reiterated his claim that “America’s long-term national security depends upon a commercially viable domestic biofuels market that will benefit taxpayers while simultaneously giving Sailors and Marines tactical and strategic advantages....Today’s announcement not only leverages our home grown fuel sources to support our national security, but it also helps advance the biofuels market, which ultimately brings down the cost of biofuels for everyone.” He is even quoted as saying that "I can think of nothing more vital to national security than to diversify our forms of energy".  However, he never says when the costs will get down. The US government points out clearly that it will continue to use the weight of the military to commercialize (drop-in) biofuels.

The plan is to build commercial-scale pioneer biofuel refineries in different locations for a diverse feedstock supply. To participate in the program, commercial companies will have to invest at least as much as the government (at least a one to one match). Funding for the program will be split equally among the three agencies. The Navy will act as a customer for production and define technical requirements for aircraft and vessels.

In any case, this announcement will make the biofuel industry very happy. The remarks made by Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association (ABFA) make this clear: “No waiting for the day when costly changes are made on car assembly lines or gas stations… The Administration's investment in commercializing advanced biofuels is a matter of national security. … our nation's defense is at the mercy of the market just as much as we are when we pull up to the gas station."

Already, in June 2011,  Secretary of Energy Steven Chu had announced up to $36 million to fund six small-scale projects in California, Michigan, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, that will advance the technology improvements and process integration needed to produce drop-in advanced biofuels and other valuable bio-based chemicals. Also, in December 2009, Secretary Chu and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had announced the selection of 19 integrated biorefinery projects to receive up to $564 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to accelerate the construction and operation of pilot, demonstration, and commercial scale facilities.

While this biofuel hype continues in Washington DC UK company Altona Energy believes it can supply vehicle ready diesel at $53 a barrel ($1.25 per gallon), with a coal to liquids plant, incorporating carbon capture for underground carbon storage, with financial support from China ( Diesel from CTL with carbon capture at a cost of $53 / barrel). And yet, Coal to Liquids are no more mentioned in the US, a country rich in coal.

Nuclear Power vs Oil for Navy Surface Ships

Congressional Budget Office release a report entitled “The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships” in May 2011.

All of the US Navy's aircraft carriers and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors; its other surface combatants are powered by engines that use conventional petroleum-based fuels. In recent years the US Congress has shown interest in powering some of the Navy’s future destroyers and amphibious warships with nuclear rather than petroleum based fuel.

The argument now spreading out that the Navy could save money on fuel in the future by purchasing additional nuclear-powered ships rather than conventionally powered ships. Those savings in fuel costs, however, would be offset by the additional up-front costs required for the procurement of nuclear-powered ships.

To assess the relative costs of using nuclear versus conventional propulsion for ships other than carriers and submarines, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) developed a hypothetical future fleet, based on the Navy's shipbuilding plan, of new destroyers and amphibious warfare ships that are candidates for nuclear propulsion systems. Specifically, CBO chose for its analysis the Navy's planned new version of the DDG-51 destroyer and its replacement, the DDG(X); the LH(X) amphibious assault ship; and the LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ship. CBO then estimated the life-cycle costs for each ship in that fleet—that is, the costs over the ship's entire 40-year service life, beginning with its acquisition and progressing through the annual expenditures over 40 years for its fuel, personnel, and other operations and support and, finally, its disposal.

CBO compared lifecycle costs under two alternative versions of the fleet: Each version comprised the same number of ships of each class but differed in whether the ships were powered by conventional systems that used petroleum-based fuels or by nuclear reactors.

Estimates of the relative costs of using nuclear power versus conventional fuels for ships depend in large part on the projected path of oil prices, which determine how much the Navy must pay for fuel in the future. The initial costs for building and fueling a nuclear-powered ship are greater than those for building a conventionally powered ship. However, once the Navy has acquired a nuclear ship, it incurs no further costs for fuel. If oil prices rose substantially in the future, the estimated savings in fuel costs from using nuclear power over a ship's lifetime could offset the higher initial costs to procure the ship.

In its January 2011 macroeconomic projections, CBO estimated that oil prices would average $86 per barrel in 2011 and over the next decade would grow at an average rate of about 1 percentage point per year above the rate of general inflation, reaching $95 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2021. After 2021, CBO assumes, the price will continue to grow at a rate of 1 percentage point above inflation, reaching $114 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2040. If oil prices followed that trajectory, total life-cycle costs for a nuclear fleet would be 19 percent higher than those for a conventional fleet, in CBO's estimation.

To determine how sensitive those findings are to the trajectory of oil prices, CBO also examined a case in which oil prices start from a value of $86 per barrel in 2011 and then rise at a rate higher than the real (inflation-adjusted) growth of 1 percent in CBO's baseline trajectory. That analysis suggested that a fleet of nuclear-powered destroyers would become cost-effective if the real annual rate of growth of oil prices exceeded 3.4 percent—which implies oil prices of $223 or more per barrel (in 2011 dollars) in 2040.

The amount of energy used by new surface ships—particularly those, such as destroyers, that require large amounts of energy for purposes other than propulsion—could also be substantially higher or lower than projected. Employing an approach similar to that used to assess sensitivity to oil prices, CBO estimated that providing destroyers with nuclear reactors would become cost-effective only if energy use more than doubled for the entire fleet of destroyers.


The use of nuclear power has potential advantages besides savings on the cost of fuel. For example, the Navy would be less vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of oil: The alternative nuclear fleet would use about 5 million barrels of oil less per year, reducing the Navy's current annual consumption of petroleum-based fuels for aircraft and ships by about 15 percent. The use of nuclear power also has some potential disadvantages, including the concerns about proliferating nuclear material that would arise if the Navy had more ships with highly enriched uranium deployed overseas. CBO, however, did not attempt to quantify those other advantages and disadvantages.

The CBO analysis sounds good enough but not complete because of two reasons.

First, in my opinion an oil price of $223 in 2040 is rather conservative. Many analysts probably will not share my view but this is what I believe. The CBO oil price forecasts is close to the Energy Information Administration’s high case oil price forecast as indicated in its Annual Energy Outlook released in April 2011 (see figure 13).

Second, using direct cost of oil does not make much sense in such an analysis. It would have been more appropriate to use Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (oil). After all, it is the FBCF that matters, not the average price of imported oil to US refineries used in the CBO analysis.

Economics of Navy's Green Fuels

According to the Navy officials, going green is not just about natural security. It is about strengthening national security, combat capability and assuring mobility.[1] Towards that end the goal of Navy is to be an early adopter of new technologies and fuels. In my previous post I mentioned about Navy's Key Achievements in Biofuels

Both the Navy and the Air Force have launched multimillion-dollar test programs to demonstrate that their aircraft and ships can run on blends of alternative fuels and conventional oil. They continue to certify their vehicles to operate with these green fuels.

So far, both services have made excellent public relations campaigns. They demonstrated how well their vehicles run on these green fuels. But when it comes to the economics both services are quite silent. They assume that they will give the right signal to investors to make the necessary investments so that when produced in large enough quantities these green fuels will be no more expensive than conventional fuel. I do not share their wishfull thinking but I do hope that I am proven to be wrong.

Here is some of the economics for the Navy acquired green fuels.

In 2009 the Naval Air Systems Command has asked for 40,000 gallons of Hydrotreated Renewable HRJ-5 only (JP-5 jet fuel from bio-based feedstocks) in a request for proposal issued by the Defense Energy Support Center (now called DLA Energy). Initial laboratory analyses and rig testing is planned to consume 1,500 gallons; the static engine tests, 16,500 gallons; and the flight tests, 22,000 gallons.

On 31 August 2009 the DLA Energy awarded to Sustainable Oils $2,664,000 for delivery of 40,000 gallons (base quantity) and 150,000 gallons (option quantity - to be exercised at the Government's option) of Hydrotreated Renewable HRJ-5 only. This makes $67 per gallon. Another source says the DLA Energy awarded in early 2010 a $2.7 million contract to Sustainable Oils of Seattle and Bozeman, Montana, for this 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel. This makes $67.5 per gallon. For camelina, the current price tag is said to be 30-something dollars per gallon.[1]

On 1 September 2009, DLA Energy awarded to San Francisco-based company Solazyme a contract worth $223,500 for delivering 1,500 gallons of algae derived jet fuel (HRJ-5) for testing and certification by the US Navy. This makes $149 per gallon.

On 24 September 2009, the Navy paid to Solazyme $424 per gallon for the acquisition of 20,055 gallons of renewable algae derived F-76 Naval distillate fuel for use in Navy ships. The contract price included Research and development costs. The cost of the fuel is now estimated to be around 60- some dollars a gallon. [1]

Associated Press news on 29 October 2010 reported that the U.S. Navy in September 2010 ordered more than 150,000 gallons of algal derived HRF-76 fuel for the U.S. Navy's testing and certification program in 2010-2011. But Solazyme’s announcement didn’t mention anything about the money. Meanwhile in August 2010 the U.S. Department of Energy - whose goal is to scale up production of commercially viable biofuels - awarded the company $21.8 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to expand its biggest production facility at Cherokee Pharmaceuticals in Riverside, Pa.

For the companies involved it seems that this green fuel push is a very lucrative business.

Based on its announced goals, Navy is estimated to need 8 million barrels of biofuels (236 million gallons), 4 million of each of F76 and JP5 by 2020. Similarly the Air Force has set a goal of acquiring half of its annual domestic aviation fuel requirement via alternative blends derived from locally sourced feedstocks. Estimated requirement for the alternative fuel amounts to 400 million gallons of JP8 by 2016.

Until mid 2010, DESC has procured about 450,000 gallons of bio-derived fuels for the services’ testing purposes. The challenge is how to procure these fuels in mass quantities. DESC typically awards one year contracts and only has the authority to award five-year contracts with up to five, one year option. But because the alternative fuels market is just starting to develop manufacturers are looking for much longer term contract terms, probably 15-20 years, to give them the time and incentive to build the infrastructure required to produce these fuels. Environmental legislation is another issue. Under section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, federal agencies can only procure alternative fuels that do not produce more lifecycle greenhouse gases –from the time the products are extracted from the ground until they are consumed by a vehicle- than would be produced using petroleum based products. (Sara Moore, Powering Up, Loglines, July-August 2010, 24-29).

I think this contract length is not a big problem. If DOD continues to pay multiples of conventional fuel per gallon it will always find a company that will produce large amounts green fuels. Why? Because 15 year contract can be squeezed into 5 years if per gallon fuel price high enough. If the Navy energy goals are really achieved then extraordinarily high fuel costs might be justified. Even then the government’s job should not be to pick the winners. Let life cycle economics and environmental constraints pick the winners.

In any case one thing is clear: in the next decade more tax payers money will evaporate in the name of green military fuels.

FA18 to run on a Biofuel Blend

In my previous post I talked about USAF Test of a New Biofuel Blend. Here I will continue on the same line, but for the Navy.

Representatives of the Defense Energy Support Center and Air Transport Association of America, Inc., signed a strategic alliance agreement on 19 March 2010 in Washington, D.C., recognizing a partnership for the development and deployment of alternative aviation fuels. (DESC News Release DLA 03-18, 19 March 2010, signing event represents future of alternative aviation fuels).

The agreement highlights the shared goals of the DoD and the principal U.S. airlines to advance the development and deployment of commercially viable, environmentally friendly, alternative aviation fuels. The alliance is hoped to help promoting widespread commercialization of environmentally friendly alternative aviation fuels, and to advance the development and deployment of their commercial viability.

The alliance directs the formation of three collaborative teams, composed of ATA and DESC representatives, with each team focused on specific developmental and marketing models of the alternative fuels goals.

The environment team will identify common methodologies for life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions for alternative aviation fuels. The deployment and logistics team will identify locations or regions suitable for alternative fuels production and deployment, as well as means of distribution to and from those locations. The contracting and finance team will jointly publicize supply opportunities, explore opportunities for complementary fuel-supply agreements and develop compatible pricing and finance mechanisms.

Through the combined efforts of the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiatives fuels produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process were already approved for use in commercial aviation. The Fischer-Tropsch process uses certain chemical reactions to produce synthetic oils and fuels from coal, natural gas and biomass. Additionally, approval of a new class of hydrotreated renewable jet fuels is expected in the second half of 2010. Various plant-derived oils can be treated with water as part of a chemical reaction to produce jet fuel.

Meanwile, DARPA continues its aggressive research on biofuels. Its current BioFuels work involves Cellulosic and Algal Feedstocks program. (see DARPA Biofuels Factsheet).

And Navy is looking ahead to making its ships green or more fuel efficient by engineering solutions on how ships are fueled, powered, designed and operated. (see p.33 of OnWatch 2010 for a most recent update). Note that in September 2009, the Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, the world's first hybrid fuel warship (gas turbine engines and electric drive). The ship is the largest amphibious assault ships in the world which are designed to carry more aircraft, equipment and personnel than their predecessors.

Alternative fuels search of the Navy extends to aircraft as well. The Navy will demonstrate the 'Green Hornet,' an F/A-18 Super Hornet (see here, here and here) powered by a 50/50 biofuel blend, on Earth Day, 22 April 2010, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., as part of its Energy Strategy. (See presentation by Chris Tindal, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, for a comprehensive overview of Navy’s Energy program. Also see Navy Energy Approach, Office of Naval Research science and technology focus on energy)

source: USN

Remember that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has made energy independence a top priority for the Department of the Navy. His energy reform includes:

- Change contracting policies to include the fully burdened cost of fuel energy costs to be used as criteria,

- Green Carrier Strike Group conducts local operations by 2012, and sail the Great Green Fleet composed of nuclear ships, surface combatants with hybrid electric power systems using biofuel and aircraft flying on only biofuels by 2016,

- By 2015, reduce commercial vehicle oil use by 50%

- By 2020, at least half of shore-based energy requirements will be provided by alternative sources

- By 2020, half of total energy consumption will be from alternative sources (currently 17%).

These targets are hope to “increase warfighting capability by reducing reliance on fossil fuels from unstable locations and reducing volatility associated with long fuel supply transport lines.”

The 'Green Hornet' flight is considered to be an important step in the certification and ultimate operational use of biofuels by the Navy and Marine Corps. The feedstock for the biofuel to be tested is derived from the camelina sativa plant, which is a US-grown, renewable, non-food source. The objective of the test flight program is to confirm there is no difference in performance between the biofuel blend derived from the camelina plant and standard petroleum-based JP-5. After the test is successful, the Navy will move to expand biofuel testing to marine gas turbine engines and to the engines of tactical vehicles. The DESC recently awarded a $2.7 million contract to Sustainable Oils of Seattle and Bozeman, Montana for 40,000 gallons of the camelina-based fuel.

See also my post on Navy's Green Great Fleet.

Navy's Great Green Fleet

Oil was first tested in the U.S. Navy on small ships. USS Palos, a tug in Boston Navy Yard, was the first U.S. Navy ship to test this type of fuel. As a coal burner, Palos did eight knots but when converted to oil it did over 14. This successful test led to the testing of oil on larger ships. In January 1909 the USS Cheyenne (formally USS Wyoming) became the first large ship to use oil. Another Navy site says that the first oil-burning American destroyer, USS Paulding was commissioned in September 1910, and by 1911 the USS Nevada-class battleship was planned for solely oil as fuel.

In 1912 the Navy's first two oil-burning battleships USS Nevada (BB-36) and USS Oklahoma (BB-37) were laid down, and were commissioned in 1916. A decade later, USS Cheyenne (Wyoming) was modernized (in 1927), exchanging her coal-fired boilers for new oil-burning types, i.e., Converted from a coal burner to an oil burner. (can anyone help me on the true order in this story?)

Oil meant tactical advantage. As Secretary of Navy says it allowed ships to stay at sea longer, replenish themselves underway from oilers rather than import from coal bunkers, and oil reduced the need for ships to maintain huge divisions of stokers.

Now, from 1909 let me fast forward to 2009. The USA Navy still runs on oil, consuming over 1.3 billion gallons (or about 85,000 barrels per day), and I don’t see any escape from using it. But top US military officials have a different opinion. They think (or maybe even believe) that the so-called Great Green Fleet can become a reality by 2016. Yes, by 2016!

Before documenting the concept let us have a look at The Road to a Greener Navy: 10 Facts on the Navy’s Quest for Alternative Fuels:

1. The Department of Navy consumes 1.3 billion gallons of fuel per year and is the second largest consumer of fuel in the Department of the Defense (US Air Force is 1st, Army is 3rd).

2. Every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil increases Navy fuel costs by almost $300 million.

3. The Navy has set aggressive goals to reduce its reliance on oil, including a 10% annual increase in alternative fuels use by base support vehicles and equipment.

4. Over 3,000 Electric and Natural Gas vehicles are currently in use on Navy bases. Electric and Natural Gas vehicles might be the most efficient land-based alternative energy solution since they require no conversion from the form in which they are produced or mined and are naturally transportable.

5. Alternatives to petroleum-based fuel are endless. Pond scum (algae), non-food crops, biomass, wastes and CO2 are among the many energy sources currently under study.

6. Algae fields can produce 6,000 gallons of oil per acre. A land area of 500 square miles (or 2 times the size of Washington, D.C.) could yield enough oil to meet all of the Navy’s annual fuel needs. In comparison, US oilfields currently occupy 40,000 square miles.

7. Biofuels derived from algae and the oilseeds of the Camelina sativa plant will be used in the Navy’s “Green” Hornet and “Green” Ship initiatives.

8. More than 200,000 gallons of algae- and camelina-based fuel will be delivered to the Navy for test and evaluation. These sources will be the first liquid alternatives to petroleum to be certified for future use.

9. The first Navy aircraft engine to run on bio-fuel was successfully tested in October 2009 at the Naval Air Warfare Center Patuxent River, Md.

10. First flight of the Navy’s F/A-18 “Green” Hornet will take flight in the spring of 2010. The camelina-based biofuel will be blended in a 50-50 mix with standard, petroleum-based JP-5 jet fuel

Like all the other US military services, Department of Navy is also very much fascinated with the word “green”. There are many ongoing initiatives and research. (see my previous post Navy Incentives to save fuel). Some are well grounded, some are good examples and some are interesting. For instance in this year’s Secretary of Navy Awards (SECNAV Awards Recognize Energy, Water Efficiency) we learn that Naval Base Kitsap (Bremerton, Wash.) maintains an energy waste hotline, and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (San Diego, Calif.) was selected as the pilot location under the DoD/Department of Energy Joint Venture Toward Net Zero Energy Installations.

Now let me focus on the Remarks by the Navy Secretary Ray Mabus at the Navy Energy Forum on 14 October 2009 in McLean, Va. (see also other presentation) in which he announced five energy targets the Navy will meet over the course of the next decade. His bold, aggressive and ambitious Green Goals given below are aimed at enhancing the strategic, tactical and operational capabilities of the Navy and Marine Corps along with enhancing environmental stewardship.

Here are the Green Goals of Mabus, followed by my comments in parentheses:

“First: we are going to change the way the Navy and Marine Corps awards contracts. The lifetime energy cost of a building or a system, and the fully burdened cost of fuel in powering those, will be a mandatory evaluation factor used when awarding contracts. We are going to hold industry contractually accountable for meeting energy targets and system efficiency requirements. And we’re going to do more. We will also use the overall energy efficiency and the energy footprint of a competing company as an additional factor in acquisition decisions. We want industry to partner with us and take steps not just to provide us with more energy efficient products, but to produce those products in energy efficient ways. “

(SK: Reshaping the Navy’s approach to awarding shipbuilding and weapons contracts by adding a mandatory evaluation factor for lifetime energy consumption costs and the fully burdened cost of energy is a very good initiative. In fact this is not new. Congress had already asked for it. What new is contractors’ carbon footprint. Let be realistic. Imagine that extra criteria in USAF KC-X acquisition hole without a bottom)

“Second: The Navy will demonstrate in local operations by 2012 a Green Strike Group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuel. And by 2016, we will sail that Strike Group as aOil was first tested in the U.S. Navy on small ships. USS Palos, a tug in Boston Navy Yard, was the first U.S. Navy ship to test this type of fuel. As a coal burner, Palos did eight knots but when converted to oil it did over 14. This successful test led to the testing of oil on larger ships. In January 1909 the USS Cheyenne (formally USS Wyoming) became the first large ship to use oil. Another Navy site says that the first oil-burning American destroyer, USS Paulding was commissioned in September 1910, and by 1911 the USS Nevada-class battleship was planned for solely oil as fuel.

(SK: Amen! Mabus acknowledged that biofuel prices are high, but he believes that the prices will go down as biofuel production increases and that the military’s shift to greater biofuel use will incentivize more biofuel production. To fill the 450,000 gallon fuel tank on the Navy’s DDG-51 destroyer today costs $643,000. Last summer it cost $1.8 million to fill the destroyer’s tanks when oil prices soared above $100 per barrel. Imagine to fill it with expensive biofuels. And also imagine extra space a destroyer will need for storage. Note that 1 gallon of biofuel has less heat content that one gallon of traditional oil.)

“Third: the Department of the Navy will by 2015 reduce petroleum use in our 50,000 strong commercial fleet in half - by 50 percent. We’ll do this by replacing our current fleet, as they go out of service, with a new composite fleet of flex fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Moving to biofuels and electric vehicles will benefit the local communities where our bases are located and will spur adoption of similar vehicles in those neighborhoods.” (SK: No way) [1]

“Fourth: the Department of the Navy will by 2020 produce at least half of our shore-based energy requirements on our installations from alternative sources. We will boost our usage of renewable energy and in some cases we will supply power to the grid from solar, wind, ocean, or geothermal sources generated by the base. We’re already doing this at China Lake, where our on-base systems generate 20 times the load of the base.”

(SK: To achieve this target is somewhere between very difficult and impossible. This target is achievable if the words “at least” are replaced by “at most”, and the word “CONUS” is added somewhere, and if the word “energy” is replaced by “power”. The word energy as he uses includes natural gas and oil)

“Lastly, and maybe most importantly, I am asking all of us to meet a very ambitious goal. Today, about 17 percent of our total energy consumption comes from alternative sources. By 2020, half of our total energy consumption for ships, aircraft, tanks, vehicles, and shore installations will come from alternative sources. Right now I’m told 40 percent is a more realistic goal and even that remains difficult because of the cost and logistics.” (SK: my comment above applies here too)

Mabus adds that the Navy is “placing hybrid electric systems like that on Makin Island on 12 DDGs, and we’re going to save almost $1 million per ship per year….. [the new anti-fouling coating that’s being tested in the fleet] will save up to $180,000 per year per ship in fuel costs due to reduced drag from barnacles and marine growth. Once implemented fleet-wide, in combination with other measures like installation of stern flaps on our amphibious ships that increase fuel efficiency, an aggressive energy conservation program with strong incentives and the use of new voyage planning tools, for an additional investment of only $550 million, we’ll get about $400 million savings per year……. All told, we have the opportunity to improve our energy generation ashore over the next ten years by almost 370 MW, enough energy to power 250,000 homes – or all the households in a city the size of Boston.”

Now let me look at the Green Hornet issue.

In October 2009 Navy engineers at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. conducted the initial tests on an F404 F/A-18 jet engine to determine if it could run on JP-5 derived from a renewable resource. (Initial test proves Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet can fly on ‘green fuel’) The aim is to come up with a biofuel powered jet engine for a new F/A-18, so-called “Green Hornet”. The fuel used in the tests was created from the camelina plant, which is in the same family of plants as the mustard seed and rapeseed. It needs little water or nitrogen to flourish and can be grown on marginal agricultural soil. Why camelina? Because it does not compete with food crops.

More tests will occur in the December-January timeframe on the F414, the engine for the Super Hornet. The first actual flight fueled with a renewable fuel blended with the current JP-5 is expected next spring.

According to Secretary Manus, improvements to the traditionally fueled F/A-18 engines will increase the fuel efficiency of each aircraft by three percent, allowing the planes to fly further on the same tank of fuel and potentially save 127,000 barrels of fuel per plane per year. (Navy Launches Green Hornet)

According to Mabus Green Hornet “is going to fly within 3 years. And although the cost of the fuel used in that engine is high right now – it is still cheaper than putting gas into a generator on the battlefield in Afghanistan. And that cost will fall as the scale of production is increased. At the same time, improvements to F/A-18 engines that will be in service by 2015 will improve the efficiency of the aircraft by 3 percent. The improvements will not only allow the aircraft to fly longer, faster, or farther on the same tank, but could save us 127,000 barrels of fuel per year, amounting to $15 million for the Fleet per year at today's fuel prices.”

The F/A-18 Strike Fighter Program Office at the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has already been working on the development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in order to make the original Hornets environmentally friendly. Super Hornet entered the fleet in 1999. They were also dubbing it Green Hornet. But the word “Green” meant less nitrogen oxides emissions, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, and fuel consumption without compromising engine performance attributes such as thrust, weight, and cost. (see Currents, Spring 2007 issue). The Mabus’ Green is adding biofuels into it.
In sum, Green Goals of Mabus are certainly extremely ambitious. In fact, many are on the border of wishful thinking. Easier said than done. What would be the total cost to of the Great Green Fleet? What is the replacement cost of conventional vehicles with hybrids. Right, technology might save us. But not in 6 years time.

Mr. Mabus says he is not asking the impossible. If his goals are not impossible I really wonder what impossible is. He further adds that “I am asking you to make the future a more secure and better place.” What all his goals have to do with more secure and better place? And for whom?

If the military wants to go green it should really mean it by reducing waste, all kind. Otherwise, the word "green" will continue to be understood as the color of the greenback.

----------------------------------------------------

[1] A news piece from Navytimes on 16 October 2009 (SecNav: Cut half of oil use by 2020) reported that the so-called green fleet’s carrier and submarines would be nuclear powered. Its surface escorts would either have hybrid power plants or use alternative bio-fuel in their original engine rooms. And the aircraft in the strike group, including fighter jets and helicopters, would burn only alternative fuel.

Navy Incentives to save fuel

I realized that I didn't pay enough attention to the US Navy’s innovative solutions to fuel consumption challenges. That is why I decided to compile some information on that issue. Here is my preliminary report.

Navy's Energy Conservation (ENCON) efforts seeking cost savings or avoidance have been in place for some time now. There are two major programs.

(1) Naval Sea Systems Command's (NAVSEA's) Incentivized Energy Conservation (i-ENCON) Program.
(2) Fleet Readiness, Research and Development Program (FRR & DP).

The Navy i-ENCON program

The Navy i-ENCON program is a hands-on "meet the fleet" initiative that routinely meets with ship operators to review specific fuel-saving operational procedures. It's committed to reducing ships' energy consumption by 10 percent each year by providing ships' commanding officers and masters and ships' chief engineers energy-saving strategies and techniques and operations modifications. The strategies include "smart steaming," obtaining maximum fuel efficiency without impairing mission objectives. Techniques revolve around operating only the systems needed to support the mission, proper placement of ships' cargo and ballast to achieve balanced weight distribution, and more. Program sponsors recommend quarterly awards for ships with the most fuel-efficient operations.

One of the ways i-ENCON measures fuel and cost avoidance is through underburn, the reported fuel rate for the quarter that's below the ship class' average burn rate.

The motto is simple: Saving fuel and finding ways to cut back on fuel consumption through incentives saves money.

Ship Crews Find Fuel Conservation A Rewarding Experience. i-ENCON program is an effort where ships are recognized for submitting fuel conservation ideas that show results. Every year ships submit Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Energy Conservation Award write-ups, These write-ups include how they save fuel, how much they save fuel and what actions they took. The i-ENCON team evaluates them. The best ideas from the top eight ships, four ships from each hull configuration, are selected and recommended for the SECNAV's award.

The SECNAV ENCON awards are made annually to ships in two categories:
Large Hull - Crew of 400 or more and significant energy efficiency
Small Hull - Crew of less than 400 and significant energy efficiency

To encourage surface ships to reduce the fuel they use, the Navy is offering serious cash to ships for implementing cost avoidance measures. i-ENCON rewards leading fuel conservers among underway surface ships with special recognition and cash incentives. The top prize is $67,000, which commanding officers can use any way they want. Any ship that spends at least 96 hours underway per quarter is eligible for the prizes. Award winners are authorized to fly the SECNAV Energy Flag for a period of one year.

In fiscal 2008, the Navy saved $136 million in energy costs. According to i-ENCON Program Manager Hasan Pehlivan, the program helped Navy ships save more than 1 million barrels of oil in fiscal year 2008, (1.1 million barrels of fuel) enough to fill the 12-gallon gas tanks of more than 3.5 million cars resulting in a record cost avoidance of more than $136 million. In FY 2008, 148 ships received incentive cash awards, a total of $2 million. Award money is routed to each commanding officer's discretionary funds, which are often used to buy items like damage control gear or to augment the ship's welfare and recreation programs.

Naval Sea Systems Command announced 18 February 2009 (i-ENCON Program Realizes Record $48M Fuel Savings) that Navy ships realized a record of more than $48 million in fuel cost avoidance during the first quarter of fiscal year 2009.

Among the ideas Pehlivan shares are: shutting off the main propulsion system at night when ships are waiting for the next day's mission. By keeping the electric plant operating for what he calls "hotel loads," showers, lights, etc., a ship can see fuel savings of upward of 70 percent. "It's amazing savings. That's number one," Pehlivan noted. On ships with gas turbine and diesel engines with twin screws, they have the option of using only one scew--one shaft, one propeller, for driving the ship, Pehlivan said. That effort can result in a 50 percent fuel savings.

The destroyer Porter, based in Norfolk, Va., received $34,000. Porter spent as much time as possible underway last year using only one propeller, Feyedelem said, or running both screws with just two of its four gas turbines. The ship got to the point that even when it was going in and out of port, the crew would wait until the last possible moment to power up all four turbines, then power down the extras as soon as it was safe. The only other time it always kept all four turbines running was during underway replenishments, so it could break away from the other ship even if an engine failed. (source)

Cleaning the hull and propeller can result in a significant cost avoidance. A clean hull gives you a 12 percent cost avoidance. A clean propeller gives you 6 percent cost avoidance,according to Pehlivan. Maintaining machinery also results in fuel savings for ships.

Navy ships account for roughly 40 percent of logistics fuel consumption, that is fuel used to move something. To make ships more efficient at sea, Navy has focused on two major areas: better hull coatings and better hull forms, and hybrid electric drive to provide greater operational capabilities by allowing ships to operate longer without refueling.

Navy ships typically run two generators simultaneously to provide shipboard power requirements, with one acting as an emergency back-up for possible power loss. The uninterruptable power supply would allow ships to routinely run one generator. Only running one generator at 70 percent load versus two generators at 35 percent load saves about 10 percent of the fuel, somewhere on the order of six to seven thousand barrels of fuel a year. (Navy Innovation Reduces Fuel Consumption at Sea)

Fleet Readiness, Research and Development Program

This program aims at helping Navy ships, including MSC ships, to conserve fuel now and to find long-term fuel reduction solutions that enable us to meet mission requirements even when fuel prices go through the roof.

One of the initiatives is stern flaps for dock landing ships and multi-purpose assault ships that could yield annual cost avoidance of around $6.3 million. Stern flaps, projecting parallel to the water from the ships' transoms, would make the ships more hydrodynamic, which would reduce the energy needed for propulsion.

An article of Office of Naval Research Corporate Strategic Communications in June 2009 stated that new hull coatings being developed by the Office of Naval Research are showing promise in reducing the build-up of marine crustaceans – namely barnacles – on ships' hulls, optimizing vessel performance and dramatically reducing fuel costs. Marine growth adds weight and increases drag reducing a vessel's fuel efficiency. The practical problem for ships is simply that biofilm can add up to 20 percent drag and barnacles more than 60 percent. This increases fuel consumption and green house gas emissions. ONR-sponsored biofouling prevention coatings provide an environmentally safe alternative for protecting naval ship hulls, which could also benefit the commercial shipping industry.

The Naval Surface Warfare Center at Carderock estimates that biofouling reduces vessel speed by up to 10 percent. Vessels can require as much as a 40 percent increase in fuel consumption to counter the added drag. High-performance naval warships and submarines rely on critical design factors such as top speed, acceleration and hydroacoustic stealth. Previous biofouling prevention methods used toxic coatings, or biocides, to clear barnacle colonies from the ship exteriors. Although effective in the short-term, biocides exact a heavy environmental burden.

The question was why some marine animals, such as whales, harbor barnacles and others, such as sharks, stay relatively clean. Brennan discovered that the unique pattern of shark skin contributed to its ability to fend-off microorganisms.

Navy Stern Flap Installations Project to Save Millions in Fuel Costs

The U.S. Navy began installing stern flaps in April 2009 on amphibious ships in an effort make ships more fuel efficient and save up to $450,000 in fuel costs per ship annually. USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) was the first dock landing ship to receive stern flaps.

According to Petter Kristiansen (FRR&DP program manager) "A stern flap, located on the aft end of a ship, makes the ship more hydrodynamic, reducing drag and the energy required to propel them through the water. Previous installations on other Navy ships generated annual fuel savings of $365,000 to $450,000 per ship."

Once installed fleetwide on both LSDs and LHDs, the initiative is expected to yield an annual cost avoidance of approximately $6.3 million, based on fuel oil costing $96 per barrel.

FRR&DP's Underwater Hull Coatings initiative

The marine fouling such as barnacles that accumulate on ships is a typical problem which causes hydrodynamic drag and reduces fuel efficiency. Colonized barnacles and biofilms on the hull of a Navy ship translate into roughly 500 million dollars annually in extra maintenance and fuel costs that are required to keep ships free of barnacles, oysters, algae and other marine life. But cleaning and recoating ship hulls is expensive and time-consuming, and recoating can only be done while a ship is in dry dock. The Naval Surface Warfare Center at Carderock estimates that biofouling reduces vessel speed by up to 10 percent. Vessels can require as much as a 40 percent increase in fuel consumption to counter the added drag.

New underwater hull coatings applied in to the guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) are projected to save more than $180,000 in fuel costs per year. (USS Cole (DDG 67) Sports New Fuel-Saving Hull Coating). The new coatings will help reduce marine bio-fouling, build-ups of tubeworms, mussels, barnacles and other shell organisms on the ship's hull, according to Petter Kristiansen, program manager of the Fleet Readiness Research & Development Program (FRR&DP).

The new process is reported to use a fouling-release coating system. It is a silicone-based, non-toxic technology that provides a very smooth, slick, low friction surface. Settling marine organisms like barnacles, tunicates and algae can't attach themselves firmly to the slick surface.

In September 2009 the new underwater hull coating was applied to USS Port Royal (CG 73). Testing will assess fuel cost savings for the ship while underway.(First Cruiser Sails with New Fuel-Saving Hull Coating). The process uses a fouling-release coating system.

The initiative aims to apply new anti-fouling hull coatings on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. Once fully implemented on the 70-plus active ships across the two classes, the program could potentially deliver fuel consumption cost avoidances of more than $12.6 million per year, based on fuel oil prices of $100 per barrel.

Autonomous Underwater Robot Maintains Naval Commitment to Environment

The Naval Materials Division of ONR´s Sea Warfare and Weapons Department is sponsoring the research on environmentally safe antifouling solutions which is developing this innovation -- an autonomous underwater hull grooming robot. ONR recently conducted tests with a developmental ship hull grooming robot, called the Robotic Hull Bio-inspired Underwater Grooming tool or Hull BUG. The tests showed that this little groomer — similar in concept to a autonomous robotic home vacuum cleaner or lawn mower — has a lot of promise.

The robot incorporates the use of a biofilm detector that utilizes modified fluorometer technology to enable the robot to detect the difference between the clean and unclean surfaces on the hull of a ship. Used to groom ships in port, the Hull BUG removes the marine biofilm and other marine organisms before they get solidly attached. This is especially important because Navy ships spend more than 50 percent of their service life in port, giving barnacles and marine life ample time to become settled and, if allowed, to further colonize and grow on the ship´s hull. While originally focused on reducing the use of toxic antifouling hull paints, these investments have also yielded technology breakthroughs that reduce the use of fossil fuels. Partners in ONR´s development of the Hull BUG include NSWCCD, SeaRobotics and the Florida Institute of Technology.

Military Sealift Command conservation efforts[1]

Fuel economy within the MSC fleet is impacted by two major factors — operational requirements and engineering plant operations.

Operational efficiencies

“MSC's Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force is being driven hard to supply Navy combatants spread out all over the globe. Operational commanders typically require NFAF ships to deliver across great distances quickly. The mission may require the replenishment ship to use 7,000 barrels of fuel to deliver 18,000 barrels to the customer. That's not very efficient, but the mission has to come first. When operations permit, we automatically shift to most economical hull speeds. We've issued a table that lists those speeds to all our ships. The values in the table are based on years of data collection, operational trend analysis and best shipboard practices. For instance, the most economical speed for fleet replenishment oilers, ammunition ships, dry cargo/ammunition ships and combat stores ships is 14 knots. For tugs it's 13 knots when not towing anything. Rescue and salvage ships, when not towing, do best at 12 knots. Fast combat support ships, on the other hand, do their best at 16 knots, while hospital ships are most economical at 7 knots. Other underway techniques include bottom and propeller polishing and use of the newer, super-slick bottom paints that reduce drag.”

Power plant efficiencies

“Efficient engineering plant operations depend primarily on proper maintenance. Keeping heat exchangers, air and fuel filters, and after coolers clean leads to better thermal transfer, more efficient fuel burning, and less wear and tear on the cylinder liners. In the Prepositioning Program, most of the fuel we use is for power generation. Much of the time, our Prepositioning ships are anchored or in port, waiting for tasking orders. However, while not sailing, they do still have to maintain the combat equipment they carry at the temperatures and humidity levels specified by our customers. That requires air conditioning, which takes a great deal of power from the ships' generators.

Studies have proven that operating one diesel generator at 80 percent load is much more efficient than operating two at 40 percent. It's the way diesels are designed. Our prepositioning ship masters routinely run only those generators needed to meet power needs while operating at about 80 percent load. Of course, when at anchor, there aren't any propulsion needs, but when sailing, if one engine can be shut down and the second engine can run at 80 percent load without affecting the mission, then more savings are generated.”

USMC Energy Summit on 13 August 2009

Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway along with Raymond E. Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, hosted and headlined a one-day USMC Energy Summit on 13 August 2009. The purpose was to raise awareness and understanding of what the Marine Corps is doing to lessen energy consumption and dependence on fossil fuels and inform people what the Corps’ is experimenting with, and what the greatest challenges will be.

A Marines news piece on August 14, (Marine Corps sets vision to conserve energy) reported the followings;

“The Marine Corps is doing a two-tier approach,” Conway said. “We talk about net zero – wanting our installations to produce as much energy as we use.” Conway said two Marine Corps installations, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, already have programs in place to help reduce the use of energy while producing their own through solar power and obtain “net zero” status.

Mabus said it’s important for the military not to depend on oil, and the military spends too much time using oil to get oil. “Only 10 percent of our energy is used by combat vehicles,” Mabus said. “A good portion of the other 90 percent is used is to get the combat vehicles their supplies. We simply have to have a better source of energy for our military than what we have today. We must move away from oil.”

**************
[1] Robert D. Reilly Jr., Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy, Commander, Military Sealift Command, Rising fuel costs mean fuel conservation challenges, Sealift Magazine, August 2008.