The Navy's effort extends beyond just biofuels, of course, and includes projects such as lightening loads for U.S. marines by using solar cells to replace heavy batteries. "When you think of a marine, the first thing you think of is probably not an ardent environmentalist," Mabus noted. "They truly have embraced this" because it saves lives. Indeed, for every 50 fuel convoys in Afghanistan, one marine dies.
This July the Navy intends to demonstrate a "Great Green Fleet" in Hawaii, which will include a nuclear-powered carrier and submarine but also all aircraft and surface ships burning a 50-50 blend of biofuels and petroleum-derived fuels. It is a bid to demonstrate that the U.S. Navy can power its vehicles with more secure domestic biofuels that also happen to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change. Already, the USS Ford has cruised from Washington State to San Diego on a 50-50 blend of marine diesel and biodiesel, among other demonstrations in recent years.
That type of fuel is exactly what UOP aims to provide in the long run. "The idea is to demonstrate that the combination of our pyrolysis and our upgrading technology provides superior economic returns for people who own biomass and want to turn it into transportation fuels," Rekoske says—an effort that could be useful on other islands or even the U.S. mainland. "We'll show the world this ravenous teenager of a technology we have that can eat anything and turn it into transportation fuel."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentWhy don't those stupid Hawaiians start depending on some geothermal from that volcano they have and some solar from all that sunshine, then they can convert over to electric cars. How incredibly stupid to put animal and human food in your gas tank.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould a similar process be used to turn algal blooms into fuel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf algal blooms could be profitably harvested in large amounts, and turned into fuel, then worldwide there's an enormous amount of biomass availabe in these blooms, representing an enormous amount of solar energy turned into biomass.
And these blooms are not needed in the sea. On the contrary, often they cause serious problems, by consuming the available oxygen, suffocating other life in the water. That's because the algal blooms feed off fertilizer runoff from agriculture, which is available in far too large amounts, so the blooms reach huge amounts that throw the ecosystems off balance.
If they could be profitably harvested, several marine ecosystems would fare better, and the fertilizer runoff and solar energy would be put to very good use, in a very healthy way.
Cars, trucks, tractors, saw mills & other stationary engines were run on wood gas during the Second World War in many countries. My Father used to say that he could travel as far on a cubic foot of good dry wood as he could on a gallon of petrol. It was called producer gas. The gasifier was mounted on the back of the vehicle usually. There were a lot of impurities in the gas, tars & sulphur by the way, requiring frequent engine overhauls to decarbonise the engine. The engines ran with about 60% of the energy produced by regular petrol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would take an enormous amount of feed stock to replace 45 million barrels of oil.
Cars, trucks, tractors, saw mills & other stationary engines were run on wood gas during the Second World War in many countries. My Father used to say that he could travel as far on a cubic foot of good dry wood as he could on a gallon of petrol. It was called producer gas. The gasifier was mounted on the back of the vehicle usually. There were a lot of impurities in the gas, tars & sulphur by the way, requiring frequent engine overhauls to decarbonise the engine. The engines ran with about 60% of the energy produced by regular petrol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would take an enormous amount of feed stock to replace 45 million barrels of oil.
Based on the story, it seems they are using non-food sources of biomass. The question? Is there enough renewable biomass to support a significant portion of their fuel needs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, no journalism. Pollyanish cheerleading.'Discovery' recently did a piece on 'biofuels'...they are expensive dead end touchy-feely projects that delay actually having to do anything meaningful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe comment on geo thermal. Not viable in Hawaii. It would cost billions and folks on the Big Island aren't going to mar their environment to provide electricity to a far away McDonalds on Oahu.
Oil is only going up in price and transportation too, but nothing was presented that "son of ethanol" would ever be anything but a financial disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHawaii already uses geothermal energy on the Big Island, but there is huge problem with SO2 emissions as a result which add to the vog already pouring out of the active vents here. Until much more efficient scrubbers can be made, it is a health hazard. There is also a big problem with building power plants on an active volcano, the most obvious one being the fact that know one knows where it will erupt next. Nearly the entire Island of Hawaii is in lava danger zone. The last thing the people here want is a power plant that goes nuclear because of stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHawaii already has some of the most successful wind energy projects and a higher then average number of solar energy powered homes then the rest of the nation. Unfortunately it doesn't work too good powering jumbo jets, cargo ships and 18 wheelers, but of course James Davis that.
The problem with people like James Davis is that they are too uneducated to do a little research and discover that Hawaii is already light years ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to research, trial and error in the alternative energy fields.
If Hawaiians are so stupid, how come they all live in paradise and you live in a trailer park in Hicksville?
geojelly @6:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are also indications that biofuels actually make global warming worse, because of nitrous oxide emission:
http://www.economist.com/node/13437705
Hawaii has one of the premier high tech energy labs in the nation, NELHA or Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii. I have had the opportunity to tour the plant on several occasions and it is cutting edge technology on several very promising energy technologies. Right next door is OTEC which has been developing aquaculture and ocean thermal energy technology for decades. The push for bio-fuels is a no-brainer as the oil companies hide the fact that peak oil production is just around the corner. In fact, a huge bio-mass plant was proposed for the Big Island in the Kau district, but opposition to it is strong with the local population. They reasoned correctly that it is more expensive then petroleum at this point in time and the electric company here, which already has some of the highest rates in the country, wants to raise the rates again for a private company to build a bio-mass plant. They want to build the plant on a former sugar plantation. While this sounds good for the economy here, which could certainly use the jobs, the fact is that any profits produced by such a plant will got to the investors, not the locals who will pay for it all with higher fuel prices and minimum wage jobs. Any workers will get paid the same as the average McDonald's workers and we all know that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless a union is formed to protect the workers and offer a living wage, it is never going to fly.
Now, this is where I cue out and the GOPers all call me names and tell me how free enterprise will never do that to a place. Of course, they have never been to Detroit either, and the fact that it was done for nearly a hundred years already in Hawaii with imported Asian workers will be overlooked and they will of course take delight in calling these people who are now often dependent on handouts, lazy and despicable.
For those who care to know the real reason why the plantations nearly all closed here in past 20 years, it was mainly due to the fact that they could no longer afford the higher wages living in Hawaii demands and the huge cost of cleaning up the mess they made was best left to taxpayers with super fund money while the aristocrats who owned the plantation bailed while the gettin' was good.
The biggest problem with Bio-mass for fuel projects is that vast tracts of land that now help to keep food cost down with local ranching and agriculture, will suddenly only produce a product we can't eat and which is destined to hasten the day when anthropogenic global warming is finally admitted buy the least educated among us.
Even if the process shows great promise, I predict that it will not make a dent in the importation of oil. As soon as it becomes a viable economic threat to the oil shipments, the corrupt Hawaiian government in collusion with the oil and shipping interests will shut it down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBet on it.
We have had the technology to run cars on corn 50 years ago and biodeisel was close behind. The fact that the oil lobby spends over $300 million a year to continue the oil hungry consumption in the U.S. is criminal. But Senators and Representatives enjoy the fat pockets and return trips to the Hill so why change? Just put it off on your kids and their kids, just like our goevernment does. Your welcome kids!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately the average citizen in Hawaii is also partly to blame for the mess we have today. Efficient high speed trains would do wonders on these islands to help alleviate the need for more oil imports, but the people who live here hate the idea of giving up their gas guzzlers for even a day. There once was trains in Hawaii that went around all the major islands. The tracks were torn up during WWII to use as reinforcement for military installations island wide that are now just abandoned eyesores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRust and overgrowth in the tropical environment took care of the railroad bridges and right of ways. Everyone thought cars and cheap oil would be around forever. Now we can't afford to build trains that were once the workhorse of Hawaiian freight and people movers.
The Economist article uses a false premise to misrepresent the tradeoffs and issues. Biofuels have never been a golden child in the response to AGW. Biofuels are heralded as a homegrown supply of energy to offset reliance on foreign oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Economist should use a better metric than "Many people consider" as a foundation statement.
Hawaii should add more geothermal plants. It only sources 20% of its power from geothermal. It can increase this to 100%. SO2 and other obnoxious gases can be reinjected into the geothermal well. They can switch to electric trains and electric cars, and convert electricity into hydrogen fuel by electrolysis of water. Compressed hydrogen is like compressed natural gas which can run on diesel engines of ships and gas turbine engines of airplanes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOwl905 @14
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are confusing the Economist, premises, tradeoffs, AGW and energy dependence with science.
The only relevant questions to start with are about nitrous oxide, how much arises through growing biofuels, and its effects as a greenhouse gas.
Once that is established you could come along with your typical greeny smokescreen.
Yes, many Hawaiians got sucked into the "solar rental" rooftop scam. Instead of owning their own rooftop solar, they rent it for life. How silly. Just exchanging one monopoly for another. However they will be able to charge the electric car battery with the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the extent global warming has reached, crops may not be a reliable source for biofuel use.
Counties which have geothermal activity and are located on a thin part of the Earth's crust, e.g. Iceland, New Zealand generate much of their electricity from geothermal plants. Why would Hawaii and Japan and other nations in the world which are sitting on potential geothermal electrical generation sites, not use this advantage to produce electrical power, instead of the Neanderthal-like thinking of burning coal, oil and fossil fuels which will run out anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo the math. Under perfect agricultural conditions it would take a land area at least 1.5 times, maybe 3 times the 10,931 sq. mi. area of Hawaii to supply the 45 million barrels of fuel currently imported. Bio is technically feasible, maybe even economically feasible, but it is basically a photosynthetic process that requires outrageous land area to support anything more than primitive energy requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this18. electric38
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquote...With the extent global warming has reached, crops may not be a reliable source for biofuel use....endquote
And yet, agricultural food production is increasing every year.
The article is fairly weak, it doesn't discuss the energy balance for this "mini-refinery", which I believe requires an outside energy input to dry the bio mass - they say they need to remove about 50 % of the weight which happens to be water, and to do this it takes a lot of heat. So the whole process is a little more baloney. SciAm should be careful not to publish articles unless they have considered these issues, because all this will do is create another legend about evil oil companies killing green technology and so on and so forth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee my comment number 22. If you learn more about the topic, I'd be glad to explain to you where your logic may be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is the completed economic analysis in this article? This sounds great but I believe the cost of producing this fuel will be far higher than fuel that is imported. This is like producing ethanol from corn which has been proven to be a net energy loser but succeeds only through government subsidies, tax breaks and grants. If they are looking for energy alternatives they should be looking at wind which is very reliable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...hey are looking for energy alternatives they should be looking at wind which is very reliable..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you insane? Wind is reliable. Probably the most unreliable Energy Source EVER! Usually ZIP during Winter Cold Spells and Summer Heat Spells when energy demand is maximum and usually max during Spring & Fall and nighttime when energy demand is minimum. Wind is one of the Stupidest Energy source ever. A total scam.
I agree with much of what you said but it is possible
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthat the geography of Hawaii makes wind power more applicable.
After all, Hawaii is a chain of small islands sitting in the middle of the ocean exposed to the wind. Not only that but it is mountainous which opens up the possibility of strong up and down drafts especially due to temperature changes throughout a 24 hour period.
If wind power was going to work anywhere I imagine it would be some place like Hawaii. What good that would do for an aircraft carrier on station a couple of hundred miles at sea, cruise and cargo ships, and commercial airlines is beyond me.
The only basis I have for believing that Hawaii might have a stronger economic foundation for wind power is that every time I was in Hawaii it seemed like a breezy place. Not very scientific of course!
Obviously a couple of nuclear power plants would be a tiny fraction of the cost per kwh of this stupid biofuel plant, ocean or geothermal and many times the energy - all Hawaii will ever need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy waste time and treasure on these way out there ultraexpensive schemes.
Better idea is to use this biocarbon to produce nuke hydrogen based synfuels at a fraction the cost of imported diesel. An attached nuclear hydrogen based synfuel plant would produce all the avgas, gasoline and diesel the Islands would need.
Hawaii already has one of the world's largest concentration of nuclear power in the world not to mention nuke weapons. They just need to start using it for civilian use. Be the cheapest power possible in that state - 10% of the current power rate.
There must be about 3 or 4 gigawatts of nukes idling right now at Pearl Harbor on Oahu along with what enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world twice or power it for five hundred years.
Yet we get Green folk saying islanders don't support nukes?
I am surprised this article does not even mention the most obvious source of energy on the Hawaiian Islands, i.e. geothermal. Other countries, e.g. Iceland, New Zealand which have volcanic activity like Hawaii, tap into this geothermal heat energy to generate electricity. The electrical energy can be used to produce H2 from the electrolysis of water and the Hydrogen can be used in fuel cell engines. Unlike burning hydrocarbons there are no greenhouse gases produced with the hydrogen fuel cell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US Dept Energy published an update to the billion ton study to determine that there is indeed sufficient biomass available to use it as a source of energy. You can read it at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhether biofuels are economically viable depends on the relative prices of things. For example if biomass is available at $50/ton and say 40% or so of the biomass can be converted to something like petroleum (as explained in the article) at ~$100/barrel, then your $50 is now worth ~$200. Whether you can make a profit with $150 margin is going to depend on the capital and operating cost of the biorefinery, but $150 gross margin sure gives you a good chance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is more information about the Dept of Energy program on their website: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/integrated_biorefineries.html
This is a good point, but nitrogen based green house gases are included in the some of the Life Cycle Analysis methods that are used to determine whether a given biofuel meets the criteria of reducing green house gas emissions under the US Renewable Fuel Standard and others and the biofuel doesn't qualify if it fails the assessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/6583k4t917m56875/
Methods to estimate on-field nitrogen emissions from crop production as an input to LCA studies in the agricultural sector by Frank Brentrup, Jürgen Küsters, Joachim Lammel and Hermann Kuhlmann, Int J of LCA, Volume 5, Number 6 (2000), 349-357
Okay, I'll try the math:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10931 sq miles is 6,995,840 acres
biomass such as trees can grow up to 15 tons/acre/year in tropical climates, ~7 in northern temperate at ~50% moisture. Let's use the low end, so that's
24,485,440 tons/year of biomass.
UOP was quoted in a biofuel digest giving an estimate of 90 gallons of fuel from their technology for a ton of biomass and there is 42 gallons of fuel in a barrel.
that makes 52,468,800 barrels/year.
Of course, that assumes 100% availability, which isn't feasible, but it looks like it isn't that bad of an idea.