EDITORIAL COMMENT
RAND report pours cold water on biofuels
Research by RAND suggests the US Navy should focus on using energy more efficiently rather than using biofuels.
military using new types of environmen- tally friendly fuel just as the Secretary of the Navy appealed to industry to focus more attention on biofuels. Te US Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and
J
Air Force have all expressed an interest in being early users of alternative fuels, but Congress has yet to require them to do so. Nor has the Secretary of Defense issued any directives to this end. In October 2009, Navy Secretary Ray
Mabus committed the US Navy and the Marine Corps to “creating a Green Strike Group composed of nuclear vessels and ships powered by biofuels” by 2012 and deploying it by 2016. By 2020, at least 50% of the energy the US Navy consumes is, supposedly, to come from alterna- tive sources, but that goal unlikely to be achieved. Speaking at the Clean Energy Summit
at the end of January, the Navy Secretary reviewed the effect that converting the Department of the Navy from fossil fuels to alternative fuels would have on the US economy on a basic level. “A clean energy economy supports
American workers and creates new jobs,” said Mabus. Discussing the US’s depend- ence on fossil fuels and the country’s dependence on them the Navy secretary said: “History has taught us the competi- tion for resources has been one of the fundamental causes of war for centuries.” He noted that continued dependence fuel would endanger sailors fuels for bases and
on fossil transporting fossil
machinery, and highlighted the fact that Warship Technology March 2011
anuary saw a report from the respected RAND Corporation pour cold water on the concept of the US
a US Navy F/A-18 had successfully flown using a camelina-based biofuel. A Seahawk helicopter had also been modified to used an algae-based biofuel, he told the summit. Using alternative fuels could also save
the American people money, he explained. “I am very pleased that the cost of these fuels continues to decrease,” he said. “As more is produced, and as our demand signal grows, I am confident that price will continue to fall.” However, the RAND report, published
on 25 January, claimed that if the military increases its use of alternative fuels there will be “no direct benefit to the nation’s armed forces.” Any benefit from investment in alternative fuels by the US Department of Defense would accrue to the nation as a whole, rather than to mission-specific needs of the military, researchers found. Te study was based on an examination of alternative jet and naval fuels that can be produced from coal or various renewable resources, including seed oils, waste oils and algae. In response to a congressional directive
for a study on alternative and synthetic fuels, the US Department of Defense asked RAND to analyze whether alternative fuels can meet the needs of the military in a climate-friendly and affordable manner. RAND was also asked to examine the goals and progress of the efforts of the US Army, Navy and Air Force in supporting the development of alternative fuel production technology, and in testing and certifying alternative fuels for military applications. “To realise the national benefits of
alternative fuels, the military needs to reassess where it is placing its emphasis in both fuel testing and technology develop-
ment,” said James Bartis, lead author of the study and a senior policy researcher at RAND. “Too much emphasis is focused on seed-derived oils that displace food production, have very limited production potential and may cause greenhouse gas emissions well above those of conventional petroleum fuels,” he claimed. As he noted, the US military also has
invested in technology to produce jet fuel from algae-derived oils. However, according to the study, for the time being, algae-derived fuel remains in the realms of research, and is not yet an emerging option that the military can use to supply its operations. From the perspective of technical viabil-
ity, a number of alternative fuels can meet military fuel requirements, said RAND, but uncertainties remain regarding their commercial viability. “Te Department of Defense consumes
more fuel than any other federal agency, but military fuel demand is only a very small fraction of civilian demand, and civilian demand is what drives competition, innova- tion, and production,” Bartis said. The researchers concluded it makes
more sense for the military to direct its efforts to using energy more efficiently. Providing the military with more energy- efficient equipment such as aircraft or combat vehicles improves operational effectiveness, saves money and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, they said. Te report noted that most of the defence
department’s efforts on alternative fuel development are geared towards proving technical viability, rather than establishing a process that demonstrates affordable and environmentally sound production. WT
5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36