Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Katashi_itto

(10,175 posts)
Mon Nov 24, 2014, 07:59 AM Nov 2014

The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed [View all]


Surf’s up! The Navy appears to have achieved the Holy Grail of energy independence – 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.”

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.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/navy-ends-big-oil/
91 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
story is from April 12, 2014 10:59 am . Something sems riversedge Nov 2014 #1
Some answers I found myself: riversedge Nov 2014 #2
You do know "there ain't no free lunch"? TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #3
Nuclear, solar, wind, tide... DetlefK Nov 2014 #10
If it has a reactor, what the fuck does it need hydrocarbon fuel for? AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #70
Hrm... jeff47 Nov 2014 #40
That's not the point TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #43
It's for energy storage, not production jeff47 Nov 2014 #47
I get that, but TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #53
There is not a single answer. But generating fossil fuels from electricity jeff47 Nov 2014 #61
That's right... Blanks Nov 2014 #49
I don't believe the 92% efficiency- I'd have to see some real facts TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #51
I don't believe it either... Blanks Nov 2014 #55
Pulling CO2 out of the ocean isn't wise TransitJohn Nov 2014 #4
This is only relevant if this technology goes global. DetlefK Nov 2014 #11
As I understand it, you can't have carbonate rocks with... NeoGreen Nov 2014 #17
We're already putting far more CO2 into the oceans than this could pull out muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #29
That actually won't be a problem due to the rising concentration of CO2 worldwide, due to human AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #71
I don't follow you TransitJohn Nov 2014 #73
It went from 360 to 390 PPM in 10 years last decade. And this doesn't add to it. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #74
Oy vey. TransitJohn Nov 2014 #78
It puts it in a cycle, like the hydrological cycle. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #79
Look, I'm a geologist TransitJohn Nov 2014 #80
You say that as if over-saturating the oceans with CO2 doesn't have any consequences. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #81
Have fun! TransitJohn Nov 2014 #82
Ok! AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #83
Then Exxon and the other bastards are gonna charge you to truck sea water to your car. Hoppy Nov 2014 #5
Not reasonable in Nebraska. AllyCat Nov 2014 #18
Sea water pipelines newfie11 Nov 2014 #24
More energy in than out Android3.14 Nov 2014 #6
Found the video! Quackers Nov 2014 #7
That type of model engine runs on alcohol and possibly added nitromethane, not jet fuel or gasoline Fumesucker Nov 2014 #20
This is just too cool. Thanks for posting, I missed it when the news first broke. RiverLover Nov 2014 #8
Releasing the carbon that is sequestered in the ocean is a very bad idea BlueStreak Nov 2014 #26
Where do you think the CO2 in the ocean comes from? jeff47 Nov 2014 #41
What do you think the word "sequestered" means. BlueStreak Nov 2014 #45
Apparently, you don't know what sequestered means. jeff47 Nov 2014 #48
You have no idea what you are talking about BlueStreak Nov 2014 #65
Actually, I do. That's why I provided a link for you to read. jeff47 Nov 2014 #66
You don't understand the time scales BlueStreak Nov 2014 #76
:facepalm: jeff47 Nov 2014 #77
'Sequestered' carbon in the ocean water causes other mayhem. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #84
Yes and no BlueStreak Nov 2014 #85
That's true, and I think the earlier objections didn't mean 'greenhouse', specifically but some AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #86
Equilibrium in a year -- not a chance. BlueStreak Nov 2014 #87
It can't sequester it all. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #88
Yes, of course if we capture the carbon as it is burned BlueStreak Nov 2014 #89
Precisely. AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #90
You're asking what I would prefer the Navy do? BlueStreak Nov 2014 #91
Addictinginfo is a crap website. cali Nov 2014 #9
It's a good website if you enjoy interesting news Bonx Nov 2014 #50
it uses more energy than it produces. nt magical thyme Nov 2014 #12
but it converts generic electricity to hydrocarbons Recursion Nov 2014 #14
The article says it's economical if . . . brush Nov 2014 #16
No, the process uses more energy than it produces in hydrocarbon form BlueStreak Nov 2014 #28
Nuclear energy is not free TexasProgresive Nov 2014 #33
Nuclear power is almost like solar in that the $$$ cost of the fuel isn't what makes it expensive. hunter Nov 2014 #46
The "solar plant" is not necessarily expensive at all. truedelphi Nov 2014 #56
It's meant to be a fuel source, not a power source Scootaloo Nov 2014 #52
You're right, it doesn't violate the fundamental laws of physics in any way. jeff47 Nov 2014 #63
Another one of those things madokie Nov 2014 #13
Here's a sensible analysis of the claim GliderGuider Nov 2014 #15
Well wouldn't land-based nuclear power plants near the shore . . . brush Nov 2014 #19
Economical compared to what? GliderGuider Nov 2014 #22
It would be cheaper for land transportation to use electricity from the nuclear plants muriel_volestrangler Nov 2014 #30
What do you mean by "economically"?? happyslug Nov 2014 #31
It solves the energy transport problem. jeff47 Nov 2014 #42
the ocean is a finite resource! ellennelle Nov 2014 #21
And coal is not? liberal N proud Nov 2014 #23
And water used in this process doesn't cease to exist. It goes right back into the hydrologic cycle AtheistCrusader Nov 2014 #72
Wonder about by-products in this method. dixiegrrrrl Nov 2014 #25
We. Are. Saved! Android3.14 Nov 2014 #27
I expect folks at DU to be a little more discerning in the news they consume srican69 Nov 2014 #32
Will these reports on it be "discerning" enough for you? RiverLover Nov 2014 #35
Not really. Gore1FL Nov 2014 #34
Total BS HoosierCowboy Nov 2014 #36
The US could build desalination plants like much of the rest of the world nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #58
Ummm ... no, it didn't. It found an expensive way to convert one form of energy to another. eppur_se_muova Nov 2014 #37
The question now is......... nevergiveup Nov 2014 #38
It's a start. James48 Nov 2014 #39
I don't think anything makes me more embarrassed for someone Dreamer Tatum Nov 2014 #44
If they've developed a way of reducing pH in areas where that's a problem... Blanks Nov 2014 #54
The new Fuel Cell Cars allow for all the driving anyone wants to do nationalize the fed Nov 2014 #57
It's a step in the right direction to be certain... Blanks Nov 2014 #62
Yes, this is mainly a way to make nuclear aircraft carriers more self-sufficient caraher Nov 2014 #59
Good point, and... Blanks Nov 2014 #64
The navy did not announce the end of big oil Progressive dog Nov 2014 #60
Better title: Navy finds way to turn nuclear power into jet fuel NickB79 Nov 2014 #67
This message was self-deleted by its author freshwest Nov 2014 #68
Potentialy great ideas like this one... nikto Nov 2014 #69
Holy crap. Go Navy! lonestarnot Nov 2014 #75
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The U.S. Navy Just Announ...