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

×
avatar
FraterPerdurabo: You need an alternate source for news.
Well, there may be alternative sources for news but they don't have THIS hat!
(I'm not the only Feed Dump fan here, right?)
Post edited April 14, 2014 by Fever_Discordia
The US Navy had been using a environmentaly friendly and cheap powersource for decades in the past, it is called wind and it powered sailboats.

=P
So in 2074 China and USA won't go to war over last oil rig?
Cool, who cares about global warming now. The seas are going to rise, who gives a fuck...more fuel.
I would somehow have expected such news to also appear in other medias than dontlistentomeimaravinglunatic.com.
I was reading up on this somewhere else -- I can't remember where. But it has all of the classic trademarks of "This is not going to happen on a large scale." The largest issue I had was that the whole system write-up that I saw didn't take into account several sources of energy that were required to get the energy out.

One cannot simply create a hydrocarbon without energy going into the system. And although you can make complex doodads that can do it, they cost energy to build and they degrade (from what I read, they were utilizing the half-cell potential between two metals to do some chemical sorting, which, in turn, will neutralize the metal's half-cell potential by migrating one metal to the other -- which would be akin to saying that a nickel and a penny in a lemon is a universal free energy source). And more often than not, more energy goes into the system than what energy comes out of it.

I say more often than not, because sometimes the energy required to go into the system happened ages ago (like we have with coal or oil), so it is ignored. But even so, it takes energy to make energy even in those cases.

I'm still banking on cold fusion.
Maybe you could turn seaweed into fuel. Anyone?
Idiots! No. I do NOT believe in chemtrails, UFOs, alien visitors or other assorted bunkum.
So what if I'm British? Brits, or any other nationality, can't comment on science/tech from other nations? Have you even heard yourselves? >.<

I posted this because SCIENCE!

It's an interesting concept, and yes, it's short on details, given it's a military thing, understandably so, like how does the jetfuel produced compare octane/power-wise to "ordinary" jetfuel, energy costs, etc.

What's even more interesting is that they claim it will help remove CO2 from the ocean (at least temporarily) in a (n almost?) carbon-neutral process.... and if you know anything about methane clathrates, you'll know WHY that is becoming to become more important in years to come...

I expected more from you guys. Seems my optimism was sadly misplaced.... :\
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...
Who cares? It cleans the oceans.
If you can even use the stuff/waste from it, great!
Nonsense.
Post edited April 14, 2014 by Crsldmc
It's just that the article the OP posted was so ignorantly written that it was impossible to determine that there was anything like real science behind it, that it was not simply another of the numerous obviously false claims of converting water into fuel.

The true claim here is that there is a synthesis of higher hydrocarbons from water and CO2, with input of sufficient energy. The energy could be from renewable sources, sources other than fossil fuel, or whatever sources are available on board ship.

Previously there was no practical synthesis from water and CO2 that could produce the C8 and up hydrocarbons needed for, say, jet fuel. Any synthesis of hydrocarbons higher than methane required too-high temperatures and too much energy input to be practical, and produced too much useless methane. The innovation here is a catalyst and process that enable the production of hydrocarbons such as ethylene, which can be used in further synthesis, under practical conditions, with reasonable efficiency and non-production of waste products.

This does not imply anything like the article claims: that this is any kind of competition to entrenched fossil fuel industries, not in cost, not in scale of production. It does raise the possibility of partial self-sufficiency of fuel for oceangoing vessels, carrier-based aircraft fleets, or even space exploration to planets where there is water and CO2.
Post edited April 14, 2014 by cjrgreen
avatar
Lone3wolf: 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:



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:

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.
avatar
Lone3wolf:
I click on the link to the article....I get server not found. :(
In other news, the pope has turned out to be a giant mutant robot and is currently wrecking havoc in his progression towards Paris where the Eiffel tower has started stomping its chest and threateningly breathing fire towards a strange gathering of horse-riding horses.
avatar
Lone3wolf: http://www.addicting...y-ends-big-mane/

Why this is not a huge major story mystifies me. I’m curious to see how it all plays out so stay tuned.
avatar
Lone3wolf:
avatar
Lone3wolf: http://www.addicting...y-ends-big-oil/

I click on the link to the article....I get server not found. :(
avatar
monkeydelarge:
That's because it's not a valid URL. The middle part is missing: [...]
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...
avatar
grimwerk: 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.
That's the angle I was thinking about. The reactors onboard those carriers make plenty of electric power, and a single refueling IIRC is good for a decade or better.

Now, what would be cool is to use solar electricity as the power source for the conversion. That would make it suitable for many more applications near a saltwater shore.