The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
Navy landing craft utilities are some of the fleet's most dependable workhorses. Most are 40 years old, but their massive diesel engines are still capable of hauling 180 tons of equipment from ship to shore.
LCU-1663 is no different. One of 16 LCUs assigned to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, it spent three months this year deployed to Central and South America. Last year, it responded to the Haiti earthquake.
This week, with a gaggle of engineers aboard, the 135-foot-long vessel did something new: It went to sea with a fuel other than diesel in one of its two tanks.
The landing craft is taking part in the latest test of the Navy's effort to power its vessels and aircraft with a blend of biofuel and fossil fuel. During a four-hour test run, the boat operated with a 50-50 blend of petroleum and a biofuel derived from algae.
Chief Petty Officer Bernard Hall, the man in charge of the boat and its 12-person crew, said they put the craft through a workout in the Chesapeake Bay. They ran the engines at different speeds in 10-minute increments, up to full power. Engineers from Naval Sea Systems Command monitored sensors and gauges that measured torque, temperatures and RPM.
"The engines didn't skip a beat between the two fuels," said Chief Warrant Officer Eric Jones, waterfront maintenance officer for Assault Craft Unit 2.
He held up two glass jars of the liquids that make up the blend: One, the color of dark iced tea, was F-76, the military's marine petroleum. The other, clearer and lighter, was biofuel developed by Solazyme.
The biofuel isn't cheap. Right now, it's probably 10 times more expensive than diesel. But the Navy hopes the price will drop as demand for synthetic fuel rises. The secretary of the Navy announced in 2009 that he wanted the service to use 50 percent less petroleum by 2020.
Richard Leung, a Navy fuels specialist, said Thursday that biofuels must be "drop-in" replacements that work without needing to modify engines.
"Users shouldn't know if they're getting petroleum or biofuel," he said.
Hall and Jones said they would've been able to tell something was different during the test Tuesday even if they hadn't known the boat was operating on biofuel. But the difference was an improvement: less exhaust, especially when the engines were working at full power.
"It burned a lot cleaner, but it didn't operate any differently," Jones said of LCU-1663.
Hall thinks that's good news: "It could be very beneficial to the environment as a whole."
Next week, Hall and his crew will put their craft to the test again, this time burning only petroleum. Engineers will compare the results with this week's test.
It probably will be a long time until the LCUs at Little Creek use biofuel on a daily basis. The craft deploy - and get their fuel - from amphibious ships, which haven't yet tested the biofuel.
But this is a good start, said Cmdr. Angela Morales, the commander of Assault Craft Unit 2. "I think we're well down the road to becoming a green fleet. It's a great initiative."
Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo


funny
Too funny... I'm going to use the article's words in this response.
"The Secretary of the Navy announced in 2009 that he wanted the service to use 50 percent less petroleum by 2020." So what did the Navy do? Well, "...the boat operated with a 50-50 blend of petroleum and a biofuel..." because now the Navy can claim success!
In a world of budget cuts, going green doesn't cut it. "Right now, it's (biofuel) probably 10 times more expensive than diesel."
Navy revs up fuel of the future
wow...check out the flick/documemtary "Gas Hole"
"price will drop as demand for synthetic fuel rises"
Greenonomics. Prices drop as demand increase? Do these people actually ever think about what they are saying or do they just know their supporters will never make any critical evaluation of their comments but just blindly drink them down instead?
So you're saying that as the
So you're saying that as the volume of sales increases, prices don't decrease? That goes against about 150 years of economic studies.
It's called economy of scale. Look it up.
I did
See previous post. What you say is true but meaningless. Going in circles. How are you going to increase sales of a product that currently cost $40/gallon that replaces one that cost $4.00/gallon? If this biostuff only cost twice as much, I might take more time to think about it, but this is strictly pie-in-the-sky.
I think......
....he's referring to the "supply and demand" economics.
I believe the article is referring to reduced cost after the company recoups some of their up front research and development costs - which only happens after a sizable market has been developed for the product. Like the first VCR cost $800, or the first flat screen TV cost $4000 - but the price came down after the development costs were covered....
But still - at a cost of 10 times the current conventional fuel, is it reasonable to assume that a big market will develop for this stuff? Really? Sounds like environmentalism gone terribly awry.....
I was
I think I only studied econ 101, maybe 201. I’m glad I didn’t get to 301 where they apparently starting losing touch with reality. Go tell a professional commodity trader that price will come down as demand goes up.
If I may point out
Yes the upfront development and research costs need to be recouped. So we have gone from $800 VCR to DVD players for $20 (a major drop in price and a better product). The other factor that needs to be looked at is the cost of producing the fuel (or any other item). As the demand increases so will the companies producing the fuel. And they will look for cheaper ways to produce the fuel.
Best example is the automobile. When first introduced only the rich could afford one because of the cost to buy and maintain one. Mr. Ford came along and decided to produce cars at a low enough price so the working class could buy one.
We will see if this fuel works or maybe someone else will come along with an even better idea.
Fossil Fuel Advocate
Watch the vid Gas-Land. We only have finite resources. Think about the cost to extract and defend those resources. Navy says a 50% bio-fuel use by 2020. They see the future. Bush finally admitted at in 07 that we were addicted to foreign oil. Took 7 years but, he said it, and he’s an oil man! What did people think when we went from wood to coal, coal to steam, to nuclear, now solar, wind, and now battery cell cars. In 08, the Prius sold the 1 MIL mark, in Aug 10, I MIL sold in the US alone. Chevy will have a plug in 80 mile trip 2013. There is an energy evolution going on various approaches are being uswed. Yes petroleum will still be needed for your computer and saran wrap, but even Heinz ketchup bottles are being made from vegetable oils.
martyc54744: Electric vehicles need a source of electricity...
...almost all of it comes from fossil- and nuclear-fueld power plants. Democrats' own the biggest addiction--they're addicted to blocking use of America's abundant fossil fuel resources. Democrat Barack Obama was held in contempt of court by a Federal judge for blocking drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html America sits on millions of gallons of oil daily that could flow to the lower 48 from ANWR without harming a single caribou. Democrat Senators John Kerry and (then) Democrat Joe Lieberman wrongly BLOCKED drilling in ANWR in 2002. Keep using food for fuel and see what's left to eat.