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

[nationalize the fed]

The US Navy has developed a radical new fuel made from seawater.

They say it could change the way we produce fuel - and allow warships to stay at sea for years at a time.

Navy scientists have spent several years developing the process to take seawater and use it as fuel, and have now used the 'game changing' fuel to power a radio controlled plane in the first test...

...'For the first time we've been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that's a big breakthrough,' she said, adding that the fuel 'doesn't look or smell very different.'


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

[Politicalboi]

1. We've spilled enough oil in it

Go BP!

[doc03]

2. Exxon just purchased the rights to the new technology to make fuel

out of seawater.

[jeff47]

3. Um.....no.

The science illiteracy of the press is very sad.

You can't fill up with seawater, because energy is being used to convert that seawater into fuel.

The Navy is interested because they could use the nuclear reactors on an aircraft carrier to generate jet fuel. But they'd be filling the planes with jet fuel, not seawater.

The article pretends that non-nuclear ships would use this to generate their own fuel. That's not possible. Something has to supply the energy to run this device. You could build a nuclear-powered "oiler" that generated fuel and then pumped it to "conventional" ships. But a ship can not produce it's own fuel without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

Given this fundamental misunderstanding in the article, I'm rather skeptical of the rest of the story.

[NickB79]

6. Exactly. You need a nuclear reactor to run the whole process

Of which the Navy has plenty of.

Theoretically, you could do the same with solar or wind for civilian use as well, but I don't see the Navy building mile-wide floating solar farms to accompany each battle group deployed.

[Viking12]

33. You mean this isn't THE perpetual motion machine?

I agree with you. Coverage of this technology has been horrible.

[Half-Century Man]

4. The technology to convert water to "Brown's gas" has been around for a long time.

Dennis Kline invented a way to break the valence bond in water molecules at or near the point of ignition (removing the need for a high strength storage tank full of extremal flammable hydrogen gas in a motor vehicle).
It was a byproduct of him designing a water fueled metal working tool.

http://hytechapps.com/

He put it in a car, and there was a breaking news story and it fucking vanished from the public eye. He never mentioned it on his web site, Which screams to me of legal battles over patents.

After a little thought, I think it could be used to replace all coal fired and nuclear power plants in the world. This technology has powerful enemies.

[nationalize the fed]

5. Browns gas

http://www.ebay.com/sch/items/?_nkw=hydrogen&_sacat=&_ex_kw=&_mPrRngCbx=1&_udlo=&_udhi=&_sop=12&_fpos=&_fspt=1&_sadis=&LH_CAds=

extremal flammable hydrogen gas in a motor vehicle

Hydrogen-Powered Car With a Graphene Tank. Polish university researchers in the central city of Łódź have teamed up with an industrial partner to build an innovative superstrong, ultralight & highly efficient fuel tank for cars powered by hydrogen; the tank is more than 100 times harder than steel
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/27201/article

While the US is busy wiretapping the net and building the next generation of drones, other nations are actually trying to build a better future for us all.

[jeff47]

7. Hard doesn't particularly help with hydrogen fuel.

The problem isn't the flammable gas - gasoline isn't exactly safe.

The problem is hydrogen is so small that it leaks through everything.

For example, the external tanks on the Space Shuttles were constantly topped off before launch - the fuel fillers were some of the last parts to disconnect during a launch. Why? To keep the hydrogen tank full.

Not an enormous loss for vehicles that burn through their fuel pretty quickly, but the typical passenger car use does not burn its fuel all that quickly.

[nationalize the fed]

9. Toyota and Hyundai

are confident enough with whatever they are using to make the tanks that will store hydrogen in the vehicles they are bringing out

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027144/this-new-hyundai-car-runs-on-the-poop-of-california-residents-and-the-fuel-is-free

Hyundai ix35 hydrogen FCEV gets a thumbs up for Fleet buyers. Fleet management specialist Arval UK have been testing the hydrogen fuel cell powered Hyundai ix35 in the UK, and have given it a thumbs up.

http://www.carsuk.net/hyundai-ix35-hydrogen-fcev-gets-thumbs-fleet-buyers/

Will Americans Buy Toyota Motor Corporation's Hydrogen Car? Toyota is betting that at least a few Americans will be willing to pay for a car that runs on hydrogen. The company is expected to launch a production version of its FCV Concept vehicle in Japan, the U.S., and Europe next year.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/31/toyotas-hydrogen-car-is-coming-here-soon.aspx

An H bomb is about to drop on the Auto industry and Elon Musk will get more profane as time goes on. It will be fun to watch.

[jeff47]

11. And GM was confident enough to launch the EV-1.

Didn't turn out that well for them - they needed better battery technology than was available at the time.

The problem is we're talking about fundamentals of the particles involved, not something like "better battery technology".

[Half-Century Man]

14. Conversion at (or near)the point of ignition is key.

If you do that, the fuel tank could by plastic.
Trains could run on water.
Buses could run on water.
Cars could run on water.
all exhausting distilled water (as vapor and droplets).

Fossil fuels, done with the need.
Energy dependence, done.

Breaking the bonds in a water molecule with electricity to make hydrogen gas has been around since the early twentieth century (or before). Kline thought to break the bonds right before ignition to use in a replacement technology for Oxy-Acetylene.
He got something infinitely more interesting. Iron heated to red hot via his device will no longer rust (water is bonded to the iron already, preventing the oxidation of the iron). Non-rusting car bodies.

http://zipdf.com/denny_klein_hho
http://polidics.com/energy/water-2-gas-test-car-gets-100-miles-per-4-oz-of-water.html
http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-revolutionary-water-based-power-for-cars.html

[jeff47]

30. The conversion requires energy.

Where do you get that energy? Batteries? You'll get much better results just using those batteries to turn a motor.

You get less energy in hydrogen than you send into the water to crack it, because no process is 100% efficient. Use the energy to turn the wheels instead.

[longship]

8. Sorry, nope!!!

Just nope!

This is rubbish. It takes more energy to convert sea water into fuel than the energy released by the fuel.

S = k log W

As Homer Simpson once said, "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics."

[nationalize the fed]

10. Quick! Tell this woman before she wastes more time

Heather D. Willauer, PHD
Research Chemist, Code 6300.2
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Ave. SW
Washington DC 20375-5341
202-767-2673
[e-mail]

[jeff47]

12. She's not doing what this shitty article is claiming.

The shitty article is making claims that break the laws of thermodynamics.

What the Navy actually wants is to make jet fuel on board it's nuclear aircraft carriers. The reactors will supply the necessary power.

[nationalize the fed]

17. Converting sea water to Navy jet fuel

by Mike Hoffman on October 2, 2012
http://defensetech.org/2012/10/02/converting-sea-water-to-navy-jet-fuel/
Part of http://www.military.com/aboutus/aboutushome.htm

Navy scientists and researchers say they are close to a breakthrough toward turning seawater into jet fuel.

The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory is working to extract the carbon dioxide and produce hydrogen gas from the seawater. The key is then converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons that can then be used to develop JP-5 fuel stock.

JP-5 is what fuels Navy jet fighters and results in multiple fuel transfers to aircraft carriers to maintain their onboard fuel stock. Producing that fuel from the abundant sea water would save the Navy from executing those sometimes risky transfers.

“The potential payoff is the ability to produce JP-5 fuel stock at sea reducing the logistics tail on fuel delivery with no environmental burden and increasing the Navy’s energy security and independence,” said Heather Willauer, a research chemist with NRL...
more> http://defensetech.org/2012/10/02/converting-sea-water-to-navy-jet-fuel/

[longship]

13. I assure you that she knows it, too.

The thing is, hydrogen gas is not a natural thing on this planet -- it escapes the atmosphere, but that's freshman physics. If one wants to make hydrogen as a fuel one must free hydrogen from some chemical compound, like water (H2O). Now here's the thing, so pay attention. It always takes more energy to free the hydrogen than the energy released by burning it. Always!

That's physics 101.

This myth is busted.

[pscot]

15. It's obvious you are a freedumb hating shill

of the fossil fuel industry who can't stand the idea of America having nice things.

[longship]

22. Huh?

What are you saying?

And what did I write that you disagree with?

Splain it to me.

[caraher]

25. I believe he was joking...

[longship]

26. Sometimes it is difficult to tell. Especially on line.

[nationalize the fed]

18. *Not* Always

Once solar panels or windmills are paid for the electricity is free.

The free electricity (after the equipment is paid) can then be used to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen from the H20.

Here's a demonstration:

Lots of solar panels = lots of hydrogen

[longship]

21. Yes. ALWAYS!!

What you are suggesting is a good idea, actually a great idea.

But the power generated by the hydrogen will always be less than the power used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Always!

That's thermodynamics, my friend. And it's a bitch. One cannot get free energy.

A solar energy plant has to generate surplus energy for when the sun don't shine, so to speak. Storing that energy will always have an energy cost. Always! Hydrogen from electrolysis is certainly one way to do it. But one has to lose some energy in doing it.

[Jim Lane]

19. Wait, how can it take MORE energy?

The conservation law says that you can't get free energy but that's because matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you could invent a reverse perpetual motion machine -- one that over time, and accounting for all inputs and outputs, consumed more energy than it generated -- then you'd be violating that law, although in the non-useful direction.

Are you calculating more energy in than out because there's some heat produced as a byproduct of the first phase, and that heat isn't harnessed and just escapes?

[longship]

20. Here's why.

The second law of thermodynamics.

That's a given. There is always waste in any physical process. That is why hydrogen as a fuel for energy is not an energy source. It can be correctly termed as an energy storage medium, but not a source.

Why? Because there are zero sources of gaseous hydrogen on Earth. All hydrogen on Earth is chemically bonded to other atoms, like in water.

It always takes more energy to free the hydrogen than is gained by burning it as fuel. That's just the physics. People have to deal with that fact.

For instance, excess solar power can be used for electrolysis of water during the day time. The generated hydrogen can then be used to generate power during the night when solar energy makes no power. Yup! It's inefficient, but the alternative is to throw away the excess power. One has to store the energy in some way. Hydrogen might work out for that.

But again. There are no sources of hydrogen on Earth that don't require breaking chemical bonds. And that will always take more energy than is gained by burning the hydrogen. Always!

[Jim Lane]

28. It seems you're agreeing with what I said.

Entropy doesn't violate conservation. The difference is in heat that's produced in the process but not captured for anything useful when the hydrogen is burned.

[longship]

29. Yup. Or just general inefficiencies. nt

[nationalize the fed]

16. Related

Splitting the sea: Turning ocean water into hydrogen fuel
Jun 12, 2013
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-sea-ocean-hydrogen-fuel.html



ACES researchers with the flexible water splitting polymer. From left:
Professor Gerry Swiegers, Professor David Officer, Associate Professor Jun Chen,
Professor Gordon Wallace and Dr Pawel Wagner.

(Phys.org) —University of Wollongong scientists have developed a novel way to turn sea water into hydrogen, for a sustainable and clean fuel source. Using this method, as little as five litres of sea water per day would produce enough hydrogen to power an average-sized home and an electric car for one day.

The research team at UOW's Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES) have developed a light-assisted catalyst that requires less energy input to activate water oxidation, which is the first step in splitting water to produce hydrogen fuel.

A major limitation with current technologies is that the oxidation process needs a higher energy input, which rules out using abundant sea water because it produces poisonous chlorine gas...

..."The system we designed, including the materials, gives us the opportunity to design various devices and applications using sea water as a water-splitting source...
MORE:http://phys.org/news/2013-06-sea-ocean-hydrogen-fuel.html

Explore further: Water splitting: Plants provide blueprint for cheap hydrogen production
http://phys.org/news/2013-04-blueprint-cheap-hydrogen-production.html#inlRlv

(Phys.org) —The process by which plants convert energy from the sun's rays into chemical 'fuel' has inspired a new way of generating clean, cheap, renewable hydrogen power which could solve looming problems with the UK's energy infrastructure.

Hydrogen is a significant source of energy which can be burned to produce power with no negative impact on the environment, unlike power produced by burning fossil fuels. Hydrogen gas can be easily produced by splitting water into its constituent elements – hydrogen and oxygen...more>

Trivia: You can burn Hydrogen in your house and there's no need for a chimney. That means all of the energy is used. No toxic fumes- no need for exhaust.

[longship]

23. Note: hydrogen is not an energy source.

Last edited Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

However, it can be characterized as an energy storage medium.

Since there are no sources of free hydrogen on Earth, one must obtain it by splitting chemical bonds, like electrolysis of water. The energy it takes to split water will always be greater than the energy gained by burning the hydrogen.

But if one is building a solar energy plant one has to plan to store energy for use during times when the sun does not shine, like at night. That means that the size of any solar plant has to be sufficiently larger to be able to set aside some power for storage. Storing energy will always lose some. That's thermodynamics 101.

But solar panels delivering power plus hydrolyzing water to burn hydrogen for use at night is certainly one way to do that. But one is going to lose a bit in the process. That is inevitable and will have to be planned into the solar power plant.

So it is not free energy. One must plan a solar power plant for power generation plus storage plus the inefficiencies in the storage. That includes the whole chain of splitting water, storing the hydrogen (and oxygen) and then generating power from the hydrogen. Fuel cells might be able to be scaled up. Pretty efficient. But as Apollo 13 found out, not exactly safe.

Regards.

[defacto7]

24. Yep, sure, just what we need...

More nuclear fuel and kerosene in the ocean... sound real environmentally safe to me...

not.

[Warpy]

27. Seems a bit large for autos

but trains, trucks and buses could certainly fit one.

Seawater is just in rather short supply in NM. With the drought going on for over 20 years, all water is pretty scarce.

[Yo_Mama]

31. This isn't new, really.

It's a new process, it seems. But it requires energy - quite a lot - to do this. Thus you are going to have to do it with an on-board plant, and right now that means a nuclear reactor.

[hatrack]

32. Well, if you happen to have a mobile, floating nuclear reactor . . . .

. . . then bringing enough energy to bear on electrolysis to produce hydrogen isn't that much of a trick.

About what I'd expect from the Daily Mail . . .

[eppur_se_muova]

34. Trashing. Overblown hype, posted too many times already. nt