US Navy tests bio-fueled fighter jet on Earth Day.

**Dreadnought** · 22 Apr 10,, 17:34

LEXINGTON PARK, Md. - The Navy says it's testing a fighter jet that's designed to do everything such an aircraft should - while conserving fossil fuel.

The F/A-18 Super Hornet - dubbed the "Green Hornet" by the Navy - was scheduled for an Earth Day test flight Thursday at Patuxtent River Naval Air Station.

The plane burns a 50 percent biofuel blend derived from seeds of the camelina sativa plant, which is in the mustard family.

The Navy says it expects to see no difference between the Green Hornet's performance and fighters burning jet fuel.

The test is part of a program aimed at creating a "Great Green Fleet" composed of nuclear, hybrid and biofuel-powered ships and aircraft by 2016.

Navy Testing Biofueled Fighter Jet on Earth Day | ABC 7 News

**highsea** · 22 Apr 10,, 17:48

That's the plane Obama posed in front of when he gave his energy speech at Andrews.

**gunnut** · 22 Apr 10,, 20:18

I know this is sort of a tangent, but how much energy is needed to make "bio-fuel?"

We dig a hole in dirt, oil comes out. We distill it and use it in different machines.

We need to "grow" the "bio" first and then process it to become "fuel." How much energy do we need to complete this process? Does it really save fossil fuel? What if the crops were ruined for whatever the reason? Will that create a "bio" shock on the world energy market?

**highsea** · 22 Apr 10,, 21:11

There's cost and there's energy balance.

In 2002 dollars, petroleum diesel costs .67/gallon to produce, soybean biodiesel costs 2.49/gallon to produce. (EIA)

The energy balance is hard to calculate, since there are byproducts involved. Estimates vary from 1:1 to 3.2:1.

I think the USDA claims you get 34% more out than you put in, but again, it depends how you calculate it. Some people subtract the energy in the meal and glycerin from the energy input, then divide that by the energy in the biodiesel (that's your 3.2:1 ratio). Others take the total energy and ignore the energy content of the meal and glycerin (that's your 1:1 ratio).

There's no standard. You're getting energy from the sun in biofuels, but it still takes less energy to drill a hole.

**Versus** · 01 May 10,, 00:15

With all this eco hype I see that I was a man ahead of its time, with my digital- kamikaze-homing pigeons design for anti aircraft defense.

Versus Industries "The future starts yesterday"

**bigross86** · 01 May 10,, 00:18

BurgerFuel is an awesome burger chain on the North Island of New Zealand:

BurgerFuel has continued to stay at the forefront of brand design whilst staying true to its eco-morals. BurgerFuel’s commitment to the environment doesn’t even end there, its OSCO (Old Shitty Chip Oil) programme sees the used oil from its stores turned into bio-diesel to fuel its delivery vehicle, making the full experience of eating chips at BurgerFuel truly Eco-licious!

**BenRoethig** · 02 May 10,, 16:03

I don't know if you can make enough biojet50 to make it the standard fuel, but it does have one large advantage that nobody even talks about. The biodiesel group has a flash point close to double that of fossil fuels. That means that biojet is going to be much much safer than traditional jet fuel. That also means that, in theory, we could have a standard fuel between the air force and navy.

**Dreadnought** · 02 May 10,, 19:49

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

I don't know if you can make enough biojet50 to make it the standard fuel, but it does have one large advantage that nobody even talks about. The biodiesel group has a flash point close to double that of fossil fuels. That means that biojet is going to be much much safer than traditional jet fuel. That also means that, in theory, we could have a standard fuel between the air force and navy.

A win/win if it all works out, copius cost savings.

**Jimmy** · 02 May 10,, 22:53

Is it actually cheaper, or does that hinge upon government subsidies like ethanol does?

**BenRoethig** · 02 May 10,, 23:03

Depends on the method.

**Parihaka** · 03 May 10,, 02:09

Originally Posted by bigross86

its OSCO (Old Shitty Chip Oil) programme sees the used oil from its stores turned into bio-diesel to fuel its delivery vehicle

plus everywhere the buggers drive they leave behind a smell of hot chips in the air, inducing suburb-wide fits of munchies.

Edit: Hmmmm, could be a weapon in that.....

**Aussiegunner** · 19 May 10,, 11:20

The other downside of biofuels are that they require arable land to grown the crops that make them and that is going to become a scarce commodity when there are 9 billion mouths to feed on this earth.

**Stitch** · 19 May 10,, 17:42

Originally Posted by Aussiegunner

The other downside of biofuels are that they require arable land to grown the crops that make them and that is going to become a scarce commodity when there are 9 billion mouths to feed on this earth.

That's probably the main argument AGAINST biofuels; at a time when food is becoming scarcer & scarcer, and the Earth's population is continuing to increase, we're taking potential foodstuffs and turning it into fuel. I'm all for saving the resources; but if it's counterproductive, I'm against it.

**Gun Boat** · 19 May 10,, 23:16

Something that gets on my nerves with regards to our Green friends and that is this.

With regards to bio-fuels greenies fail to take into account that it is only possible to field large crops of Bio-fuel producing plants because we have fossil fueled powered farming equipment.

Wind turbines, solar panels, ocean wave generators all look good on paper and make greenies lose control of their bladders but these things all need a considerable investment of fossil fuels to be anywhere near viable.

Think production, installation, transport etc. A wind turbine needs to sit in the wind for a considerable time producing power before it 'pays' back the investment in fossil fuels used to get it in position and producing.

One the biggest cons here in Australia is our lovely 'green' trams. 40 tons of steel rolling along tracks with 'zero' emissions. 80% of the time they have no more than 15 people in them. They impede traffic flow and require fossil fueled maintenece vehicles etc. Meanwhile there is a nice coal burning power station producing the power to move these things around the city.

The Prius. Massive investment in fossil fuels to produce the batteries and transport different components around the world. Batteries that will create problems when they are sitting in car dumps around the world etc. They arnt even that good on fuel. Yet greenies who drive them think they are saving the world. (I know one, he says that at least he is doing 'something' - to that i say 'what' he says 'something')

All these things look good at face value but how much are they really achieving?

The green movement in the western world is made of bleeding hearts and people desperate to feel good about themselves. They VERY rarely provide practical solutions to problems. An f-18 or an entire airforce running on 50% bio fuel makes a few people feel warm and cuddly but will do zero to solve any alledged enviroment issues.

So the motto:

"Greenies- part of the problem, never the answer"

**mister unknown** · 20 May 10,, 15:23

I'm in favor of developing and using wind & solar power to replace coal. But bio-fuels are another matter. Someone here mentioned its need for arable land, which becomes ever more scarce with a growing population. But that's not the only finite resource bio-fuels require. A massive amount of chemical fertilizers will also be consumed in the process of growing the plants used for bio-fuels, and chemical fertilizers are not a renewable resource.