General Discussion

TexasProgresive

(12,171 posts)

51. I don't believe the 92% efficiency- I'd have to see some real facts

Reply to Blanks (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 06:15 PM

Nov 2014

That there is only an 8% loss from sea water to jet fuel. If it is that efficient then why the high cost per gallon?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

91 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed [View all] Katashi_itto Nov 2014 OP

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