60-Second Earth

Navy Commits to Alt Fuels

The Earth Day test flight of a partially biofuel-powered F/A-18 Green Hornet was another example of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus's commitment to decreasing the military's consumption of foreign fossil fuels. Steve Mirsky reports














Share on Tumblr

Listen to this Podcast

On April 22nd, Earth Day, the U.S. Navy ran a test flight of an F/A-18 Green Hornet fighter on a 50-50 mixture of petroleum-based jet fuel and biofuel. The biofuel came from the camelina plant, a member of the mustard family. On hand to watch the flight was Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus: “The Navy has always been in the leadership when we’ve changed energy sources. In the 1850s we went from sail to coal. In the early part of the 20th century we went from coal to oil.”

Mabus has committed the Navy to be an early adopter of alternative energy sources. He wants one of the 11 strike groups—an aircraft carrier and its support vessels—to be completely fossil-fuel free by 2016. That effort is as much based in national security as in environmental awareness. After the Green Hornet flight, Mabus said, “Not much of the fuel that we are using in the fleet today or using on our bases today comes from the U.S. We are too dependent on potentially volatile places on Earth for that energy.”

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]


3 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. sofistek 05:56 AM 4/27/10

    There have been several studies, by the forces, about peak oil. I'm sure this move is not so much to reduce dependence on foreign oil, or to lessen the impact on the environment; it's probably also motivated by the fact that crude oil in near or past its peak production. The air force wants to keep flying as oil starts its decline.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. CharleyG 02:38 PM 4/27/10

    The demonstration biofuel cost > 60.00/gal vs. < 2.00/gal for JP5. Having an entire strike group consuming biofuel would put a huge hole in the pentagon budget just for fuel. That lends a new meaning to the word 'unsustainable.'

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. bucketofsquid 11:27 AM 5/3/10

    The initial cost is higher because the research and development needed to bring it online. The long term cost should be quite a bit lower.

    The sad thing is that the USA wastes so much money on unsustainable "green" alternatives such as corn based ethanol when sugar cane, sugar beets or simple grass that grows wild provide a much better return on investment.

    When politics are discarded in exchange for real science, then we will see viable alternative energy sources.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Email this Article

Navy Commits to Alt Fuels

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X