Technological breakthrough? U.S. Navy says it can now convert seawater into fuel

[Playinghardball]

The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as “a game-changer” because it would significantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: “It’s a huge milestone for us.”

We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it.

“We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel,” added Cullom.

“Basically, we’ve treated energy like air, something that’s always there and that we don’t worry about too much. But the reality is that we do have to worry about it.”

US experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

That means instead of relying on tankers, ships will be able to produce fuel at sea.

- ‘Game-changing’ technology -

More here: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/technological-breakthrough-u-s-navy-says-it-can-now-convert-seawater-into-fuel/

[Scootaloo]

1. Buuuuut where do you get the energy to do this?

Thermodynamics won't be denied, guys.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. My thoughts exactly.

There are a lot of possibilities, though. Solar, wave energy, etc.

[X_Digger]

11. Nailed it in one. n/t

[hunter]

12. Nuclear power.

You end up with a nuclear power aircraft carrier that can make fuel for its own aircraft and smaller non-nuclear vessels in the carrier group.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Star Person Incarnate Fran, that's where!

Perhaps the Lunar Friends can loan her telekenetic abilities to the Navy.

http://ufotabloid.blogspot.com/2009/10/crisis-in-nasa-dr-boylan-stops-moon.html

[TroglodyteScholar]

2. ...

[Warren DeMontague]

16. that's what....

oh, never mind.

[TroglodyteScholar]

25. No, no, no.

You took the time to reply. Isn't it incumbent on you to at least tell me how I'm wrong?

The article says they have to work on efficiency and that it could be a decade before the technology is deployed. There's no mention of how efficient the process would be at such a time.

Now, if you must scoff aloud at my post, at least put forth a touch of effort to make me as smart as you apparently are on the topic.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. You misunderstand. I was in the process of making a dumb joke.

And in a rare display of self-restraint, I stopped myself midway.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is safe for the time being.

[TroglodyteScholar]

28. whew

I knew my formal education was becoming a bit outdated, but I wasn't ready to start relearning on that level.

[11 Bravo]

3. There's a catch. The water has to come from the Gulf of Mexico.

[Control-Z]

6. Ha!

They'll tout environmental cleanup in the process.

[dipsydoodle]

34. Lol

Nice one.

[Logical]

37. Good one! n-t

[IronGate]

5. Some submarines are nuclear powered?

I would estimate that 99.9% of the US Submarine Force is nuclear powered. I don't even know if we have any diesel electric boats left in service.

[rppper]

40. The USS Blueback was the last diesel boat...

In operation. She was decommed in 1990 after She saw 31 years of service. She's a museum Boat now in Oregon. All of our subs and carriers are nuclear now...they've decommed the USS Enterprise now, the first nuke carrier, along with all of the Cold War era subs, up to the 3rd flight LA classes and the Ohio classes. Here's the wiki article....one of the cleanest subs I ever set foot on!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Blueback_(SS-581)

[NickB79]

7. Note how they keep referring to "jet fuel"

They're using the power from the nuclear reactors of aircraft carriers to generate JET fuel, or using power from another capital ship's gas turbines to generate fuel for their small boats and helicopters.

Otherwise, they'd basically be trying to build a perpetual-energy system that violates all known principles of thermodynamics.

[nationalize the fed]

19. If Chrysler hadn't closed down their turbine program we could have cars

that ran on jet fuel

The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to 44,500 revolutions per minute, according to the owner's manual,[3] and could operate using diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, and even vegetable oil. The engine would run on virtually anything with combustible properties and "Chrysler claimed the turbine could gulp everything from peanut oil to Chanel No. 5."[4] No air/fuel adjustments were required to switch from one fuel type to another and the only evidence of which fuel was used was the odor of the exhaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

The US Government bailed out Chrysler in 1980, and a condition of the bailout was the termination of the Turbine Car program. <---That's what Wikipedia used to say. Now it's edited out

[SidDithers]

35. I hear that solar hydro can power cars too...nt

Sid

[Kelvin Mace]

8. BS meter buried in the red zone

so take with an ocean-sized grain of salt.

[struggle4progress]

29. +

[Bosonic]

9. It's no doubt the seawater version of this

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/

Seawater has a lot of dissolved co2 in it.

Requires energy input, solar or nuclear probably to get petroluem product output.

Lots o stuff runs on petroluem product, not much on nuclear, nothing mil on solar AFAIA.

[Hoppy]

10. Does that mean I would need one of those aqua-cars of the '60s

In order to have my car powered by one of these systems?

[Kaleva]

14. This is important as the article says it eliminates the need for vunerable tankers

A CVBG can, using the nuke reactors of the aircraft carrier to produce the gas, keep itself refueled.

[nationalize the fed]

15. From the UK Daily mail

Could you soon be filling up with SEAWATER? US Navy reveals 'game changing' fuel created from water

Has flown radio controlled plane using 'sea fuel' in first test of new fuel

New technique can capture 92% of CO2 in water to create jet fuel

Could be used to create fuel for any vehicle without having to modify engines



The power plant that can turn water in jet fuel: Researchers hope to make the system portable enough to fit on a warship to produce enough fuel for the ship and the planes it carries

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2599036/The-plane-powered-WATER-US-Navy-reveals-radical-new-game-changing-process-power-jets-boats-seawater.html

Edit:

[hunter]

17. Official Navy P.R. Link that doesn't make it sound like a prepetual motion machine.

U.S.A. mass media science and technology reporting is often bad.

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas

[Boom Sound 416]

18. Isn't the entire naval fleet nuclear

"The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion. "

Outside small and landing vessels?

[oldhippie]

23. No.

Cruisers, destroyers, frigates, cargo ships, mine sweepers, tankers ... . All conventionally fuelled.

[idendoit]

31. The Virginia class cruisers were nuke.

They served from the 70's to 00's.

[oldhippie]

38. True, though there were only four fielded .....

.... and decommissioned early due to costs.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. April Fool ? nt

[Bosonic]

21. Nope, just Science

link to paper:

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539765

[NickB79]

22. And piss-poor "science" reporting. NT

[Bosonic]

24. That's standard

[eppur_se_muova]

42. And very old science (and engineering) it is.

Electrolyze water to make H2 (where does the ENERGY come from ?). Combine H2 and CO2 to give CO, then use Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to make HCs. This has been known for nearly a century. It's ridiculously uncompetitive with just about every alternative out there. And yes, that's an absurdly piss-poor headline. There's no "technological breakthrough", the Navy has just decided that it's willing to throw a bunch of money at something the rest of the world already understands, doesn't need, and regards as absurdly inefficient. Over $1 BILLION to build a SINGLE such nuclear-powered shipboard plant ? And $6/gal jet fuel, ASSUMING the military can bring the project to conclusion at projected cost (WHEN has the last time that happened ?)? We should be spared such "breakthroughs"!

(PS: This "paper" is more of a proposal from a military lab. Best regarded as entertaining science fiction, unless you want to burn up a LOT of money for no really good reason.)

[BlueStreak]

27. Here's another article with more details

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121019-turning-the-oceans-into-jetfuel

[idendoit]

30. You would need to put more energy into conversion...

...than you would get out of the resultant fuel used for propulsion. That's just my amateur opinion.

[CK_John]

33. So what, the goal is to elimate the oil tankers and build an onsight fueling system.

[idendoit]

39. The point is why put that energy into conversion....

...when it's better utilized by propulsion. You'll need a fair amount of electrical energy for shipboard conversion to fuel, a naval reactors worth, perhaps. If you use the fuel you've made to power the propulsion system that in turn powers the fuel conversion reactor, how can the whole power plant keep up?

Forgot to mention though, I'd never heard of a Air Independent Propulsion system until recently. It's in a Swedish class of sub that runs on Stirling engines fueled by LOX and kerosene, they can stay submerged for up to a month.

[eppur_se_muova]

43. Yes, the Navy is absurdly worried that they aren't completely independent ...

from the rest of planet Earth.

A boondoggle if there ever was one.

[whopis01]

41. That is correct, however

a an aircraft carrier can be powered by nuclear power (via steam, electricity, etc) but the planes it carries need jet fuel to fly. So the excess energy comes from the nuclear reactor and the fuel powers the jets.

[idendoit]

45. Yes, that may very well work.

But it would take a whole new class of carrier to be viable. This would not be something that can be retrofitted. Five of those active super Nimitz class carriers are less than 20 yrs old. The newest Ford class super carrier (one in dry dock) will be using electromagnetic rail aircraft launchers instead of steam catapults. So the Navy's already invested in the technology.

[RainDog]

32. I wish they'd find a way to use all the garbage dumps

in the ocean, those floating islands of plastic and other stuff, to fuel them.

[AcertainLiz]

36. This is pretty cool

Go US Navy

[L0oniX]

44. I'm already getting fuel from used cat box litter.