• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US Navy Tests Boat Powered by Algae

okay, fuck that ... 8.5 million on algae.... our government is fully retarded now.

they've gone full blown retard...they aren't half assing it anymore.
 
would be cool if we can scoop up the toxic algae like red tide shit and turn it into some sort of fuel. You may not get ahead on energy efficiency, but at least you are reducing the dead zone.
 
Still mixed with 50% diesel. IIRC, the M1 Abrams can run on a variety of fuels, The Navy is probably trying to do the same thing here with these boats.

Algae doesn't grow on trees.
Click to expand...
It grows on seas.
 
highland145 said:
My first thought was "that's pretty cool" then I got to this part:


What?


http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/a...oat-powered-by-algae/19692768?test=latestnews
Click to expand...

It's a lot of money, but it isn't that surprising. Manufacturing algae in such enormous quantities isn't something that is done regularly and I bet there are few companies in the world that can do it. Hence, the cost is high.

If the Navy decides that the fuel is a viable alternative, their demand for it will drive prices down dramatically as other companies enter the market and economies of scale take over.

Though never on this scale, my company's budget for R&D procurement of raw materials is huge. We'll spend a lot of money on a small quantity of a material in order to see if it works in our product. If they don't work it's money "wasted," but it's also the only way to develop new products (or in the Navy's case, new sources of power). If it works, we suddenly can order it by the drum or rail car-load and prices drop.
 
BeauJangles said:
It's a lot of money, but it isn't that surprising. Manufacturing algae in such enormous quantities isn't something that is done regularly and I bet there are few companies in the world that can do it. Hence, the cost is high.

If the Navy decides that the fuel is a viable alternative, their demand for it will drive prices down dramatically as other companies enter the market and economies of scale take over.

Though never on this scale, my company's budget for R&D procurement of raw materials is huge. We'll spend a lot of money on a small quantity of a material in order to see if it works in our product. If they don't work it's money "wasted," but it's also the only way to develop new products (or in the Navy's case, new sources of power). If it works, we suddenly can order it by the drum or rail car-load and prices drop.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%, this should just be considered R&D, the costs of which are always high. They would never invest money into this if they didn't think there was a good chance of reducing costs in the long-term.

Also, 8.5 million may seem like a lot when fuel can be had for much cheaper, but remember the Navy is also spending 5.1 billion on the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.
 
Bibble said:
I agree 100%, this should just be considered R&D, the costs of which are always high. They would never invest money into this if they didn't think there was a good chance of reducing costs in the long-term.

Also, 8.5 million may seem like a lot when fuel can be had for much cheaper, but remember the Navy is also spending 5.1 billion on the new Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...
I'll go along with the R&D costs but I'm not so sure about the bolded.
 
highland145 said:
I'll go along with the R&D costs but I'm not so sure about the bolded.
Click to expand...

Upon reading the article I see the reason behind your hesitation. You are right to be cautious. It does seem that this is motivated more by "going green" than saving money. The last line in the story, however, reveals what I believe to be the true reason behind this: the desire to have the ability to use alternative fuels when/if the cost of oil gets too high. As I stated originally, this is a benefit that will only be had in the long-term.
 
It's the Navy for pete's sake.
The Department of Defense doesn't care how much it costs. In fact, they probably don't even care if it works.

See Divad aka Sgt. York
 
and running that boat accomplishes what, exactly? they already knew the boat would float, and the fuel would burn, so what knowledge is gained by going through with this disproportionally expensive exercise?
 
The Boston Dangler said:
and running that boat accomplishes what, exactly? they already knew the boat would float, and the fuel would burn, so what knowledge is gained by going through with this disproportionally expensive exercise?
Click to expand...
Not all fuels are the same, just cuz it combusts doesn't necessarily mean it's completely good to go, I'm not familiar with this project or their powerplants, but for the biofuels research being done for aircraft powerplants there's a lot to consider. The thermochemistry of the process is going to change with the new fuel, they also need to check how the fuel sits with the plumbing and the rest of the hardware (whether there's any unwanted reactions maybe? or how the new fuel atomizes), and all other hosts of issues..like coking in the turbine or combustor, etc etc.

Also it seems like the government is one of the few who are really pushing innovation here. The costs are going to be high initially, but until someone tries it and confirms that it works, supply is never going to increase...prices will continue to be high...and we won't make any real progress until oil becomes $500/gallon.
 
Last edited:
highland145 said:
My first thought was "that's pretty cool" then I got to this part:


What?


http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/a...oat-powered-by-algae/19692768?test=latestnews
Click to expand...

You understand that it's more expensive for a small research refinery to produce fuel than for the network of giant commercial oil refineries that have been in business for decades to produce fuel?

The price comparison doesn't mean anything unless you are talking about projected commercial prices for the algae fuel if they decide to start using it for more than experiments.
 
LordMorpheus said:
You understand that it's more expensive for a small research refinery to produce fuel than for the network of giant commercial oil refineries that have been in business for decades to produce fuel?

The price comparison doesn't mean anything unless you are talking about projected commercial prices for the algae fuel if they decide to start using it for more than experiments.
Click to expand...

MikeMike said:
Innovation costs money...

NO SHIT
Click to expand...
Of course but I seem to remember something about a recession and massive debt.

But I could be wrong.
 
highland145 said:
Of course but I seem to remember something about a recession and massive debt.

But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

There is one thing, that no matter what, when running a company (yes, DoD is a company pretty much IMO) you NEVER want to decrease...you know what that is?

R&D... it is essential to any company.
 
MikeMike said:
There is one thing, that no matter what, when running a company (yes, DoD is a company pretty much IMO) you NEVER want to decrease...you know what that is?

R&D... it is essential to any company.
Click to expand...
Agree on the R&D but this looks more like "going green" than anything else to me.

FWIW, I like the algae bio fuel idea.
 
highland145 said:
Agree on the R&D but this looks more like "going green" than anything else to me.

FWIW, I like the algae bio fuel idea.
Click to expand...

It's not going green, its attempting to rely less on the resources of other, potentially dangerous countries. It is necessary research to determine validity of potential alternatives.
 
Early adopters always pay through the nose. How much did DARPA-net cost per user? Noone sane is saying the US govt overpaid for that.
 
MikeMike said:
It's not going green, its attempting to rely less on the resources of other, potentially dangerous countries. It is necessary research to determine validity of potential alternatives.
Click to expand...
It is but your point is true, too.

"Our program to 'go green' is about combat capability, first and foremost," he said. "Our energy program strengthens natural security, but it also strengthens national security -- we're not held hostage by any one source."
Click to expand...

My point is that we're broke. Delay it a year or two. Oil will last until then or, Lord forbid, we drill more offshore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top