arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Has the US Navy just quietly solved the oil crisis?
- Thread starter arthwollipot
- Start date
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
You've been nomed for pith.
macdoc
Philosopher
It's been posted before and TANSTAAFL
http://www.newscientist.com/article...urned-into-hydrocarbon-fuel.html#.U0ziaI6nyec
There is a vast amount of work being done on the catalyst front...this is just one more.
It's very good the military is involved for funding.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...urned-into-hydrocarbon-fuel.html#.U0ziaI6nyec
from the OP
There is a vast amount of work being done on the catalyst front...this is just one more.
It's very good the military is involved for funding.
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,456
It still obviously requires more energy to convert the seawater to fuel than you get from burning the fuel. This is basically a way (possibly more efficient than current methods) to convert electricity into liquid fuel.
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
Thunder Chunky said:
If the raw ingredients were sea water and air, I really don't see what you expected, if it weren't convert some other energy source into fuel. If it's doing that conversion for the amount we spend on fuel, using some power source like solar, and it's infrastructure is fairly cheap, it probably will be cheaper than storage batteries. That's a win, a good one.
I thought maybe they were reclaiming some of that gas spilling out into the Caribbean a couple of years ago.
macdoc
Philosopher
I think the idea is that they don't have to hit land to refuel some of the oil based ships.
A C02 to bunker oil reactor on a nuclear aircraft carrier makes sense.
The power is there.
As a recapture of C02 from power plants - that's a possibility - it reduces the efficiency of the power plant but then makes the plant somewhat carbon neutral tho eventually it ends up in the atmosphere via ICE use.
Bottom line there is no free lunch here and we need some liquid fuel transport medium for a good while longer
A C02 to bunker oil reactor on a nuclear aircraft carrier makes sense.
The power is there.
As a recapture of C02 from power plants - that's a possibility - it reduces the efficiency of the power plant but then makes the plant somewhat carbon neutral tho eventually it ends up in the atmosphere via ICE use.
Bottom line there is no free lunch here and we need some liquid fuel transport medium for a good while longer
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 13,833
I checked the date of the IBTimes article. April 8, not first of April, lol, interesting.
"The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it." -- http://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-oil-...echnology-turn-seawater-fuel-allowing-1568455
That cost could come down with improved technology. Very interesting indeed.
"The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it." -- http://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-oil-...echnology-turn-seawater-fuel-allowing-1568455
That cost could come down with improved technology. Very interesting indeed.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,758
Not really. The reactors on a Nimitz produce ~250MW, assuming (very charitably) 50% efficiency in the fuel production, that's about 10 tonnes of hydrocarbon fuel per hour or about enough to run a Burke class DDG flat out for about 70 minutes, or about four hours of low speed cruising. Meanwhile your carrier is bobbing around without power.
It's an energy storage device of course, but a really useful and interesting one. If intermittent sources like wind or wave, on occasions when they are abundant, could be using their surplus to manufacture motor fuel, entirely renewable ... The advantages are endless!
ThunderChunky
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,456
If the raw ingredients were sea water and air, I really don't see what you expected, if it weren't convert some other energy source into fuel. If it's doing that conversion for the amount we spend on fuel, using some power source like solar, and it's infrastructure is fairly cheap, it probably will be cheaper than storage batteries. That's a win, a good one.
I thought maybe they were reclaiming some of that gas spilling out into the Caribbean a couple of years ago.
Liquid fuels are important but there are numerous other methods for converting electricity into to liquid fuel. Maybe this one has better efficiency, but I cannot confirm that from the information provided.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Vastly overhyped very preliminary work by the sounds of it.
I wouldn't run out and short Exxon just yet.
I wouldn't run out and short Exxon just yet.
Last edited:
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 13,833
“We haven’t actually made it to the specifications stage yet. But we know we’re in the hydro-carbon region and it shouldn’t be very difficult to meet that specification.” -- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/10/game-changer-us-navy-can-now-turn-seawater-jet-fue/
"Heather Willauer, a Naval Research Laboratory chemist, called the technology "game changing."
"This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition, from the laboratory, to full-scale commercial implementation," she said in a statement." -- http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/10/tech/innovation/navy-new-technology/
"Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, demonstrate proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel." -- http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-...t-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Siemens will sell you a plant right now to make fuel from air and water. It's coming. Combine that with wind and solar, and you have your night/calm reserve source.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,758
Oh yes, it's just what technologies provide the energy (solar, fusion, aero, hydro, geothermal et cetera) and what's the fuel medium (hydrocarbon, alcohol or hydrogen).
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Siemens will sell you a plant, will they?
The clue to whether this is commercially feasible or not is whether Siemens will build plants themselves and sell you the energy produced by the plant
Why do suppose the guys with the free energy device want to sell you the device, not the energy produced by the device?
Cos they're crooks. But this isn't "free energy".
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Right, it just isn't economically viable energy.
Propane and butane are liquids at room temperature and under pressure. Unless he can make longer chain hydrocarbons in a cost-effective manner, this wouldn't be technically viable and is likely to be expensive from an energy in vs. energy out standpoint. As it is, there would also have to be a massive paradigm shift if, say, you wanted to convert all automobiles (thus maintaining the portability and satiating people's desire for fueling their cars) into propane or butane burning engines.
Still, the carbon neutral aspect of this is appealing on many different levels.
~Dr. Imago
Still, the carbon neutral aspect of this is appealing on many different levels.
~Dr. Imago