Game changer? Perhaps..We'll see..
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/navy-ends-big-oil/
QuoteThe U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed
Author: Left Wing Nation April 12, 2014 10:59 am
RIMPAC 00
Surf’s up! The Navy appears to have achieved the Holy Grail of energy independence â€" turning seawater into fuel:
After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.
…
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.
Curiously, this doesn’t seem to be making much of a splash (no pun intended) on the evening news. Let’s repeat this: The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline.
This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.â€
I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green†technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.
There are two other aspects to this story that have not been brought up yet:
1. The process pulls carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas driving Climate Change) out of the ocean. One of the less well-publicized aspects of Climate Change is that the ocean acts like a sponge for CO2 and it’s just about reached its safe limit. The ocean is steadily becoming more acidic from all of the increased carbon dioxide. This in turn poisons delicate ecosystems like coral reefs that keep the ocean healthy.
If we pull out massive amounts of CO2, even if we burn it again, not all of it will make it back into the water. Hell, we could even pull some of it and not use it in order to return the ocean to a sustainable level. That, in turn will help pull more of the excess CO2 out of the air even as we put it back. It would be the ultimate in recycling.
2. This will devastate oil rich countries but it will get us the hell out of the Middle East (another reason Republicans will oppose this). Let’s be honest, we’re not in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. We’re there for oil. Period. We spend trillions to secure our access to it and fight a “war†on terrorism. Take away our need to be there and, suddenly, justifying our overseas adventures gets a lot harder to sell.
And if we “leak†the technology? Every dictator propped up by oil will tumble almost overnight. Yes, it will be a bloody mess but we won’t be pissing away the lives of our military to keep scumbags in power. Let those countries figure out who they want to be without billionaire thugs and their mercenary armies running the show.
Why this is not a huge major story mystifies me. I’m curious to see how it all plays out so stay tuned.
UPDATE:
People have been asking for more details about the process. This is from the Naval Research Laboratory’s official press release:
Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2. The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system.
In plain English, fuel is made from hydrocarbons (hydrogen and carbon). This process pulls both hydrogen and carbon from seawater and recombines them to make fuel. The process can be used on air as well but seawater holds about 140 times more carbon dioxide in it so it’s better suited for carbon collection.
Another detail people seem to be confused about: This is essentially a carbon neutral process. The ocean is like a sponge for carbon dioxide in the air and currently has an excess amount dissolved in it. The process pulls carbon dioxide out of the ocean. It’s converted and burned as fuel. This releases the carbon dioxide back into the air which is then reabsorbed by the ocean. Rinse. Repeat.
This article was originally posted on proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
That isn't a primary fuel source. Where does the energy to extract hydrogen and carbon from seawater come from? Running an electrocatalyst isn't exactly energy efficient.
This sounds too much like a perpetual motion machine for me to get excited about. Solitary
http://www.vice.com/read/can-we-really-fly-planes-on-seawater
My condoles to the one maybe two people out there who were gullible enough to think that this would kick our oil habit.
Deja vu... I would swear on a stack of porn that I've read this article and thread before...
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 04, 2015, 01:04:14 PM
That isn't a primary fuel source. Where does the energy to extract hydrogen and carbon from seawater come from? Running an electrocatalyst isn't exactly energy efficient.
^this. Takes energy to make energy. If you still wind up with Carbon Dioxide at the end, you're just recycling a greenhouse gas.
I'll wait for something that's in a science journal, not a politics or business site.
Quote from: trdsf on May 04, 2015, 08:03:26 PM
I'll wait for something that's in a science journal, not a politics or business site.
Yes indeed. I think it's neat, but when you have a congress that makes the military buy Abrams tanks they don't want or need, you can bet the oil companies have something to say about it.
I'll wait to see what the Navy is actually able to do.. They have a knack for keeping things under wraps. I kinda think it's probably pie in the sky, but perhaps they have some other process not being made public at this time..
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 04, 2015, 08:50:27 PM
I'll wait to see what the Navy is actually able to do.. They have a knack for keeping things under wraps. I kinda think it's probably pie in the sky, but perhaps they have some other process not being made public at this time..
True dat. I rode around on ships that had inertial navigation systems, satellite GPS and a few other niceties back in the late 60's and early 70's, and worked on airplanes for the Air Force made of steels and alloys that only a decade later were used in industry. The military got some shit no doubt, and they know how to keep it quiet.
I started sailing in Maine during the days of sextants and dead reckoning. Knowing where you were wasn't exactly a problem, but always an interesting topic. In talking to some old timer, he told be about this thing called Loran, which would locate your position and give you your lat and lon coordinates, which you could then find on a map.
"Really?" I said, "That sounds fantastic!"
But then he told me the bad news. Only the Navy could afford it because it cost $40,000. This was in 1970 when $40,000 was like $300,000 today. But as it goes with technology, the cost kept coming down. It's now been replaced with GPS off of satellites, and the last Loran stations in the world were actually scheduled to be closed a few years ago. Looking through marine catalogs, the last time I saw a Loran unit, you could buy them for $300. I don't think they are even available now, although I haven't looked to see. And you can buy those little GPS units that stick on your car windshield for less than $100.
But it's harder to wrap my head around fuel made from seawater.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 04, 2015, 08:50:27 PM
I'll wait to see what the Navy is actually able to do.. They have a knack for keeping things under wraps. I kinda think it's probably pie in the sky, but perhaps they have some other process not being made public at this time..
"It is not the policy of the United States Navy to either confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships and shore installations. Beep."
The Navy kept it under wraps that I was ever in the Navy since 1977 till just three years ago.. :shhh:
I knew you were a spook. No offence to the blacks, and my apologies if anyone was. Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 05, 2015, 11:22:43 AM
I knew you were a spook. No offence to the blacks, and my apologies if anyone was. Solitary
Hey, I resemble that remark! :) Being a 'spook' kept me out of Nam. And I still have my spook with me on my desk as I type this.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 04, 2015, 01:04:14 PM
That isn't a primary fuel source. Where does the energy to extract hydrogen and carbon from seawater come from? Running an electrocatalyst isn't exactly energy efficient.
You are correct that the fuel produced by this process isn't a primary energy source, but then again neither are the refined fuels currently used in internal combustion engines. In the case of the later the primary is crude oil and natural gas. The process has the effect of making sea water a primary fuel source.
I can see why the Navy would be interested in this process. They could build mobile refinery ships that travel with the fleet and eliminate the need to transport fuel for the conventionally powered ships long distances. Power for the process shouldn't be that big of an issue either. The A1B reactors currently being used in the Ford class carriers are rated at 300 MW each. That's enough power to process a lot of seawater. There are commercial applications to if you set up your refineries to run off solar.
Others are correct though in that without some type of carbon sequestration when you burn the final product this energy source doesn't appear to help much with the issue of anthropogenic climate change.
Anywho, if we can produce combustible fuel from a process that is powered by reactors it might be worthwhile.
The engineers on the Washington touted the reactors S5W (Westinghouse) at being able to power every city around where we were moored. Don't know the rating, but I know the supercarriers have multiple reactors, so the output would be more than sufficient. What I don't get is what type of fuel- diesel? Some ships are powered by gas turbines, others diesel, so I would like to see specifically what they mean by fuel. If they are talking about fuel for the aircraft, again you have more than one type. JP-4 is a 50-50 gasoline-kerosene fuel. I'd like to see some specifics.
The Enterprise had 8 reactors. Everything built since only has two larger ones. The new ones on the Ford Class carriers are a lot bigger than anything in the Nimitz class boats. More power was needed for stuff like rail guns, magnetic catapults, super computers and streaming porn broadband communications.
Gas turbines, like diesel engines, are pretty flexible when it comes to fuel. Most of them will burn anything from natural gas to used motor oil with little to no modification to the engine itself, but you might need to make some changes to the fuel system like injectors or ECU mapping to make different types of fuel burn efficiently.