It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
http://www.addicting...y-ends-big-oil/

The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed
Author: Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario April 12, 2014 10:59 am


This article was originally posted on proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com


Surf’s up! The Navy appears to have achieved the Holy Grail of energy independence – turning seawater into fuel:

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.


The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

Curiously, this doesn’t seem to be making much of a splash (no pun intended) on the evening news. Let’s repeat this: The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline.

This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.”

I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.

There are two other aspects to this story that have not been brought up yet:

1. The process pulls carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas driving Climate Change) out of the ocean. One of the less well-publicized aspects of Climate Change is that the ocean acts like a sponge for CO2 and it’s just about reached its safe limit. The ocean is steadily becoming more acidic from all of the increased carbon dioxide. This in turn poisons delicate ecosystems like coral reefs that keep the ocean healthy.

If we pull out massive amounts of CO2, even if we burn it again, not all of it will make it back into the water. Hell, we could even pull some of it and not use it in order to return the ocean to a sustainable level. That, in turn will help pull more of the excess CO2 out of the air even as we put it back. It would be the ultimate in recycling.

2. This will devastate oil rich countries but it will get us the hell out of the Middle East (another reason Republicans will oppose this). Let’s be honest, we’re not in the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. We’re there for oil. Period. We spend trillions to secure our access to it and fight a “war” on terrorism. Take away our need to be there and, suddenly, justifying our overseas adventures gets a lot harder to sell.

And if we “leak” the technology? Every dictator propped up by oil will tumble almost overnight. Yes, it will be a bloody mess but we won’t be pissing away the lives of our military to keep scumbags in power. Let those countries figure out who they want to be without billionaire thugs and their mercenary armies running the show.

Why this is not a huge major story mystifies me. I’m curious to see how it all plays out so stay tuned.


UPDATE:
People have been asking for more details about the process. This is from the Naval Research Laboratory’s official press release:

Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2. The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system.
In plain English, fuel is made from hydrocarbons (hydrogen and carbon). This process pulls both hydrogen and carbon from seawater and recombines them to make fuel. The process can be used on air as well but seawater holds about 140 times more carbon dioxide in it so it’s better suited for carbon collection.

Another detail people seem to be confused about: This is essentially a carbon neutral process. The ocean is like a sponge for carbon dioxide in the air and currently has an excess amount dissolved in it. The process pulls carbon dioxide out of the ocean. It’s converted and burned as fuel. This releases the carbon dioxide back into the air which is then reabsorbed by the ocean. Rinse. Repeat.
Whoa whoa plain and simple man thats alot text and info and whats all this about turning seawater into consumable energy?
Post edited April 13, 2014 by Elmofongo
April Fool's Day was two weeks ago.

Water-into-fuel hoaxes have been around since at least 1875; look up John Ernst Worrell Keely (Keely Motor Company).

The claim that this process extracts elemental hydrogen from seawater by "cation exchange" is sufficient to dismiss it without any more discussion than who expects to profit from this deceit.
Post edited April 13, 2014 by cjrgreen
Pneumatic motor seems like a future possibility but turning sea water into fuel and charging same as the current petrol price is ridiculous
You need an alternate source for news.
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: You need an alternate source for news.
I looked at the .com and kind of went, "Erg."
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: You need an alternate source for news.
avatar
tfishell: I looked at the .com and kind of went, "Erg."
OP does believe in reptilians and chemtrails so you did make way too much of an effort.
Even if it turns out out be true at some point, will the process require more energy to make the fuel than the fuel provides? If so...
As your profile states you are from the UK, I cannot even fathom whyyou have posted this?I
- it's not a nationlistic thing, just expected more...
avatar
HereForTheBeer: Even if it turns out out be true at some point, will the process require more energy to make the fuel than the fuel provides? If so...
Yes. Think of it as energy storage rather than an energy source. The Naval Research Lab press releases are clearer, and lack speculation and hyperbole:

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas

The second article suggests the intended use: Creating jet fuel aboard an aircraft carrier (for example) rather than having it delivered. That is, a nuclear reactor (or other energy source) and seawater will produce fuel on ship. So perhaps it's okay if that fuel is costly in energy terms to produce.
this sounds like a video I noticed the other day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiKa4nOkHLw
The world already knows how to indirectly convert sea water into energy using Hydro electricity. Although technically it is solar energy! But technically speaking, Fossil fuels are also solar energy, so is wind, everything is solar energy except geothermal, nuclear and tidal (Tidal being another way of extracting energy from seawater).
Where do we sign up?
It's kindof funny to see this right after Russia teased a cutoff, pretty sly of the Navy to announce this now if their intention was to capitalize on some shortage fears to promote their product. Alternative fuel sources, especially a good one, will make for an interesting political tool. Hopefully this is as good as the impression, I wonder if at least offshore oil could be motivated to switch over to this if it's safer. Be nice not to have to worry about the lives of men on the rigs and potential disasters. If this can provide enough, maybe things could get easier for conservation too. I've been reading up on re-wilding and endangered species conservation for a school project, and you wouldn't believe the insane terminology and sidestepping going on with oil vs. endangered species. Bison can't even be released in their habitat without classifying them as a "non-essential experiment" to ease oil company fears. Be nice if all that paper and red-tape could all just blow away.
This was in the news here too one or two weeks ago, but it was skimpy on details so I couldn't really tell should I be excited or not, nor whether it was an April's Fool joke.

Nice if they have found an additional way to produce (or reuse) energy. I was originally hoping they had finally invented a working cold fusion solution, but nah.