April 08, 2014

Daily Mail: US Navy Invents Process For Turning Sea Water into Jet Fuel for... $3-$6 per Gallon?!?
— Ace

You can read all the "game changing" type hype at the article.

Here's how it works, supposedly:

The [Navy Research Labs] process begins by extracting carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater.

As seawater passes through a specially built cell, it is subjected to a small electric current.

This causes the seawater to exchange hydrogen ions produced at the anode with sodium ions.

As a result, the seawater is acidified.

Meanwhile, at the cathode, the water is reduced to hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide is formed.

The end product is hydrogen and carbon dioxide gas, and the sodium hydroxide is added to the leftover seawater to neutralize its acidity.

In the next step, the hydrogen and carbon dioxide are passed into a heated reaction chamber with an iron catalyst.

The gases combine and form long-chained unsaturated hydrocarbons with methane as a by-product.

The unsaturated hydrocarbons are then made to form longer hydrocarbon molecules containing six to nine carbon atoms.

Using a nickel-supported catalyst, these are then converted into jet fuel.

Hydrocarbons -- fossil fuel molecules -- are basically just chains or rings of carbon atoms, say 6 to 18 carbon atoms long, each carbon atom in turn connected to 2-3 hydrogen atoms.

Ummm... it seems so game-changing as to be paradigm-shifting -- suddenly we have as much high-power jet fuel as we have gallons of ocean -- that it's hard, bordering on impossible, to believe.

Here's the harder to believe part: This process would be almost carbon dioxide neutral. It's true, of course, that upon burning the jet fuel, you'd turn it into carbon dioxide and water atoms (as you do whenever you burn a fossil fuel).

However, in this process, the carbon in the fuel is being extracted from sea water in the first place. That carbon dioxide gas is just atmospheric carbon dioxide, dissolved into liquid.

So while you are liberating carbon dioxide gas at the end of the process, it's just carbon dioxide gas you previously sucked out of the hydrosphere in the first place.

More or less a neutral, one carbon dioxide atom liberated for each carbon dioxide atom consumed process. I'm sure that you'd add some carbon dioxide, as you'd have to burn some energy to catalyze this whole process. (I suppose you could avoid that by setting up nuclear reactors that did nothing but provide electricity for this jetfuel-from-seawater process.)

I don't particularly care about that. I guess maybe that makes me extra-special-skeptical -- I know that any energy source claiming to be nearly carbon-neutral is going to get extra hype and lots of funding.

But who knows. I don't.

via @rdbrewer4.

Posted by: Ace at 01:59 PM | Comments (404)
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I don't know much physics, but I do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by: navybrat at April 08, 2014 02:01 PM (JgC5a)

2 Way kewl if it really works. I'll summon the others.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 02:02 PM (0HooB)

3 Damn.... you finally figured it out...

Posted by: Alien from Battle for Los Angelas at April 08, 2014 02:03 PM (84gbM)

4 You know who this benefits?

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at April 08, 2014 02:03 PM (mx5oN)

5 Lois Lerner is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: the littl shyning man at April 08, 2014 02:03 PM (tmFlQ)

6 Well... Looks like it's time to make a statement again.

Posted by: Second Law of Thermodynamics at April 08, 2014 02:03 PM (HDwDg)

7 Unpossible!

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:03 PM (8ZskC)

8

I'm not sure about that price...of $3 to $6/gal.

 

I think it costs more than that.

They may be leaving out some of the parts to that equation.

 

Like they're doing with the Inflation equation.

Posted by: wheatie at April 08, 2014 02:04 PM (FWbLS)

9 IIRC, there was a dude down here a few years back with one of these units in the back of his car.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 02:04 PM (0HooB)

10 1 I don't know much physics, but I do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Posted by: navybrat at April 08, 2014 06:01 PM (JgC5a) Ah... but we will use our Cold Fusion to generate this, and use it to power our perpetual motion machine!!!!

Posted by: Ming, the Merciless at April 08, 2014 02:04 PM (84gbM)

11 Unlimited free energy, you say? Why, we've got your unlimited free energy right here.

Posted by: Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann at April 08, 2014 02:05 PM (8ZskC)

12 It looks interesting. But with projects like this, only time will tell if it can be scaled up successfully. Lots of tech like this dies outside of the pilot plant.

Posted by: Mike H at April 08, 2014 02:05 PM (LllJT)

13 This sounds like the plot of a GI Joe cartoon episode from the 80s. The guy who "invented" this is really Zartan.

Posted by: wooga at April 08, 2014 02:05 PM (AEy5L)

14 @ Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann Its not unlimted and it aint free ... you still need a power source. All this does is rearainge the atoms.

Posted by: Mike H at April 08, 2014 02:05 PM (LllJT)

15 This guy's business card says "Alchemist."

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (8ZskC)

16 "Using a nickel-supported catalyst, these are then converted into jet fuel." Note to self: Acquire Ni, a rate limiting, finite element. Hoard. Sell. Retire.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (1CroS)

17 #twoweeks

Posted by: rickb223 at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (cUARf)

18 We must kill this immediately.... Corn subsidies ya know...

Posted by: Midwest GOP Congressman at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (84gbM)

19 Eh, I'd have to sit and think about it, but at first glance something does seem off about the chemistry.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (HDwDg)

20 Lower the sea levels to make fuel which raises the sea levels after the global warming from burning it...

... Brilliant!!!

Posted by: The Guinees Guys at April 08, 2014 02:06 PM (08jH8)

21 >>>Note to self: Acquire Ni, a rate limiting, finite element. Hoard. Sell. Retire. We already bought up all the nickel. But nice thought.

Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (/FnUH)

22 Sure, you can make use of the CO2 that's equilibrated with the sea water, but there is that little matter of the energy required to make and break chemical bonds. Free ride, my ass. You might as well use the nuclear reactor you're going to need to provide the energy for that process and use it directly. Like we do already.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (PMGbu)

23 It looks interesting. But with projects like this, only time will tell if it can be scaled up successfully. Lots of tech like this dies outside of the pilot plant. Posted by: Mike H -------------- Wood-to-ethanol : Fail.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (aDwsi)

24 Among the many things I'm skeptical about here is that there is enough dissolved CO2 in your average bucket of seawater to make this work.

Air is what?  400 parts per million?  0.04% CO2?   How is that enough carbon to make anything useful at $3 a gallon, even if you otherwise  repeal the 2nd law (or whatever)?

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (N5Lza)

25 If this really works I'll convert my anti-Prius over from its current fuel of baby seal blubber.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (8ZskC)

26 Skeptical considerations: Amount of electricity consumed. Processes like this consume insane amounts of electricity. Scale. Things like this tend to hit unexpected problems when they try to scale. I think of this as something that adds flexibility in wartime, but likely won't be that useful in peacetime. Or even most of wartime. If you have secure sea lanes then it will be more efficient to produce fuel normally at dedicated plants, rather than devote a large section of your aircraft carrier or destroyer for a fuel generation plant.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (ZPrif)

27 Well this is a fine kettle of fish.

Posted by: jewells45 trying to keep from going crazy at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (/IQip)

28 Gaia will never approve

Posted by: meh at April 08, 2014 02:07 PM (W2qJe)

29 >>>Eh, I'd have to sit and think about it, but at first glance something does seem off about the chemistry. well for one thing we don't know the energy required to drive this process. if you're spending more energy to produce this stuff then you get out at the end of it, you're not doing anything but turning one fuel into a somewhat more expensive fuel.

Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (/FnUH)

30 Interesting, but how much electricity does this take to pull off? Granted, even if it's a net loss of energy, a nuclear reactor on a carrier has plenty of power to spare, and this could be in effect turning electricity into fuel.

Posted by: Carnivorus Herbavore at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (yguib)

31 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 06:06 PM (HDwDg)

Sure....

The equation balances, so where is that CO2 coming from?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (QFxY5)

32 Tell me again about the gadget that attaches to my carburetor  and increases my mpg to 100mpg!!!

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (BAS5M)

33 Why don't they just use dead babies?

Posted by: National Health Service at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (mx5oN)

34 And what serves as the power source for this electric current? This is the part i'm having trouble wrapping my mind around. You gotta power this thing with something, and if it isn't nuclear, it's some form of oil.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 08, 2014 02:08 PM (bb5+k)

35 , you're not doing anything but turning one fuel into a somewhat more expensive fuel. Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 06:08 PM (/FnUH) Dam.... who let the Ethanol secret out!

Posted by: Midwest GOP Congressman at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (84gbM)

36 I love these processes that allow you to get more energy out than you put in. Fantastic!

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (/kBoL)

37 but can it core a apple?

Posted by: Ed Norton at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (bbk1i)

38 Air is what? 400 parts per million? 0.04% CO2? How is that enough carbon to make anything useful at $3 a gallon, even if you otherwise repeal the 2nd law (or whatever)? Air is, sure. Water, OTOH, contains CO2 in proportion to the solution pH, the old carbonic acid equilibrium.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (PMGbu)

39 You might as well use the nuclear reactor you're going to need to provide the energy for that process and use it directly. Like we do already. ---------------- I would like to know the efficiency of the process. Energy in/chemical energy out.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (aDwsi)

40 1 I don't know much physics, but I do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Posted by: navybrat at April 08, 2014 06:01 PM (JgC5a)
That's not my experience.

Posted by: EBT user at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (4tAp3)

41 A new energy source? If it doesn't chop up bald eagles we're not interested.

Posted by: Henry Chu, A Nobel Laureate at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (8ZskC)

42 "I know that any energy source claiming to be nearly carbon-neutral is going to get extra hype and lots of funding."

Well, er, no, it's not an energy _source_ per se. It's an energy transport medium.

The idea is that you'll put energy into the separation process to get the fuel from the seawater, and then get a share of that energy back later on once the fuel derived from the water is combusted.

Rather as with the electrolysis of hydrogen from water, a disarmingly simple process that is always undone by the cost of the electricity required to perform it. The liberated hydrogen serves to carry the invested electrical energy in a chemically burnable form. (Or that can be fed into a fuel cell along with the similarly liberated oxygen, to get invested energy back out.)

I suspect that this arrangement is going to cost a lot more than the first optimistic whiteboard guesstimates would imply. If you roll the clock back ten years, we were supposed to be fueling up trucks and buses by now with abundant biodiesel from algae at two bucks a gallon. Hasn't quite worked out like that.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (noWW6)

43 >>>f you have secure sea lanes then it will be more efficient to produce fuel normally at dedicated plants, rather than devote a large section of your aircraft carrier or destroyer for a fuel generation plant. I imagine only the largest tubs would have this machinery aboard. I imagine that rather than oiler ships, they'd put out big nuclear powered fuel-generation ships to fuel smaller ships.

Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (/FnUH)

44 The process obviously cannot result in a net energy gain. But it can turn an inconvenient-for-flight form of energy (nuclear) into a perfect liquid fuel.

Posted by: RokShox at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (8MMMw)

45 and since when is sodium hydroxide written NaHO?

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (N5Lza)

46 So, something for Obama to 1) snip in the bud, or 2) take full credit for. 

Posted by: Null at April 08, 2014 02:09 PM (xjpRj)

47 So, we could actually build a flying aircraft carrier?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (5xmd7)

48 Its not unlimted and it aint free ... you still need a power source. All this does is rearainge the atoms. Posted by: Mike H at April 08, 2014 06:05 PM (LllJT) My point exactly. If you have a sea borne power source, you might be able to make fuel, but you still have to power it with electricity created by something.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (bb5+k)

49 As seawater passes through a specially built cell, it is subjected to a small electric current. Ahem. that where the issue is.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (h53OH)

50 See! Seeeeee!!! We told you all that extra CO2 was going into the oceans!!!!!

Posted by: climate change "scientist" at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (08jH8)

51 >>> You might as well use the nuclear reactor you're going to need to provide the energy for that process and use it directly. Like we do already. a lot of ships are too small to safely carry a nuke aboard. Those ships require a different fuel (oil, or, I guess, jet fuel).

Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (/FnUH)

52 ? Hey what the fuck do I know?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (t3UFN)

53 Aquaman would like a word with you folks.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (8ZskC)

54 I don't know much physics, but I do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Posted by: navybrat at April 08, 2014 06:01 PM (JgC5a)

Oh yeah?

Posted by: every ad ever printed in the back of Popular Mechanics at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (KSjsb)

55 Ah... but we will use our Cold Fusion to generate this, and use it to power our perpetual motion machine!!!! Posted by: Ming, the Merciless at April 08, 2014 06:04 PM (84gbM) I shall park mine under the shade of the Magic Everlasting Money Tree I am going to have when we are Socialist.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (R7Fq5)

56

what serves as the power source for this electric current? 

 

 

Simple.  Just put a big metal hook on the machine and run by the big wire hanging from clocktower at the town square when the lightning strikes. 

Posted by: Al Gore at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (W2qJe)

57 The process obviously cannot result in a net energy gain. But it can turn an inconvenient-for-flight form of energy (nuclear) into a perfect liquid fuel. This. Nuclear power may not fuel my DeLorien, but it can provide the ergs needed to make all kinds of synfuels.

Posted by: toby928© has drink taken at April 08, 2014 02:10 PM (QupBk)

58 47 So, we could actually build a flying aircraft carrier? Posted by: Chris_Balsz at April 08, 2014 06:10 PM (5xmd7) Way ahead of you.

Posted by: SHIELD at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (mx5oN)

59 TANSTAAFL

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (ZPrif)

60 and since when is sodium hydroxide written NaHO? When you're a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing journalist.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (PMGbu)

61 You can't do that! It would destroy the mermaids' habitat or cause the plate tectonics to unplate or something!

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (XUKZU)

62 well for one thing we don't know the energy required to drive this process. if you're spending more energy to produce this stuff then you get out at the end of it, you're not doing anything but turning one fuel into a somewhat more expensive fuel. Even with that, not having the tankers to deal with would be a savings. Reducing the complexity of the supply lines might be worth it. It ain't a perpetual motion thingy, but it could be somewhat cost effective.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (0HooB)

63 Mythbusters did this already. All you need is a Mentos the size of Hawaii. /s

Posted by: Y-not at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (zDsvJ)

64 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 06:08 PM (QFxY5) Not to mention the incredible amounts of leftover chlorine this process would create. I guess you'd just release that as Cl2 gas? Such a thing is possible in theory (that's actually how salt water pools work, a small electric current converts the NaCl to functional chlorine.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:11 PM (HDwDg)

65 My point exactly. If you have a sea borne power source, you might be able to make fuel, but you still have to power it with electricity created by something. You could just plug it into a wall socket. There. Problem solved.

Posted by: Mr. Low Information Voter at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (8ZskC)

66 37 but can it core a apple?
Posted by: Ed Norton at April 08, 2014 06:09 PM (bbk1i)
Yes, it can core a apple.

Posted by: Ralph Kramden at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (4tAp3)

67 Or is miswriting chemical formulae some gay British thing?  Like saying "theeta" instead of "theta" and aluminium and whatever?

Posted by: Troll Feeder at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (N5Lza)

68 Do they use a tuning fork like Keanu Reeves did in "Chain Reaction"?

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (/kBoL)

69 >>>Interesting, but how much electricity does this take to pull off? Granted, even if it's a net loss of energy, a nuclear reactor on a carrier has plenty of power to spare, and this could be in effect turning electricity into fuel. right, even if you're net-energy-losing (which you will be), we can't put nukes in our cars, but we could make big nuclear plants churning out seawater-derived fuel, and then we can put that fuel in our cars.

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (/FnUH)

70 I shall park mine under the shade of the Magic Everlasting Money Tree I am going to have when we are Socialist. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at April 08, 2014 06:10 PM (R7Fq5) Damn.... I thought only the Government had those....

Posted by: Paul Krugman, Economist? at April 08, 2014 02:12 PM (84gbM)

71 Whatever conversion plant you have running at sea, it will have to consume as much energy as it puts into those carbon chains.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:13 PM (ZPrif)

72 what serves as the power source for this electric current?

Water wheels.  Don't even have to wait for the wind!  o_O

Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 02:13 PM (ZKzrr)

73 Where does the Sky Hook attach?

Posted by: navybrat at April 08, 2014 02:13 PM (JgC5a)

74 what serves as the power source for this electric current? ------------------- Stoopid question. You just plug into the wall outlet.

Posted by: Bill O'Reilly at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (aDwsi)

75 "As seawater passes through a specially built cell, it is subjected to a small electric current." Hmm. Is it so specially built that the energy required to produce the current is less than the energy potential left behind in the treated seawater? "In the next step, the hydrogen and carbon dioxide are passed into a heated reaction chamber with an iron catalyst." Again, how much heat energy required for this step even with an iron catalyst? Net positive potential energy process? Yeah, 2nd Law. Not saying conversion may not be useful, but getting more energy out of the process than put in into producing it? Not buying it.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (1CroS)

76 well for one thing we don't know the energy required to drive this process. if you're spending more energy to produce this stuff then you get out at the end of it, you're not doing anything but turning one fuel into a somewhat more expensive fuel. Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 06:08 PM (/FnUH) True, but expense is a variable factor depending on need. If you have nuclear energy, but need jet fuel, this thing is damn cheap. If you have to power it with "fossil" (I use scare quotes because I don't believe the "fossil" fuel theory, I subscribe to the A-biotic theory) fuels, then yeah, the fuel thus produced will be damned expensive.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (bb5+k)

77 but we could make big nuclear plants churning out seawater-derived fuel, and then we can put that fuel in our cars.

Yeah, good luck with that permit thing.

Posted by: Eocfascists with EPA grants at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (ZKzrr)

78 Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at April 08, 2014 06:11 PM (0HooB) This is true. If you burn X fuel to get your refueling ship to the bigger ship, it might even make sense to use a "wasteful" process (thermodynamically speaking) to generate fuel on site.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (HDwDg)

79 I don't know much physics, but I do know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. - That was before Barack Obama.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (XUKZU)

80 No shit? You can use electrochemistry to turn water into hydrogen and carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons? Friggin' unreal. What are they going to come up with next?!

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (/kBoL)

81 BTW ace. The wimmen cobs are striking until you give us free dry cleaning! (Really hoping ace does a post on Obama's pivot to dry cleaning.)

Posted by: Y-not at April 08, 2014 02:14 PM (zDsvJ)

82 Whatever conversion plant you have running at sea, it will have to consume as much energy as it puts into those carbon chains. Posted by: Costanza ------------- F'cnking buzz-kill...

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (aDwsi)

83 Well, he said he was gonna stop the sea from rising. 

Posted by: The Mega Independent at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (4/o9U)

84 Water wheels. Don't even have to wait for the wind! o_O Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 06:13 PM (ZKzrr) Well hell... why don't they do that now??? Put a water wheel on the side of the ship.... as the ship goes through the water the wheel turns, turns a generator, makes electricity, which powers your engines! Just like Government economics!

Posted by: Paul Krugman, Economist? at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (84gbM)

85 30 Interesting, but how much electricity does this take to pull off? Granted, even if it's a net loss of energy, a nuclear reactor on a carrier has plenty of power to spare, and this could be in effect turning electricity into fuel. Posted by: Carnivorus Herbavore at April 08, 2014 06:08 PM (yguib) Yes, this is the only way I see the idea making sense... And then it makes perfect sense. No need to supply jet fuel to nuke carriers.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (bb5+k)

86 what serves as the power source for this electric current? ------------------- Stoopid question. You just plug into the wall outlet. - Or we could get the electric eels to do it for us.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (XUKZU)

87 Obama's pivot to dry cleaning

I thought the EPA was shutting that down, too.

Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (ZKzrr)

88 >>>right, even if you're net-energy-losing (which you will be), we can't put nukes in our cars, but we could make big nuclear plants churning out seawater-derived fuel, and then we can put that fuel in our cars. Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 06:12 PM (/FnUH)>>> Fuck physics. It doesn't have to be net-energy-losing when you use green magic.

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:15 PM (/kBoL)

89 If this processes really works as advertised, I can see independent floating refineries filling tankers in the open sea and selling to the highest bidder, free of regulation.

Posted by: toby928© has drink taken at April 08, 2014 02:16 PM (QupBk)

90 it's also possible (but I'm just speculating) that with the right catalyst you can steeply reduce the actual energy required. Who knows, maybe they've had some breakthrough on the catalyst end of things. At some point nanotechnology is probably going to wind up producing very efficient catalysts, attracting and holding one atom right damn next to the atom we want the first one to bond to.

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 02:16 PM (/FnUH)

91 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 06:11 PM (HDwDg)

This is probably more accurate:

2H2O + 2NaCl ---> H2 + 2NaOH + Cl2

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:16 PM (QFxY5)

92 I've been  a technical/scientific    advisor to  the US Navy for years.  And I'm telling you this thing could work.

Posted by: The Incredible Mr. Limpet at April 08, 2014 02:16 PM (BAS5M)

93 I don't know jack about any of this, but I'ma go out on a limb here and say this is total bullshit.

Posted by: mugiwara at April 08, 2014 02:16 PM (3a584)

94 If you have nuclear energy, but need jet fuel, this thing is damn cheap. I noticed the article did not speak even remotely to the efficiency of this process.

Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (PMGbu)

95 Or we could get the electric eels to do it for us. Again, no.

Posted by: Aquaman at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (8ZskC)

96 Thomas Freidman hates it because it does not yet involve a carbon tax scheme. Posted by: Mallamutt ------------ FIFY

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (aDwsi)

97 All you need is a Mentos the size of Hawaii. Posted by: Y-not at April 08, 2014 06:11 PM (zDsvJ) I'd be careful with that.

Posted by: Hank Johnson at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (R7Fq5)

98 Since someone already socked 2nd law I'll link this.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/ 2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml

http://tinyurl.com/3xrr2y

There are no Hydrogen mines.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (DL2i+)

99 with methane as a by-product.

hell, I can do that.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (hUf/y)

100 Could this process power a flux capacitor?

Posted by: Doc Brown at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (8ZskC)

101 Hmmm... *scratches head*  this sounds like it might work...

Posted by: Stanley Pons at April 08, 2014 02:17 PM (iuY0Y)

102

Posted by: Ed Norton at April 08, 2014 06:09 PM (bbk1i)

They didn't tell me it had a skate key.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (4/o9U)

103 I got a C in Chemistry so I think I will go over and visit the grandkids.

Posted by: grammie winger at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (oMKp3)

104 We're opposed. Details to follow.

Posted by: The Green Fascists at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (Xv7f/)

105 Good point, HR. Probably explains why it's getting harder to find those at-home dry cleaning sheets, too.

Posted by: Y-not at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (zDsvJ)

106 he process obviously cannot result in a net energy gain. But it can turn an inconvenient-for-flight form of energy (nuclear) into a perfect liquid fuel. Posted by: RokShox at April 08, 2014 06:09 PM (8MMMw) Very nicely summated. even at $6/gallon, at sea, it probably compares favorably to the cost of keeping a specific jet-fuel oiler in the carrier group

Posted by: ex-Pravda Commissar at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (kFxpe)

107 I've been a technical/scientific advisor to the US Navy for years. And I'm telling you this thing could work. Posted by: The Incredible Mr. Limpet at April 08, 2014 06:16 PM (BAS5M) Yeah, just wait until Big Oil hears about this. You all be sleeping with the fishes.

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (XUKZU)

108 I'm going to have to hear what Bill Nye says about this before I make up my mind..

Posted by: NPR Listener at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (aDwsi)

109 I'm assuming it takes huge electrical inputs, which might not actually be all that bad for a nuclear carrier at sea. They've got a big nuclear reactor nearby, and a bunch of seawater close at hand. Might not be economical on land where there are competing markets for the electricity.

Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at April 08, 2014 02:18 PM (XZWie)

110 >>>This is probably more accurate: 2H2O + 2NaCl ---> H2 + 2NaOH + Cl2 ... why can't we just re-dissolve the Cl into a sink of water?

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (/FnUH)

111 I have my doubts.

Posted by: Martin Fleischmann at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (QupBk)

112 10 Ah... but we will use our Cold Fusion to generate this, and use it to power our perpetual motion machine!!!! Posted by: Ming, the Merciless at April 08, 2014 06:04 PM (84gbM) That is illogical. The appropriate application of cold fusion is the freezing of volcanic cores. Because, "cold."

Posted by: Spock 2.0 at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (bHnlE)

113 Someone go  back and get a shitload of  extension cords.

Posted by: Navy Chief Taggart at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (BAS5M)

114 what serves as the power source for this electric current? Solar panels!

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (mx5oN)

115

The gas to liquids part is just the Fischer-Tropshe process.  It is the same thing the Nazis used in WW2 when we bombed the crap out of their oil.  The difference is that the CO2 came from coal for the Nazis and the CO2 here comes from seawater.  The question I have is why not pull it straight from the air with a gas separation membrane.  Also, CO2 is extremely stable (Gibbs free energy), so breaking it down takes some energy.  I just don't see it working without the second law of thermodynamics biting them in the butt.

Posted by: Steve #2 at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (9iym9)

116 I'm guessing this ends up being something that is a decent, but expensive, way to make fuel in an emergency with contested supply lines. I'm skeptical it's something that will end up being routinely used. And why, if all the problems have been solved, do they say they need another decade to make it work. That strongly implies to me there are major problems of cost and scale that have not been solved. There have been decades of oil-from-algae hype stories that never have panned out. Cause it always fails to scale.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (ZPrif)

117 And if you call within the next ten minutes, they're gonna throw in another one free. Plus a salad shooter.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at April 08, 2014 02:19 PM (4/o9U)

118 right, even if you're net-energy-losing (which you will be), we can't put nukes in our cars, but we could make big nuclear plants churning out seawater-derived fuel, and then we can put that fuel in our cars. Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 06:12 PM (/FnUH) Or it might even make intermittent wind energy more plausible by eliminating the need for standby generation. You make fuel when the wind blows, and you stop when the wind stops.

Posted by: D-Lamp at April 08, 2014 02:20 PM (bb5+k)

119 U.S.S. Prius

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 02:20 PM (MMC8r)

120 Posted by: Navy Chief Taggart at April 08, 2014 06:19 PM (BAS5M) *golf clap*

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:20 PM (8ZskC)

121 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 06:16 PM (QFxY5) Looks accurate. Still the question of what to *do* with it. Generating tanker sized levels of fuel at sea is going to release a noticeable amount of Cl2 which could probably be picked up by some sort of monitoring tool, thus disclosing your position more than you'd like. To put it differently, my lab actually developed a way to capture CO2 from stacks, problem was the output was Bicarbonate. Now with some tricks we turned it into baking soda...but then what? We theorized metric tons of the stuff being generated. (there were other problems too like recapture rate, enzyme decay, etc.) But still no one ever knew what to do with literal tons of baking soda being produced per day.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:20 PM (HDwDg)

122 When they can convert seawater into lube, then I'll be impressed.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at April 08, 2014 02:21 PM (mx5oN)

123 a disarmingly simple process that is always undone by the cost of the electricity required to perform it.

I want to ride my biCycle.

Posted by: Carnot[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:21 PM (DL2i+)

124 Yeah it would be nice to see the hard math of its energy consumption per gallon of jet fuel, auto gas, AV gas, and diesel.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:21 PM (lDQn8)

125
WAIT A MINUTE.....are you telling me those conspiracy freaks were telling the truth about the oil and car companies concealing the information of the car that runs on water and the inventor that mysteriously died??????????

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:21 PM (hUf/y)

126 why can't we just re-dissolve the Cl into a sink of water?

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 06:19 PM (/FnUH)

Because there's a lot of it. And you would have bleach to discard, with all of its attendant problems with dioxin production!

But we are also being geeks, so I wouldn't pay too much attention.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:21 PM (QFxY5)

127 Therodynamic law and law of conservation still requires  that there will be more energy inputs than what we get out of it.  But for the Navy this would be a game hanger. A nuke carrier could make all the j fuel they need, on demand.

Posted by: pissantinPeoria at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (RHBWt)

128 119 And if you call within the next ten minutes, they're gonna throw in another one free. Plus a salad shooter. Posted by: The Mega Independent at April 08, 2014 06:19 PM (4/o9U) All you have to do is pay $600 billion shipping and handling!

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (mx5oN)

129 I told you I was going to change the oceans. See?

Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (Dwehj)

130 Of course, since they still haven't built a working plant at scale, the $3-$6 figure is just kinda bullshit they made up. It's a projection, which may or may not turn out to be accurate. I'll believe they can sell $6 a gallon at industrial scale when they actually start selling $6 a gallon at industrial scale.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (ZPrif)

131 The cost estimate appears to be off by at least one nuclear reactor, not to mention long-term spent fuel rod storage. Those are cheap, right?

Posted by: Andy at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (pOhSg)

132 But still no one ever knew what to do with literal tons of baking soda being produced per day.

Mmm.  Biscuits.

Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (ZKzrr)

133 I bet if they add in unicorn farts, they can get the price down to the $2 - $4 range.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (4/o9U)

134 So in a round about way, by causing the oceans to rise, we are putting more fuel in the ocean tank...yes?

And if this works with fresh water, the Great lakes are our gold mine.

Or, TANSTAAFL.

Either or.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 08, 2014 02:22 PM (hDwVv)

135 @127 Bwaaaahaha!

Posted by: Dick "Halliburton" Cheney at April 08, 2014 02:23 PM (zDsvJ)

136 You people are still missing the big picture; GIANT FLOATING REFINERIES, POWERED BY NUKES! and possible populated by ... ROBOTS!

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 02:23 PM (QupBk)

137 But still no one ever knew what to do with literal tons of baking soda being produced per day. Nobody would ever have indigestion again. Ever.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:23 PM (mx5oN)

138 "a lot of ships are too small to safely carry a nuke aboard. Those ships require a different fuel (oil, or, I guess, jet fuel)."

Yes, jet fuel for the typical small modern surface warship. Gas turbine propulsion. Cheap and reliable, and high performance when needed.

But... nuclear propulsion does scale down to small warships, at least as far down as modern destroyer sized warships.

Contemporary Flight III _Arleigh Burke_ destroyer, turbine power: 9800 tons displacement.

1960s vintage USS _Truxtun_, nuclear power: 8700 tons displacement.

Nuclear power also has huge advantages for a navy that is engaging in a "Pacific pivot", or claiming to do so. In any naval scenario involving a certain very large adversary in Asia, several factors will be in play.

One will be deployment time from the US. The Pacific is wide. A nuclear ship can travel at flank speed all the way across the Pacific and arrive ready for operations immediately without refueling. Considerable time advantages.

Also, said very large adversary are building their own fleet of nuclear attack subs and can be reliably expected to use those to go after slow logistics ships carrying fuel for conventionally powered warships. Cut the tendons to cripple the runner.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (noWW6)

139 But still no one ever knew what to do with literal tons of baking soda being produced per day. America will finally dominate the strategically-important lemon bar sector.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (8ZskC)

140 but it could be somewhat cost effective.

cost never,
logistically maybe in some limited cases,
politically for the green stupidity buyoff - already winning.

Posted by: Carnot[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (DL2i+)

141 Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 06:22 PM (ZKzrr) That was actually a suggestion, basically go into the baking soda business.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (HDwDg)

142 In the past several decades, I've seen countless projections from algae oil startups and govt labs that said they would be working at scale by 1990, 2000, 2010, etc, etc. Still hasn't happened.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (ZPrif)

143 Tons and tons of baking soda almost for the asking?

Michelle's anti-obesity campaign takes a torpedo.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (lDQn8)

144 America will finally dominate the strategically-important lemon bar sector. You know, I can get on board with that.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 08, 2014 02:24 PM (WX3R9)

145 You people are cracking me up.

Posted by: Y-not at April 08, 2014 02:25 PM (zDsvJ)

146 Hey, you know what else runs on jet fuel?

All of our gas turbine powered warships.

So as someone upthread said, one nuke carrier for the energy source.
And all the other ships UNREP every third day.
Basically, unlimited sea legs.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 08, 2014 02:25 PM (hDwVv)

147 I just don't see it working without the second law of thermodynamics biting them in the butt.

Posted by: Steve #2 at April 08, 2014 06:19 PM (9iym9)

I don't think that anyone is arguing that this will be energy positive. But if it does work better than the usual reactions to do it in the lab, then it may be possible for the Navy to manufacture fuel at some reasonable energy cost.

The cost per gallon for Jet A delivered to a carrier must be huge, so if they can make it on board for the same or some reasonable increase in cost they should do it.  No risk to the oilers, no risk during refueling, etc.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:25 PM (QFxY5)

148 >>>91 it's also possible (but I'm just speculating) that with the right catalyst you can steeply reduce the actual energy required. Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 06:16 PM (/FnUH)>>> The energy will always be more than you can get out. And the catalysts will always be poisoned, especially using something as contaminated as "sea water." Ziegler and Natta got the Nobel Prize for this shit in 1963. There haven't been any huge breakthroughs since. Not that it couldn't happen, but the ratio of hype to results is approaching infinity.

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:25 PM (/kBoL)

149 Michelle's anti-obesity campaign takes a torpedo. As does the odor in my refrigerator.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 08, 2014 02:25 PM (WX3R9)

150 This isn't an "energy source". The energy comes from electricity used during the process, and that electricity is most likely produced by burning coal.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at April 08, 2014 02:26 PM (+rSRq)

151 [2 H20 -> H2 + 2NaHO] Balanced equation: 2 (Na+) + 2 H2O + 2 e- --> H2 + 2NaOH

Posted by: The Political Hat at April 08, 2014 02:26 PM (XvHmy)

152 I don't know if this will work, or if it will work efficiently. But I can guaran-damn-tee you one thing:

This came out of Nikola Tesla's notebooks.

Oh yes it did.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at April 08, 2014 02:26 PM (xq1UY)

153 Stop Sea Power! Save the Jellyfish!

Posted by: Some Stupid Lib Who Loves "Progress" at April 08, 2014 02:26 PM (4/o9U)

154 Jet Fuel? But with obama's defense budget we will have no Navy Jets?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (t3UFN)

155 But still no one ever knew what to do with literal tons of baking soda being produced per day. ====== Add vinegar and use it to power our missiles.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (MMC8r)

156 This came out of Nikola Tesla's notebooks. Or Aliens. But then, Tesla was an alien, yes? So, same same.

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (QupBk)

157 Now if we cold just harness the methane in sailor farts our subs could operate submerged full time.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (8ZskC)

158 The energy comes from electricity used during the process, and that electricity is most likely produced by burning coal. Or, as has been posted upthread, nuclear. If it works out, this is basically a means of converting nuclear power into highly portable, concentrated fuel.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (WX3R9)

159 2 (Na+) + 2 H2O + 2 e- --> H2 + 2NaOH

That equation is in danger of tipping to the left.

Posted by: Hank Johnson at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (Dwehj)

160 Tesla was Serbian.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:27 PM (lDQn8)

161 Someone has probably mentioned this already, but it doesn't pass the therodynamic sniff test. Oh, and it says it starts with hydrogen and carbon dioxide extracted form seawater and produces - hydrogen and carbon dioxide!

Posted by: bergerbilder at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (8MjqI)

162 >>>The energy will always be more than you can get out. right but... nuclear energy is essentially "free" while conventional fuel is pricey. You can "waste" a lot of nuke energy converting it into something more useful for cars and airplanes and sub-aircraft-carrier-sized boats and still come out ahead of the game. you can't put a nuclear reactor in a car, but you can put fuel in it generated at a nuclear-powered seawater-to-fuel station.

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (/FnUH)

163 Wait, I've got it! We'll use the ships' engines to produce the electricity needed to convert seawater into fuel for the ships.

Posted by: Andy at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (CofEF)

164 I'm sure the scientists who developed this were inspired by Obama's historic presidency.

In a way, this story is really his story.

Posted by: Kensington (@NYKensington) at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (/AHDz)

165 Â… or intermittent sources such as solar and wind.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (WX3R9)

166 Um, this will make the enviro-nazis mad! Fuel that doesn't hurt Mama Gaia? How are they going to redistribute the wealth? They  need polution so they can sell carbon-credits.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at April 08, 2014 02:28 PM (KL49F)

167 This is a niche product. That's why the Navy is developing this. This is for nuclear carriers, and is a loss for everyone else. Nuclear powered carriers have an abundance of two things -- electricity and seawater. They use one thing is great giant gobs -- jet fuel. This solves its two problems. It puts the carriers more on the standpoint that submarines work on -- range is now limited to the food supplies. Right now, a carrier has to have UNREP pretty often just for jet fuel. If they only had to UNREP for food and incidentals, they require a LOT less direct supply than they do now. If the carrier has enough excess to serve as oiler for the other ships in the carrier group, so much the better.

Posted by: Phelps at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (wdjv2)

168 These processes usually depend on effective the catalysts are, right? So their claim to fame is they've discovered some new catalyst that is much more effective than the old catalysts? The seawater to fuel idea isn't new. It's been done before, just not efficiently enough to be worth doing.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (ZPrif)

169

Oh, and the GTL fuel I tested 3 years ago cost $30 a gallon. Just saying.

 

Posted by: Steve #2 at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (9iym9)

170 "but we could make big nuclear plants"

We could.  But it won't be permitted.  When was the last time a new nuke plant came on-line in the U.S.?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (uhMMS)

171 Tesla was Serbian. He left Serbi IV a burned and lifeless world.

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (QupBk)

172 >> right but... nuclear energy is essentially "free" while conventional fuel is pricey. Have you priced a nuclear plant lately?

Posted by: Andy at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (CofEF)

173 NO BLOOD FOR SEA WATER!!!!

Posted by: WalrusRex at April 08, 2014 02:29 PM (XUKZU)

174 Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 06:28 PM (/FnUH) And I concede it might be a brilliant idea for ships (although the Cl2 dumping might create it's own problems.) but as far as large scale up goes I file this in the same book as "celluloid ethanol" good in theory, horrible output.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:30 PM (HDwDg)

175 >>>This isn't an "energy source". The energy comes from electricity used during the process, and that electricity is most likely produced by burning coal. or nuclear energy. But let's say it's coal. We have a shit-ton of coal, but not a shit-ton of gasoline. It would be seen by most as a beneficial transaction to "waste" five units of coal energy to produce two units of energy in the form of gasoline. That wouldn't be carbon dioxide neutral, of course.

Posted by: ace at April 08, 2014 02:30 PM (/FnUH)

176 Just think what we can do with freaking trains!

Posted by: Choo Choo Biden at April 08, 2014 02:30 PM (Dwehj)

177 Remember, the Navy is in the PR hype business just like any other company or govt agency. In fact, they've released this same "Navy discovers fuel from seawater" press release many times. They've been doing it for years.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:30 PM (ZPrif)

178 Tesla was the Serbian brain drain.  Two centuries later they are still trying to recover.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:31 PM (lDQn8)

179 The point is not that the process "creates energy out of nothing," but rather is a way to fabricate jet fuel without having to drill for oil or gas. Essentially, one could set up a nuclear power plant, and convert seawater into "fossil fuels." This isn't a "free energy lunch" or a "perpetual motion machine" or "cold fusion," but simply a way to take non-carbon energy (electrical power from nuke plants" and use it to create useful and transportable "fossil fuel" to feed our existing machines (i.e. jets). What this means is the end of the "peak oil" fallacy. Turns out, we don't even need oil any more, even to run devices (i.e. engines) that run on what we formerly assumed were petroleum-derived-only fuels. We don't actually need the petroleum any more. In that sense -- sweet!

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:31 PM (mizYg)

180
I am going to have to agree the conservation of energy screws it up for just about anything except a sailing fleet with a nuclear ship.

but still....cool beans.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:31 PM (hUf/y)

181 Me and my Sea Shepherd crew will put a stop to this!! We're badasses!

Posted by: Paul Watson at April 08, 2014 02:31 PM (mx5oN)

182 Yes. It can core a apple. Ha! Haa!

Posted by: The Chef of the Future at April 08, 2014 02:31 PM (iIfP7)

183 What this means is the end of the "peak oil" fallacy.

*blink*
Oil really does come from hippie tears.

Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (ZKzrr)

184 Earth resource satellites looking for plumes of Cl2 will find the US Navy...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (lDQn8)

185 How much would a nuclear reactor cost if you had no government red tape of any kind? GIANT FLOATING REFINERIES!

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (QupBk)

186 Entropy, you are going to have to put in more energy to make the H2 then you get out of it. Also loosing energy changing H2 and CO2 into a hydrocarbon. I'm more interested in the "proprietary iron-based catalyst" they are using to make hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2. While something like this would work to create synthetic fuel, it would only be taking one form of energy and changing it into another, with the inevitable loss.

Posted by: The Political Hat at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (XvHmy)

187 The cost per gallon for Jet A delivered to a carrier must be huge, so if they can make it on board for the same or some reasonable increase in cost they should do it. No risk to the oilers, no risk during refueling, etc. We know we have Mother Nature and her Seven Dwarves of Physics working against this in many ways, but making your jet fuel while under way is a genuine game changer. You could even put a desalination plant on board a nuclear vessel if needed. Now, we just need to keep the envirotards as far away from this as possible.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (0HooB)

188 WH Won’t Say If Obama Will Ban Iran’s U.N. Ambassador From Entering Country, Issue Sternly Worded Statement To Tehran… Obama wouldn’t want to offend his “partners in peace.” Weasel Zippers:

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 08, 2014 02:32 PM (t3UFN)

189 Have you priced a nuclear plant lately?

Posted by: Andy at April 08, 2014 06:29 PM (CofEF)

This is the "Wouldn't it be cool if..." and the "WAG" post.

The "Sober-minded analysis" post is coming next.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:33 PM (QFxY5)

190 If you link him,
he will come.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:33 PM (DL2i+)

191

Jet A is basically pure kerosene...which is an abundant byproduct of the refining process.

 

If we had more refineries, Jet A would be much cheaper.

 

This would be the solution that makes the most sense.

That is...if we had a government that did things that make sense.

Posted by: wheatie at April 08, 2014 02:33 PM (FWbLS)

192 So basically, all we need is a whole bunch of new nuclear plants for free fuel? Let me go check with my friendly neighborhood eco-facsist and see if that's cool. Oh, before I ask it would probably be good to know, is nuclear power gay friendly or is that only fusion?

Posted by: mugiwara at April 08, 2014 02:34 PM (3a584)

193 170 This is a niche product. That's why the Navy is developing this. This is for nuclear carriers, and is a loss for everyone else. Nuclear powered carriers have an abundance of two things -- electricity and seawater. They use one thing is great giant gobs -- jet fuel. This solves its two problems. It puts the carriers more on the standpoint that submarines work on -- range is now limited to the food supplies. Right now, a carrier has to have UNREP pretty often just for jet fuel. If they only had to UNREP for food and incidentals, they require a LOT less direct supply than they do now. If the carrier has enough excess to serve as oiler for the other ships in the carrier group, so much the better. Posted by: Phelps I think this is the one comment that really nails it. Bravo.

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:34 PM (mizYg)

194 Remember when we had a "Missile Gap" with the Soviets in the late 50s and early 60s? Are we now going to have a "sea water gap"?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 08, 2014 02:34 PM (t3UFN)

195 GIANT FLOATING REFINERIES!

I see someone likes Waterworld...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:34 PM (lDQn8)

196 Are we in Idiocracy? Why does this Navy system work? Cuz it's got electrolytes?

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:34 PM (/kBoL)

197 This is all about the catalyst, right? Either they discovered an amazing new catalyst that does this far more efficiently than in the past or they didn't. Everything else is, I think, just verbiage. The basic process is the same, the unknown is whether the catalyst is as good as they suggest.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:35 PM (ZPrif)

198 Perpetual motion!!! Getcher perpetual motion machine here! Perpetual motion machines 2 for $10!!! Get'em while they're hot! Perpetual motion!

Posted by: naturalfake at April 08, 2014 02:35 PM (0cMkb)

199 Oh, before I ask it would probably be good to know, is nuclear power gay friendly

Which is important in today's Navy.


Posted by: HR at April 08, 2014 02:35 PM (ZKzrr)

200 This is probably cheaper than the Navy's biodiesel shit, though. So, probably a good idea for them.

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 02:36 PM (/kBoL)

201
You may be able to have a permanent traveling refuel tanker though.  You could take your speed boat to Hawaii, jumping tanker to tanker.

Hmmmm....


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:36 PM (hUf/y)

202

Some good comments but too many seem to be missing the principle point of it all.
Yes, it will require a metric ass-load of electricity to run the process, probably from a nuke power plant. Supposedly that cost is figured into the 3-6$ cost.
Yes it is just a way of turning one kind of energy into another more expensive kind of energy. *that is the fooking point!*
Electric energy from a nuke power plant on an Aircraft carrier is plentiful but it takes one fooking long ass power cord to run your jets on that electricity. And as no one has even begun to think of an electricly powered aircraft engine, let alone something that would match a standard jet engine, guess what? Go'on you can do it... Thass right, we fookin need portable fuel even if it is just made from some other energy source.
Coorap! I love this site because of the truly smart commentary but sometimes folks, ya just can see the forest for the shrub your tripping over.

Oh and BTW... I'm skepticle that they can make it in the quantities they need without a massive amount of space. The volume of Sea Water they'll have to process is going to require a LOT of equipment.

Posted by: TSgt Ciz at April 08, 2014 02:36 PM (xcAaF)

203 "but we could make big nuclear plants" We could. But it won't be permitted. When was the last time a new nuke plant came on-line in the U.S.? Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at April 08, 2014 06:29 PM (uhMMS) There is one being built right now in the Southeast (GA, IIRC). Still, China and India are out pacing us big time, as are a plethora of different countries. The current aim is to create small modular reactors with true passive safety.

Posted by: The Political Hat at April 08, 2014 02:37 PM (XvHmy)

204 but you can put fuel in it generated at a nuclear-powered seawater-to-fuel station.

You might have noticed you get a few % into your Tesla now that way without the seawater.  Also that it's still a giant PITA to build new nukes.

We don't need oil substitutes for general transportation, we need less watermelons.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:37 PM (DL2i+)

205

Charlie Browns thingy

I really cant see $6 a gallon, I can see 30.  If a Air Craft carrier has spare electricity to pull this off, its a net plus unless we burn out the reactors faster.  Those things are hard to come by (my local hardware store is plumb out).  I'm not a nuke expert, but I imagine if they design them like engines, there is extra power there, how much??? 

 

As for carbon neutral, I love carbon.  It helps brown my steaks as the proteins and the sugars "caramelize".

Posted by: Steve #2 at April 08, 2014 02:37 PM (9iym9)

206   The basic process is the same, the unknown is whether the catalyst is as good as they suggest.

Plutonium for the win!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:38 PM (hUf/y)

207 Here's a 2012 story saying the same thing http://www.gizmag.com/jet-fuel-seawater/24287/

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:38 PM (ZPrif)

208 All you anti-science conservatives are only poo-pooing it because Obama is black.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 02:38 PM (MMC8r)

209 The French in regards to nuclear power plants has been ahead of the US for decades.  They have one design that produces a certain MW.  If a location needs say 3x what the design produces, well the French just build three.  None of this custom built stuff which adds to the expense.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:39 PM (lDQn8)

210 211 All you anti-science conservatives are only poo-pooing it because Obama is black. Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 06:38 PM (MMC8r) HALF BLACK!

Posted by: The duck from the TV commercials at April 08, 2014 02:39 PM (mx5oN)

211 Here's a similar story from Jan 2013 http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 02:40 PM (ZPrif)

212 Get'em while they're hot! Perpetual motion! Klaatu - Perpetual Motion Machine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFQ6UySenbU

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 02:40 PM (0HooB)

213 Posted by: Steve #2 at April 08, 2014 06:37 PM (9iym9)

Good point. Refueling a nuke is a huge deal, costs a ton, and takes forever.

Maillard reaction: it's my personal favorite.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (QFxY5)

214 No such thing as a carbon dioxide atom. It takes a molecule.

Posted by: wisenheimer at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (0cb+d)

215 Go forth and start hoarding nickels.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (bitz6)

216 In the future, after Global Warming has flooded all the continents and the globe is covered in oceans, Dennis Hopper will sail the seas in a salvaged Obama-class aircraft carrier, equipped with 7 nuclear power plants to make all the desalinated water, jet fuel, electricity and whatever else you need, for maybe 100 years. No need to land -- especially since there will be no land. And then one day Kevin Costner with gills will surface bearing the Sacred Substance -- replacement Uranium Rods!!!!

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (mizYg)

217 Baking soda is a natural for submarines. I got one in a box of cornflakes once. Worked great in the bathtub. Oh..., wait, I think it used baking powder. Never mind... Hold it, hold it. We can spread it around, use it to neutralize acid rain.

Posted by: Harvard Graduate at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (aDwsi)

218 The National Enquirer is a far more reputable source than the Daily Mail. Heck, I trust Rachel Maddow's minions at MSNBC more than them.

Posted by: Roy at April 08, 2014 02:41 PM (wdHQo)

219 For carriers to convert seawater to fossil fuels, why do I have this image of the inlets from Red October's drive below the waterline that open up to suck in the seawater.  Heaven forbid the USN ever sucks in a dolphin...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:42 PM (lDQn8)

220 The National Enquirer is a far more reputable source than the Daily Mail. Heck, I trust Rachel Maddow's minions at MSNBC more than them. Posted by: Roy at April 08, 2014 06:41 PM (wdHQo) Ahem!

Posted by: Weekly World News at April 08, 2014 02:42 PM (XvHmy)

221 A Democrat witch went to the House floor and scolded the Republicans, reminding them that the House "is not a frat house." Meanwhile, Alan Grayson beats his wife. But that anal aperture Eric Cantor has NOTHING to say about that.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 02:43 PM (IKE1C)

222 The EPA is never going  to  sign off on the Navy bulldozing mountain  piles of baking soda back into the oceans.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 08, 2014 02:43 PM (BAS5M)

223 Now, we just need to keep the envirotards as far away from this as possible. Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at April 08, 2014 06:32 PM (0HooB) Rail gun.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:43 PM (HDwDg)

224 What we need is a way to harness leftist hate and rage as a power source.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:43 PM (mx5oN)

225
Posted by: The duck from the TV commercials at April 08, 2014 06:39 PM (mx5oN)   <<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Hee hee.  I seriously laughed quite loud.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:43 PM (hUf/y)

226 We'll have to start fracking the oceans.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:44 PM (bitz6)

227 Insomniac, how to harness that source of energy.

Giant hamster wheels and you dangle in front of them a steaming hot aromatic cup of Starbucks.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:44 PM (lDQn8)

228 Matt Damon hysterical documentary in 5....4.....3....

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 02:45 PM (MMC8r)

229 The royals can start calling the jet fuel you get from oceans blood jet fuel.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:46 PM (bitz6)

230 Ocean water is basic, with pH ranging from about 7.8 to 8.3.   CO3- carbonate ion is weakly acidic, and in equilibrium with H+ ions, which have a concentration of  about 10^-8 .  IOW there's only a tiny amount of carbonate and hydrogen ions in the water to begin with, so it would take a whole boatload of the stuff to get enough carbon to form hydrocarbons with enough bonds to hold sufficient energy to act as a fuel.

So...I call bullshit.   Sure, you can use the carrier reactor as an electricity source, but the process would require enormous amounts of water to yield even a gallon of fuel.

Or maybe the plan is to suck up diatoms and plankton as well ---both are sources of carbon. Throw in an occasional Great White, and you're in business!


Posted by: Zippy at April 08, 2014 02:46 PM (HFSaY)

231 I don't know about carbon dioxide, but it's hot as hell where I am now.

Posted by: Aunt Zetuni at April 08, 2014 02:46 PM (m0le6)

232 The whole point of this is to let a nuclear reactor produce fuel for smaller ships, airplanes, helicopters, and so on. Nobody ever claimed this was going to be a free lunch. It will be an energy-intensive process, and that energy will be provided by nuclear. Dunno about the cost. But for now they are trying to get the process to work on dry land; a decade from now they hope to get it to work at sea.

Posted by: mr_jack at April 08, 2014 02:46 PM (M59SC)

233 Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 06:41 PM (QFxY5) Yeah see, it's been my job to sit in lab meetings and come up with the host of problems with what my colleagues are saying. Sorry, I can't turn this off. But if you limit this to ships that need a long time between refuels this might work (especially if CL2 venting isn't as big of a problem as I suspect.) Not carrying fuel is it's own fuel saver as well.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 02:47 PM (HDwDg)

234 >> We need cars powered by fresh urine. Dammit. *looks wistfully at the barrels of stale urine in her storage room*

Posted by: Y-not from her sick bed at April 08, 2014 02:47 PM (zDsvJ)

235 We get our jet fuel from the blood of Palestinian children. It's also great in matzo!

Posted by: The Jews at April 08, 2014 02:47 PM (mx5oN)

236 Urine is a renewable resource.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:48 PM (bitz6)

237 I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd help.

Posted by: General Beringer at April 08, 2014 02:48 PM (uhMMS)

238 Urine is perfectly safe, just ask the VP Joe Bidet.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:48 PM (lDQn8)

239 BREAKING: Eric Holder places diatoms on the endangered species list.

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:48 PM (mizYg)

240 The rub is in that little word "Extract." It's not like there's just a bunch of hydrogen laying around, waiting to be scooped up. It's locked up in the water molecule, which takes a lot of energy to split. So the question here isn't whether it's feasible, the question is, how much energy does it take to do this, and where does that energy come from?

Posted by: Cornfed at April 08, 2014 02:48 PM (N5l/l)

241 And I concede it might be a brilliant idea for ships (although the Cl2 dumping might create it's own problems.) but as far as large scale up goes I file this in the same book as "celluloid ethanol" good in theory, horrible output. Posted by: tsrblke ----------------- The German synthetic fuel process has been mentioned here. What is the drawback? I am assuming that it is either the dross (for lack of a better term), or the energy necessary to the process. But the process used coal as the source, no?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 02:49 PM (aDwsi)

242 231 Insomniac, how to harness that source of energy. Giant hamster wheels and you dangle in front of them a steaming hot aromatic cup of Starbucks. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 06:44 PM (lDQn How well can hipsters run in skinny jeans?

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:49 PM (mx5oN)

243 Baking soda is a natural for submarines. I got one in a box of cornflakes once. Worked great in the bathtub.

I have an entire fleet

Posted by: Keith Olberdouche at April 08, 2014 02:49 PM (Dwehj)

244 Fossil fuels are loaded with Hydrogen.

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:49 PM (bitz6)

245
Say it ain't so...

President Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango, who was denied asylum in the United States but stayed illegally for years, died Tuesday at age 61.

Not Aunt Onyango!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:49 PM (hUf/y)

246 Isn't it interesting how Republican Vance McCallister just happened to be "caught" on a surveillance camera??

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 02:50 PM (IKE1C)

247 Well, the messiah did promise to stop the rising of the seas, he was just too modest to tell us he would do so by turning the seas into jet fuel.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at April 08, 2014 02:50 PM (hpgw1)

248 It's not a fuel, it's a transfer medium for energy produced by some other 'fuel'. Still handy, though, and close enough to being 'fuel' if the original energy source is solar or nuclear.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at April 08, 2014 02:52 PM (UYiBe)

249 President Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni
Onyango, who was denied asylum in the United States but stayed illegally
for years, died Tuesday at age 61.

Damned Republicans, again. 

Posted by: Hammerin' Hank Aaron at April 08, 2014 02:52 PM (Dwehj)

250 I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd help.

Not while cranking.

Posted by: ShadeTree mechanic with burning sensation.[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 02:52 PM (DL2i+)

251 252 President Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango, who was denied asylum in the United States but stayed illegally for years, died Tuesday at age 61. If only we had passed comprehensive immigration reform and the Republicans supported Obamacare...this could have been avoided. Posted by: Tongiht's Programming on MSNBC at April 08, 2014 06:51 PM (OWjjx) It was the opposition to ghey "marriage" that did her in.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:52 PM (mx5oN)

252 The best version of this type concept that I've ever seen is Plasma gasification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_gasification Basically, burn garbage -- any garbage -- at high enough temperatures, and you create usable fuel and inert slag. All you need is a lot of electricity. Several plants already up and running. It works!

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:53 PM (mizYg)

253 Gasoline is a better fuel for cars than hydrogen. If this is actually inexpensive, then this is a better way to fuel autos than converting water to hydrogen (using electricity from nuke plants)

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at April 08, 2014 02:53 PM (h53OH)

254 "Not Aunt Onyango!"

Oh man, it'll take at least a two week vacation in Hawaii to ease that grief...

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at April 08, 2014 02:53 PM (uhMMS)

255 OT: Fumigating the Firefox Since Pale Moon is built upon a Firefox base, it still reports itself to be Firefox to web sites by default. Fortunately, it is trivially simple to turn this off and cause the browser to correctly report itself as PaleMoon. * Create a new tab. * Type "about:config" into the Address Bar as if it were an internet site (URL). * Type "compatMode" into the Search box that will appear right below the Address Bar. * On the line general.useragent.compatMode.firefox there are three settings: user set, boolean, true. Click on "true" and it will change to false. * Close the tab. That's it. Web sites will no longer incorrectly attribute your pageviews to Firefox. If as many people have switched to Pale Moon as have switched to Chrome, the decline in Firefox usage may actually be twice what I originally estimated. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/fumigating-firefox.html

Posted by: whoever at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (pjMym)

256 The inorganic carbon content of seawater is 2.3 mmol/kg. That means there is 1 mol of carbon in 1mt of seawater. That is 12 grams. Less than a teaspoon. In a ton of seawater.

Posted by: bergerbilder at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (8MjqI)

257 ...Not that it couldn't happen, but the ratio of hype to results is approaching infinity.

Posted by: gm at April 08, 2014 06:25 PM (/kBoL)

 

In many ways, that is the story of Barack Obama.

Posted by: troyriser at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (gNlvW)

258 re: Plasma gasification

How many gallons of fuel do we get per politician?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (lDQn8)

259 259 "Not Aunt Onyango!" Oh man, it'll take at least a two week vacation in Hawaii to ease that grief... Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at April 08, 2014 06:53 PM (uhMMS) At least a long weekend at Man's Country.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (mx5oN)

260 Damned Republicans, again.<<<<<<<<<<<<


Mitt gave her cancer.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (hUf/y)

261 213 211 All you anti-science conservatives are only poo-pooing it because Obama is black. Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 06:38 PM (MMC8r) HALF BLACK! Posted by: The duck from the TV commercials at April 08, 2014 06:39 PM (mx5oN) RAISED BY HIS WHITE MOMMA !

Posted by: Avi at April 08, 2014 02:54 PM (p/izY)

262 I know of a way to harness energy. Would you like to make a contract?

Posted by: /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ at April 08, 2014 02:55 PM (XvHmy)

263 But it will HARM THE ENVIRONSMENTZ!!!!1

Posted by: Teh Most Interesting Man at April 08, 2014 02:55 PM (dTh2r)

264 In-con-theevible!

Posted by: Teh Most Interesting Man at April 08, 2014 02:56 PM (dTh2r)

265 RIP Aunt Zweiback.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 02:56 PM (MMC8r)

266 Energy too cheap to meter!

Posted by: Some guy from the '50s at April 08, 2014 02:56 PM (l3vZN)

267 There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. if you begin with water, salt, lye and CO2, and end with water, salt, lye and CO2, you can't extract any more energy than you put into it. Actually, not even that much. You lose energy along the way to heat generation and parasitic loads (pumps, compressors and the like). That "small electric current" that is added at the dissociation (hydrogen generation) step is where all the energy in the final product comes from. Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy storage method, and not a particularly good one at that. It seems they have found a cheap and relatively efficient way to turn that hydrogen into methane, which is much more easily handled and has a much higher energy density. Of course they could just pump the methane (a.k.a. natural gas) out of the ground to synthesize their kerosene. but then again, it's hella cheaper just to crack petroleum to get your kerosene.

Posted by: Danby at April 08, 2014 02:57 PM (1Glkv)

268 SOYLENT GAS IS PEOPLE!

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 02:57 PM (mizYg)

269 Wouldn't cold fusion be easier?

Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 02:57 PM (bitz6)

270 Isn't it interesting how Republican Vance McCallister just happened to be "caught" on a surveillance camera??

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 06:50 PM (IKE1C)

 

Republican Vance McCallister, being a Republican, should know that Republican politicians are under constant, intense scrutiny by Democratic operatives seeking to ruin them. Republican Vance McCallister and other Republican sleazeballs like Vance McCallister should, while holding elected office, refrain from sleeping around with other men's wives.

 

It isn't too much to ask of Republican politicians at any level--local, state, national--that they not act like ancient Roman emperors or modern-day Democrats.

Posted by: troyriser at April 08, 2014 02:59 PM (gNlvW)

271 This is child's play.

Posted by: Heisenberg at April 08, 2014 02:59 PM (IKqBK)

272 "But the process used coal as the source, no?"

It does.

During the years of economic sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa, to include petroleum products, their parastatal energy firm Sasol geared up in a big way to make vehicle fuels from coal. Using that process.

The process isn't exactly fuzzy bunny clean, and it's not very economic, but it certainly does work.

Posted by: torquewrench at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (noWW6)

273 I had a source in mind for limitless energy, but gave up when there was zero point.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (MMC8r)

274 274 Wouldn't cold fusion be easier? Posted by: Boss Moss at April 08, 2014 06:57 PM (bitz6) I'll take a cold beer. At least that's real.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (mx5oN)

275 264 259 "Not Aunt Onyango!" Yup. Barry is down one illegal alien grifter.

Posted by: Mole6 at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (m0le6)

276

Sounds too good to be true.  Probably isn't.  There's a fly in the ointment somewhere.  

 

Yes.  I'm skeptical.

Posted by: Soona at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (o7LFs)

277 I'll bet you the people who figured this out all went to college. What a bunch of fools!! They should have learned a trade instead.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 08, 2014 03:00 PM (0LHZx)

278 We must not have, a salt-water gap

Posted by: General Buck Turgidson at April 08, 2014 03:01 PM (kFxpe)

279 278 I had a source in mind for limitless energy, but gave up when there was zero point. Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 07:00 PM (MMC8r) *facepalm*

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 03:01 PM (mx5oN)

280 I'm still stuck in this damned hut.

Posted by: Brother 404 at April 08, 2014 03:01 PM (Dwehj)

281 Petticoat Junction is on.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:02 PM (IKE1C)

282 "Not Aunt Onyango!"
Yup. Barry is down one illegal alien grifter.
Posted by: Mole6 at April 08, 2014 07:00 PM (m0le6)



That's at least a dozen votes the donks are gonna lose.

Posted by: mugiwara at April 08, 2014 03:02 PM (3a584)

283 If big oil & the auto companies would have released the secrets to the 200 mpg carburetor back in the '70s, this would be unnecessary.

Posted by: jwb7605 [/i][/u][/s][/b] at April 08, 2014 03:02 PM (ZALPg)

284 But who knows. I don't.

I do.  I know these people.  It's complete BS. 

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:03 PM (4nR9/)

285  it's hella cheaper just to crack petroleum to get your kerosene.

Posted by: Danby at April 08, 2014 06:57 PM (1Glkv)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

That's what I'm thinking.  And we have plenty of oil.  We ain't running out of that stuff.

Posted by: Soona at April 08, 2014 03:04 PM (o7LFs)

286 Well I have been under top of a rental car with a garden hose.

Posted by: dick @dickstrash at April 08, 2014 03:04 PM (GrtrJ)

287 ABC is pimping a new "documentary" hosted by Senor Wences (Katie Couric) on Big Sugar. According to her, by 2020, 1 out of 3 will have diabetes.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (IKE1C)

288 154 [2 H20 -> H2 + 2NaHO] Balanced equation: 2 (Na+) + 2 H2O + 2 e- --> H2 + 2NaOH Posted by: The Political Hat at April 08, 2014 06:26 PM (XvHmy) You're just a lib in the pocket of the balanced unions!

Posted by: Buzzion at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (S2Qdi)

289 This is all a plot by Big Seawater.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (MMC8r)

290 This is how we stop the oceans from rising due to global warming. Genius!!!11!

Posted by: jwb7605 [/i][/u][/s][/b] at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (ZALPg)

291 Assuming that this is legit, but would still amount to a net energy loss, it would still be a great deal for the Navy. After all, we have an all-nuclear carrier fleet, so they should be able to produce plenty of energy. Now, they wouldn't have to carry nearly as much fuel, since they could just make it on-demand, and they also wouldn't have to refuel. Other than ammo and human needs (food), they'd be entirely self-sufficient. Assuming this is legit.

Posted by: ChrisValentine at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (42vqa)

292 I give up on Google voice.

Posted by: dick @dickstrash at April 08, 2014 03:05 PM (GrtrJ)

293 Interesting. Have Firefox 28.0

Went and looked at the config.  Found that setting.  It says Default, Boolean, False.

If I right click on it, a little menu pops up.  First option is Toggle.  Select that.  And settings change to User, Boolean, True.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 03:06 PM (lDQn8)

294 Fight Big Ocean! No Blood for Brine!

Posted by: zombie at April 08, 2014 03:06 PM (mizYg)

295 This is the stupidest thing I have read all year. This will be Nobama's excuse for holding up the Keystone Pipeline yet again.

Posted by: dr kill at April 08, 2014 03:06 PM (mcQuu)

296 Save the krill!

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 03:06 PM (mx5oN)

297 It isn't too much to ask of Republican politicians at any level--local, state, national--that they not act like ancient Roman emperors or modern-day Democrats. Posted by: troyriser at April 08, 2014 06:59 PM (gNlvW) Just remember that they have deemed themselves better than you in every way and are entitled to act accordingly!

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:06 PM (o3MSL)

298 Remember the microwave shiite that would break up water into fuel that we haven't heard from since the first newspaper story?  Entropy always wins.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 08, 2014 03:07 PM (L02KD)

299 So, I'm officially calling BS until I see some more evidence.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:07 PM (ZPrif)

300 Assuming this is legit.

It isn't, and it annoys the hell out of me that this is getting so much play, and so much money.

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:07 PM (4nR9/)

301 What burns is the gubmit's got that Tesseract thing holed up summer aint no one can get at it.

Posted by: Redneck Loki at April 08, 2014 03:08 PM (bUmSq)

302 Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 07:07 PM (4nR9/) The science is settled, denier!

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:08 PM (o3MSL)

303 HALF BLACK! Posted by: The duck from the TV commercials I'm choking to death here.

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 03:08 PM (QupBk)

304 play Dead Or Alive? Dead Or Alive? June Lockhart (Lassie, Lost In Space)

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:09 PM (IKE1C)

305 Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 07:07 PM (4nR9/) PhD comics did a bit back called "the science news cycle" This is that.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 03:09 PM (HDwDg)

306 By RICHARD R. BURGESS, Managing Editor So, so far they've used to fly a tiny model airplane. For two minutes. But they project $3-$6 for industrial scale productions. Those $ were generated by the patented process of Pulling It Out Of Their Ass. ARLINGTON, Va. — In a breakthrough in energy research, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed a process to convert seawater to a hydrocarbon fuel capable of powering an internal combustion engine. The fuel, similar to kerosene, was successfully tested in a model airplane. Speaking to reporters at an April 3 press conference at the Pentagon, Rear Adm. Philip Cullom, deputy chief of naval operations for fleet readiness and logistics, and Dr. Heather Willauer, a research chemist at the NRL, announced that the lab had developed a process to take carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and molecularly restructure convert them into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel. The method used is an electro-chemical process. The fuel was used in the model plane’s two-cycle engine, which propelled the pane for a two-minute flight.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:09 PM (ZPrif)

307 You're just a lib in the pocket of the balanced unions! Posted by: Buzzion at April 08, 2014 07:05 PM (S2Qdi) Heh.

Posted by: The Political Hat at April 08, 2014 03:09 PM (XvHmy)

308 The Magic Seawater deniers must lose their jobs!

Posted by: Blozilla at April 08, 2014 03:11 PM (Dwehj)

309 Seriously, the made enough to power a model airplane. For two minutes. Let's just assume all problems of scaling up will be solved. Hey, we made a few cups of fuel, how hard could millions of gallons be?

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:11 PM (ZPrif)

310 Well in other news, the family who's 1yr old daughter got sick and had to be rescued from their sailboat off Mexico, the US Navy sank their 36ft boot since it was taking on water.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 03:11 PM (lDQn8)

311 The fuel was used in the model planeÂ’s two-cycle engine, which propelled the pane for a two-minute flight. Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 07:09 PM (ZPrif) Obviously they need plane engines with more cycles if they want to fly longer!

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:11 PM (o3MSL)

312 Sorry, but the article that was linked to on this post is crap.

Here is a much better one with technical details that make sense.

http://tinyurl.com/9bnensp

Posted by: Thermadin at April 08, 2014 03:12 PM (FgoyJ)

313 Seriously, the made enough to power a model airplane. For two minutes. **** A really long rubber band could probably do the same.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 08, 2014 03:12 PM (DmNpO)

314 R&D projects in the Navy and DARPA are subject to the same political process that funded Solyndra. If you promise magical Green Energy then you get the funding Obama-bucks. Researchers looking for Obama-bucks play the PR game as much as any vaporware tech startup.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:12 PM (ZPrif)

315 OOh, please not another "Free Energy!" "Free!" Fuck, if I had a nickel... I'll skip mentioning my ChE degree, knowledge of thermodynamics, and unit ops here and just skip to a simple argument: The Government can't BUY jet fuel at 3-6$ a gallon, and they claim that they can MAKE it for that much? The government? When it's finally implemented it'l be $3-6 a thimblefull, and they'll crow about having made their "original target price".

Posted by: West at April 08, 2014 03:13 PM (4EkUi)

316 324 R&D projects in the Navy and DARPA are subject to the same political process that funded Solyndra.

If you promise magical Green Energy then you get the funding Obama-bucks. Researchers looking for Obama-bucks play the PR game as much as any vaporware tech startup.

Preach it, brother!

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:13 PM (4nR9/)

317 * On the line general.useragent.compatMode.firefox there are three settings: user set, boolean, true. Double Click on "true" and it will change to false.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 03:13 PM (aDwsi)

318 It makes hydrocarbons for burning so the environmentalists will still hate it.

Posted by: Max Entropy at April 08, 2014 03:14 PM (cgtTL)

319 Well in other news, the family who's 1yr old daughter got sick and had to be rescued from their sailboat off Mexico, the US Navy sank their 36ft boot since it was taking on water. *** Anyone who chooses the wild and daring life for him/herself is welcome to do so. Anyone who chooses that life for their 1 and 3-year old children is fucking insane.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 08, 2014 03:15 PM (DmNpO)

320 To be clear, the argument for this fuel isn't really it's price, it's that you eliminate the need for supply ships in a hot fight.  Because the enemy is sure to stop whatever he's doing while you cruise around aimlessly and use up your nuclear reactor time making minuscule aliquots of hydrocarbon. 

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:15 PM (4nR9/)

321 When it's finally implemented it'l be $3-6 a thimblefull, and they'll crow about having made their "original target price".

Word.

Posted by: The $800K Toilet at April 08, 2014 03:15 PM (Dwehj)

322 the US Navy sank their 36ft boot since it was taking on water. Posted by: Anna Puma ------ HBO movie to follow, wherein we learn what brave, progressive people they are.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at April 08, 2014 03:15 PM (aDwsi)

323 Mars families need kids too.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 08, 2014 03:16 PM (L02KD)

324 I've seen algae oil projects that have working pilot plants that fail when they try to scale. Scaling is hard. Scaling hits non-obvious resource constraints that are overlooked at pilot scale. Not clear that this technique is even at pilot scale yet.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:16 PM (ZPrif)

325 Seriously. This idea is shit. Stop. Just stop.

Posted by: dr kill at April 08, 2014 03:16 PM (mcQuu)

326 NDH, read their non-apology apology.
http://tinyurl.com/o3snoca

"We understand there are those who question our decision to sail with our family, but please know that this is how our family has lived for seven years, and when we departed on this journey more than a year ago, we were then and remain today confident that we prepared as well as any sailing crew could," the statement said. "The ocean is one of the greatest forces of nature, and it always has the potential to overcome those who live on or near it. We are proud of our choices and our preparation."

How can they have departed more than a year ago if the little girl is only a year old?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 03:18 PM (lDQn8)

327 Where does the oxygen go? I don't see a good accounting of the energy balance. It looks like a system to store energy in hydrocarbons and that's cool, but what energy, from where ?

Posted by: eman at April 08, 2014 03:19 PM (aoHoW)

328 There's a sucker born every minute.

Posted by: PT Barnum at April 08, 2014 03:19 PM (nEIMV)

329 But, fish fuck in that shit. Well, not fish. Dolphins! Yeah, dolphins. We must protect the dolphin semen soaked seas from man's greed!

Posted by: Insert fist here at April 08, 2014 03:20 PM (bUmSq)

330 I do think people consistently fail to realize how much govt and academic researchers play the hype game. It's huge. If you are good at it, your career benefits immensely. Stories like this don't magically appear in the news. It's a huge boost to the careers of the scientsts and project managers of this seawater fuel story. The Navy loves press like this. Loves, loves, loves it. US Navy doing amazing, magic, techno-awesome stuff. News at 11! Hell, the Navy would pay you to do this even if it never worked, but you got regular great PR look this, everybody talking about how great the Navy is and government R&D.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:20 PM (ZPrif)

331 I remember when the Naval (not Navy) Research Laboratory was a premier research facility, not a front for perpetual motion machines.

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:20 PM (o3MSL)

332 I can solve our blood shortage by my new process to extract it from stones. I need $5 billion in venture capital, preferably from the government.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 03:21 PM (MMC8r)

333 I hope this seawater fuel idea works. Even if it's just an ultra expensive option to use in wartime. Just very skeptical. Seeing a lot of handwaving.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:21 PM (ZPrif)

334 The Navy loves press like this. Loves, loves, loves it. US Navy doing amazing, magic, techno-awesome stuff. News at 11!

Yes, and the much bigger cost is that crap like this crowds out the world class NRL scientists who could actually use the money intelligently.  Not that I'm angry or anything.

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:22 PM (4nR9/)

335 Oak Ridge has likewise fallen from it's once esteemed status and is now wasting resources on watermelon environmental BS.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at April 08, 2014 03:22 PM (L02KD)

336 Will this Blood From Stones project be organic, carbon neutral, and locally sourced?

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:22 PM (ZPrif)

337 This reminds me, I should go back to talkpolywell at some point and see if anything's happening on the magnetic-confinement fusion front.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 08, 2014 03:22 PM (AUb/4)

338
Nuclear power may not fuel my DeLorien, but it can provide the ergs needed to make all kinds of synfuels.
Posted by: toby928©




The 10 or 11 nuke carriers we have left now also have to serve as fuel plants for the task force. One hit and everybody goes back to the mainland for repairs.

Paint a bigger target on them, why don't ya.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 08, 2014 03:23 PM (kdS6q)

339 I need $5 billion in venture capital, preferably from the government. Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 07:21 PM (MMC8r) This is the sort of project that the horde should be pursuing to transfer some green into the right pockets for a change!

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:23 PM (o3MSL)

340 I remember when the Naval (not Navy) Research Laboratory was a premier research facility, not a front for perpetual motion machines.

It still is.  It is the undisputed king of DoD science, and a very big player in science in general. 

Posted by: pep at April 08, 2014 03:23 PM (4nR9/)

341 how much energy is consumed in the process versus the energy value of the end product?

i'm guessing that amount #1 will drastically outmass #2.


Posted by: redc1c4 at April 08, 2014 03:23 PM (q+fqH)

342 Meanwhile speaking of Navy, some young enlisted Sailor committed suicide at the barracks across from my Office at Portsmouth Naval Hospital. Such a waste

Posted by: Nevergiveup at April 08, 2014 03:23 PM (t3UFN)

343 Will this Blood From Stones project be organic, carbon neutral, and locally sourced? ======== Yes, but that costs double.

Posted by: --- at April 08, 2014 03:24 PM (MMC8r)

344 You hear about this movie coming out Heaven Is For Real? It's supposedly a 'Christian' movie, but it sounds a little dubious to me. I dunno. It's based on a book and stars Greg Kinneer and Thomas Hayden Church (Lowell).

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:24 PM (IKE1C)

345 From 2009, same story. http://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html#.U0SFD_ldX6c

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:24 PM (ZPrif)

346 How can they have departed more than a year ago if the little girl is only a year old? Dolphin midwives?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 03:24 PM (0HooB)

347 From 2009, same story. Yeah, but no Kim Kardashian links in the sidebar.

Posted by: Waterhouse at April 08, 2014 03:25 PM (AUb/4)

348 Kinda looks like the same Navy R&D lab puts out the same press release on magic seawater fuel about once a year. Google searching and I've found the same basic story every year since 2009. I'm guessing they put out press releases like this whenever funding decisions are about to be made.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:26 PM (ZPrif)

349
I'm so hungry I could eat a few buckets of KFC!

Posted by: Shabazz Napier at April 08, 2014 03:27 PM (nQjHM)

350 "That's at least a dozen votes the donks are gonna lose."


They said she was dead.
Nothing was said about losing the right to vote.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at April 08, 2014 03:27 PM (hDwVv)

351 Ooh, exact same $ figures in the 2012 article http://www.businessinsider.com/seawater-could-fuel-navy-jets-2012-10 Initial studies predict that jet fuel from seawater would cost in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce according to the NRL, making it a contender with traditional oil sources.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:28 PM (ZPrif)

352 I have a great idea for free-range, fair-trade, gluten-free, organic green energy and it's a mere $1B investment to get me to tell you what it is.

Posted by: mugiwara at April 08, 2014 03:28 PM (3a584)

353 Is this an April Fool's joke? Did someone check the date on the original article?

Posted by: guy fawkes at April 08, 2014 03:28 PM (Djwm9)

354
Wax on - wax off bitches!

Posted by: Mr. Miyagi at April 08, 2014 03:29 PM (nQjHM)

355 At this rate, Ace will soon re-post the story about the Navy ship that is trying out it's prototype laser weapons.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:30 PM (IKE1C)

356 Dr. Heather Willauer seems to be mentioned year after year in all of these magic seawater fuel articles. 2014, 2013, 2012, etc, etc. Hey, research chemists gotta play the game to get the bucks. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:30 PM (ZPrif)

357
For that matter, you could only put this on new build carriers, which makes it ever fewer targets.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 08, 2014 03:31 PM (kdS6q)

358 This is what labs and researchers do. You have to justify your budget. One way is media mentions. If her funding is up, is the Navy gonna cut the magic seawater fuel project that got all that awesome press? No way. Left, Right, FoxNews, MSNBC, the greeneis, the security hawks. Everybody loves the magic seawater fuel idea.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:32 PM (ZPrif)

359 Energy requirement and cost may make this impractical for anybody but the Navy, but if it works it's a game changer. The Navy could reclaim nearly all the space used for aviation fuel on a carrier (i.e., a lot), shove another nuclear reactor in there for nothing but on-demand jet fuel and keep a smaller amount available on hand for operational needs. From a damage control standpoint this would be great, because you get rid of literally tons of flammable fuel, assuming you can make enough as you go for fight ops. Depending on efficiency the nuclear carrier could conceivably fuel its own gas-turbine powered escort ships. No more vulnerable fleet tankers. The limiting factor would be food for the crew and ammunition. Not really feasible for anyone without access to a nuclear reactor, but a Biden-class Big F'n Deal for the US Navy. If it works.

Posted by: Darren at April 08, 2014 03:33 PM (cKoDv)

360 btw, 'Daily Mail' sounds like a queer pron site.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:33 PM (IKE1C)

361 Posted by: Mike H at April 08, 2014 06:05 PM (LllJT)

A nuclear reactor would probably be ideal for the application.

Posted by: DFCtomm at April 08, 2014 03:35 PM (mjzdi)

362 One thing to keep in mind if this system really does work, and that is a big if. In the middle of the night, say from 11:00 PM to 5:00 AM there is usually less electricity being consumed than is being generated by the electric utilities base line plants which are turned off only for maintenance. That means essentially that there is a fair amount of free electricity that goes to waste. If that otherwise wasted electricity were used to make hydrocarbon fuel, the only real cost would be the capital cost of making the seawater to jet fuel equipment and the personnel costs for the guys who operate the plant on the night shift. Depending on how well the process works if the electricity is intermittent, it might be suitable for windmills or solar power installations where the unreliable consistency of natural processes like wind and sunshine are not as problematic as they are on an electric grid.

Posted by: Obnoxious A Hole at April 08, 2014 03:35 PM (TKk/U)

363 You hear about this movie coming out Heaven Is For Real? It's supposedly a 'Christian' movie, but it sounds a little dubious to me. I dunno. It's based on a book and stars Greg Kinneer and Thomas Hayden Church (Lowell). **** I heard about this a while ago. IIRC it's about a little boy who had a near-death experience and came back knowing of things he couldn't otherwise have known. I have no idea whether there's an attempt to discredit him or not.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 08, 2014 03:37 PM (DmNpO)

364 No free lunch here. What drives the process is electricity to electrolyze the seawater, and heat the short chain hydrocarbons.

But add a nuclear powerplant, and you will get zero-sulfur diesel. This would be a damned sight easier to deal with than shlepping hydrogen around as vehicle fuel.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 08, 2014 03:38 PM (c6N69)

365 No one returns from the dead. Lazarus was the only one.

Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 03:39 PM (IKE1C)

366 Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 08, 2014 07:37 PM (DmNpO) IIRC, there is a book by the parents on this as well.

Posted by: Hrothgar at April 08, 2014 03:39 PM (o3MSL)

367 I guarantee we'll see the same story in 2015 and 2016. 2012 hype article says they only need 6-8 years to scale up, depending on funding. 2014 hype article says they need a decade, depending on funding. I wonder what the 2016 hype article will say and whether the "game-changer" buzzword will still be current. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121019-turning-the-oceans-into-jetfuel But donÂ’t expect that fleet to be accompanied by refueling ships, sucking in seawater. That research is far behind the biofuel work. It will take six to eight years for the NRL to fully develop the seawater idea, depending on funding. And then it will take many more years to build working systems. By then, the Great Green Fleet may have already sailed.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:40 PM (ZPrif)

368 I got exactly 50 bucks out of that 16 pool, promptly spent it on a Growler of Scotch Ale and two disc golf discs. Thanks, UConn.

Posted by: Lincolntf at April 08, 2014 03:40 PM (ZshNr)

369 This isn't about Energy, this is about LOGISTICS. And every Gallon of Jet A you don't deliver to the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan isn't just a Gallon saved, you also save the fuel to ship it. And the supplies for the crew of the oiler, and... And actually, this has potential implications for Land Warfare as well. The Our land forces (like the M1 Abrams) run just fine on Jet Fuel. But a full Tanker Trunk is Dry at what, about 800 miles? Depending on the weight of the reagents to do it with Fresh Water, Russia should actually get nervous for the first time ever. Phelps Nails it in #170

Posted by: Sweyn at April 08, 2014 03:41 PM (SQOXc)

370 **mutter**giant floating refineries**mutter*mutter**

Posted by: toby928© insists on talking about robots at April 08, 2014 03:42 PM (QupBk)

371 376 No one returns from the dead. Lazarus was the only one. Posted by: Soothsayer has gun, will travel at April 08, 2014 07:39 PM (IKE1C) Maybe he was only mostly dead.

Posted by: Insomniac at April 08, 2014 03:43 PM (mx5oN)

372 re ace and magic catalysts.  It is my understanding that catalysts only speed up reactions, they don't change the reaction  in any way.

Posted by: Ronster at April 08, 2014 03:45 PM (puNd6)

373 Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at April 08, 2014 06:11 PM (HDwDg)


This is probably more accurate:

2H2O + 2NaCl ---> H2 + 2NaOH + Cl2

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 08, 2014 06:16 PM (QFxY5)

 

That was uncalled for

Posted by: Filthy Bob Filner at April 08, 2014 03:46 PM (nTgAI)

374

So...the 'cost' of purchasing a nuclear reactor is Not factored into the 'cost' of this new fuel?

 

It's just a given...because the vessel is already powered by one?

 

Posted by: wheatie at April 08, 2014 03:47 PM (FWbLS)

375 Fuck you guys

Posted by: The Goose that laid the golden egg at April 08, 2014 03:47 PM (nTgAI)

376 From all the hype articles over the years by the same NRL researcher -- it doesn't seem like they've made much progress in 5 years. Seems it's always on the verge of Totally Revolutionizing Everything. They just need another ten years of funding to work out the kinks and scale up. Meantime they got a kick model plane they can fly on the stuff. Woo-hoo! Game changer! Great Green Fleet! Jet Fuel 2.0!

Posted by: Costanza Defense at April 08, 2014 03:47 PM (ZPrif)

377 Mayor Ford gains a new staffer.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/more/ex-olympian-johnson-joins-fords-campaign-team/

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at April 08, 2014 03:48 PM (lDQn8)

378 We already have one of those, the size of a watch

Posted by: The Japanese at April 08, 2014 03:48 PM (nTgAI)

379 Newd.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit [/i][/s][/b][/u] at April 08, 2014 03:51 PM (0HooB)

380 The energy problem will be solved when  Odumbass comes up with a tank to put on a cows back to catch all the farts.  Put a herd of cattle on a ship and problem solved.

Posted by: Ronster at April 08, 2014 03:52 PM (puNd6)

381 If I call bullshit on this perpetual motion machine err magic water engine does that make me a hater?

Posted by: weirdflunkyonatablet at April 08, 2014 03:52 PM (LxUpO)

382

Dr. Heather Willauer  Christmas Jones  seems  to be mentioned year after year in all of these magic seawater fuel articles. 2014, 2013, 2012, etc, etc.

 

 

FIFM

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 08, 2014 03:53 PM (BAS5M)

383 The input energy source is a matter- antimatter reactor. Lots of blinking lights and cool pinging sounds. Only female technicians wearing red miniskirt uniforms can operate it.

Posted by: eman at April 08, 2014 03:53 PM (aoHoW)

384 As others have already stated - see laws of thermodynamics. Interesting start of a hydrocarbon I will admit - but many of the fuel cell type technologies require ultrapure starting materials. First time they suck up a small school of fish the party is over. (Been there, done that with a regular ship main condenser) Now the Ni catalyst - this is existing technology, used on a daily basis to hydrogenate vegetable oils.

Posted by: PMRich at April 08, 2014 03:53 PM (x/BtJ)

385

I've got three words for ya.  Cold Fusion!

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at April 08, 2014 03:55 PM (jucos)

386 There is a net energy loss, but energy gets stored in the organic molecules. Plants have been doing this shit since way back.

Posted by: eman at April 08, 2014 03:56 PM (aoHoW)

387 Ronster: "It is my understanding that catalysts only speed up reactions, they don't change the reaction in any way." Correct. They're inert to the reaction other than lowering the energy requirements which is one major (the major) barrier to chemical reactions.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 08, 2014 03:59 PM (1CroS)

388 Wouldn't it just make more sense to ensure that all those carrier jets have their tires inflated to the proper pressure?

Posted by: S. Muldoon at April 08, 2014 04:02 PM (MKpBT)

389 that all those carrier jets have their tires inflated to the proper pressure?

Windows and tailhook up, mach .55 only.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at April 08, 2014 04:06 PM (DL2i+)

390
Heh. I think this cartoon just about covers this subject...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/skepticalist/4372728626/

Posted by: zipity at April 08, 2014 04:07 PM (kwgTF)

391 Man of Steel on HBO now

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at April 08, 2014 04:10 PM (DmNpO)

392 AnnaPuma:

Heat depolymerization makes about 80 gallons per metric ton of dead politician, hobo, or hippie.

Posted by: Kristophr at April 08, 2014 04:10 PM (c6N69)

393 In the 1930s through the mid 1940s almost all the gasoline in Germany was produced from coal using the Berzelius Process. Production dropped off in 1943 and 1944 due to a series of unfortunate factory explosions. After WW II, the US government duplicated the process at an old fertilizer plant and apparently were producing gasoline at costs that were competitive with petroleum derived gasoline. The program was ended but no company was interested in picking it up because cheap middle eastern oil was coming on line.

Posted by: Obnoxious A Hole at April 08, 2014 04:15 PM (TKk/U)

394 NRL funds Polywell fusion as well. Bussard used to write up applications, and one they liked was being able to do a process like this to generate cheap fuel. But that assumed cheap fusion power. I don't see how this could possibly be so cheap it's economical with conventional power sources. I suspect they are fudging the numbers somewhere.

Posted by: talldave2 at April 08, 2014 04:17 PM (lNW+B)

395

 

 You know, I wonder how many of these "The science is settled" greenie loons actually know any actual physics. I mean basic romper room physics, such as the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. If a majority of the populace actually knew such simple things, then hype like this wouldn't work.

     This fuel from seawater idea has been around for sometime. That is, it involves known chemisty. Basically you split water, H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. Now, it takes energy to do that, by the first Law as much as you get from burning H2 and O2, but by the 2nd Law, it's going to take *more* than you get out (nothing can be 100% thermodynamically efficient -- you must waste some energy as heat). Now, you take the H2 and combine it with CO2 to make hydrocarbons, which are various desired fuels depending on what form you make the final product.

    Now, any idiot should know that this will take more, and most likely a hell of a lot more, energy that you get from burning that final fuel product.

    The only reason something like would make sense if this cost of that input energy is less than the cost of the fuel and getting the fuel to where its needed and storing it and all that. It might make sense for the Navy to be able to generate all the jet fuel they need on the go and on site. But it's going to take a hell of lot more energy. If they're counting on adding another nuclear reactor just to do this, then maybe so.

       But this is of practical benefit to the rest of us. We should be going all out nuclear -- it's the only thing that has any chance of working and replacing fossil fuels. All this is other stuff is crap that only catches the popular imagination because of ignornace about those pesky laws of thermodynamics.

    But if we go nuclear, there will be much better ways of end use of the energy produced that making hydrocarbon fuel. Just pure hydrogen for powering vehicles might be better (and I'm talking H2 burning internal combustion engines, not fuel cells).

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at April 08, 2014 04:34 PM (ic1j1)

396 Um, yeah, bullshit.

Posted by: rick at April 08, 2014 05:17 PM (snYrg)

397

A carrier admiral once said that the most expensive fuel he had was that brought in by A6 tanker variants.  You what you have to do.

If this is any kind of practical--in terms of not blowing up--then a fleet oiler might be a nuke ship motoring along making fuel as it goes.  Nobody has to come out to it, nor does it have to return to replenish.  Figure the fuel cost of running the oilers out and back, and the necessity of securing them by warships in combat, and so forth, this might be a useful proposition, despite the thermodynamic TANSTAAFL.

Presuming it can be done without blowing up.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 08, 2014 05:46 PM (sEWAz)

398
Having seen many miracles in my lifetime - the Apollo moon landings, the invention of the laser, the Internet, gene therapy - I'm willing to accept that one more is possible.

On the other hand, I've also seen plenty of overhyped "breakthroughs" that proved to be no such thing: remember cold fusion?

So, while it would be marvelous if it worked, I'm from Missouri on this one.

Posted by: Brown Line at April 08, 2014 08:01 PM (a5bF3)

399 there's one born every minute...unfortunately for us, they have all gravitated to DC and have our checkbook.

Posted by: azjaeger at April 08, 2014 08:08 PM (niWgN)

400 great. now it'll be Peak Seawater.

Posted by: X at April 09, 2014 04:38 AM (KHo8t)

401 @406 Nailed it! I'll just add the going nuclear only makes sense if you go with MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors). Current reactors burn, at best, 2% of their potential energy (the rest is waste). MSRs will use about 98% and the remaining waste only needs to be stored for ~300 years. MSRs are passively safe, use far less material to construct (no giant cooling towers needed), and can burn Thorium which is more plentiful than Uranium.

Posted by: emaughan at April 09, 2014 07:32 AM (VA7XB)

402 I'm too lazy to read the entire thread, but I'll assume it hasn't been mentioned. 7 or 8 years back, one of the national research labs floated a plan to make gasoline out of the carbon in the air. It required that the plant that was going to do the extraction be next to a nuclear plant, both for the cheap electricity, but also for access to the waste heat from the nuke plant. I would assume that this is similar: Given a nuclear plant that you already have, with it's existing electrical* & heat surplus, you can convert limited amounts of seawater to jet fuel. *As I understand it, there's not an electrical surplus on the current nuke carriers. One of the upgrades to the Gerald Ford is additional generator capacity to run all them computers & the electromagnetic catapult.

Posted by: Topper Harley at April 09, 2014 08:03 AM (xuvV5)

403 I hope, therefore, I will withhold judgment. But there is always those maxisms to live by: You don't get something, for nothing. And if it sounds too good, to be true, it is, too good, to be true. But, I repeat... I hope.

Posted by: petunia at April 09, 2014 08:13 AM (DAcBA)

404 In the 1990s Chicago had a small fleet of buses that operated water-to-hydrogen fuel cells using a similar priciple.  They had terrible pick-up and broke down a lot, so they were discontinued after a few years.  Interestingly, and this is just food for conspiracy theorists, the man who invented those fuel cells died of poisoning after claiming to friends that he was being targeted by the "military industrial complex" for his patents.

Posted by: Gunga at April 09, 2014 08:43 AM (pSYWf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
276kb generated in CPU 0.3752, elapsed 0.5486 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.4631 seconds, 532 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 77116
  • Files: 465
  • Bytes: 2.4G
  • CPU Time: 136:34
  • Queries: 2804345

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0