US Navy develops technology to turn seawater into fuel

[mashman]

"The process involves extracting both dissolved and bound carbon dioxide from seawater at 92% efficiency and simultaneously producing hydrogen. The gases are then converted into liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst." (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-develops-technology-turn-seawater-fuel-110527282.html#QmmrOvx)

:killingme... that's not gonna make a few folk on here unhappy. R.I.P. Mr Meyer.

Shame it seems to be military application only.

[Akzle]

niggaz been doing that shit for days.
There just aint no money in it. And can you imagine every jew lining up the coast at high tide to siphon some more fuel?

[avgas]

Fishermen would have to stop smoking for a start.

[Laava]

I call bullshit on that. If they actually have found a way of pulling fuel out of seawater then you can bet your arse it would use many times more energy to produce than it would release.

[pzkpfw]

I call bullshit on that. If they actually have found a way of pulling fuel out of seawater then you can bet your arse it would use many times more energy to produce than it would release.

From what I've seen elsewhere, it's electrically driven. That is, an aircraft carrier might have the energy to do this, and it supplies fuel to their support ships. i.e. it's basically nuclear powered.

So yes, no magic.

[scrivy]

Interesting to see they say its got military uses.... err..... hang about.... aren't we all 'sposed to be reducing carbon emissions... why just the military??

They don't want us poor folk getting cheaper shit.......

[James Deuce]

92% efficiency? You mean it costs more to produce than the energy you get out of it, just like non-military hydrogen? Wow! Amazing!

[willytheekid]

...I wonder if the US Military are worried about the Big Oil companys "Making them dissapear" :laugh:


Been around for decades by the way...just everyone else who "tried" to introduce this technology...either -just dissapeared?...or died of completely natural,yet extemely suspicious circumstances :eek5:

But keep dreaming folks...because your nothing but cash cow's!, and Very...VERY!!, powerful people WILL ensure you stay as such for a very loooooong time to come...sorry to be be the bubble burster :doh:

[Tigadee]

Ahhh, no wonder the aliens in Battle Los Angeles and Battleship chose to land in the water...

They must have even more efficient means of turning seawater into fuel, and with 70% of the earth's surface being seawater, we're just a big fuel dump.

[Brian d marge]

Meeeh

Me and this old fella , have been turning water into wine since ages ago

beat that

Stephen

Me carrot ain’t a bad drop if I don’t say so myself

[bogan]

It kinda cool, and I guess could be used for scientific survey ships/craft as well (though I've not heard of too many of them with nuclear power plants), and 92% efficiency is getting pretty high. But, obviously it has no use where traditional infrastructure is already in place.

[mashman]

It kinda cool, and I guess could be used for scientific survey ships/craft as well (though I've not heard of too many of them with nuclear power plants), and 92% efficiency is getting pretty high. But, obviously it has no use where traditional infrastructure is already in place.

http://cdn.dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/floating-city-design-concept.jpg

[bogan]

http://cdn.dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/floating-city-design-concept.jpg

Why would they want hydrogen? It certainly has no place in ground up designs for efficient living.

[Tazz]

hdn.dornob.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/floating-city-design-concept.jpg

More like....


http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140226022918/cartoonnetwork/images/d/d8/Sealab_2021.jpg

[mashman]

Why would they want hydrogen? It certainly has no place in ground up designs for efficient living.

If you're gonna be using the fuel pulled from the sea and hydrogen comes as a part of the deal, then why not use it for something.

[bogan]

If you're gonna be using the fuel pulled from the sea and hydrogen comes as a part of the deal, then why not use it for something.

Um, what? Hydrogen doesn't come part of the deal, it is the deal, and its a very inefficient one. You're not stupid enough to think this is free energy are you?

[mashman]

Um, what? Hydrogen doesn't come part of the deal, it is the deal, and its a very inefficient one. You're not stupid enough to think this is free energy are you?

:rofl: :yawn: :rofl:

[bogan]

:rofl: :yawn: :rofl:

About as strong on tech knowledge as financial stuff I see :facepalm:

[mashman]

About as strong on tech knowledge as financial stuff I see :facepalm:

"The process involves extracting both dissolved and bound carbon dioxide from seawater at 92% efficiency and simultaneously producing hydrogen."

Poor effort. Hydrogen is not the whole deal.

[bogan]

"The process involves extracting both dissolved and bound carbon dioxide from seawater at 92% efficiency and simultaneously producing hydrogen."

Poor effort. Hydrogen is not the whole deal.

So at best the CO2 can be classed as a byproduct with no practical use. Far cry from when you implied that hydrogen was a byproduct of the fuel they were pulling out; I'm still unclear on what fuel it is you thought was the main product there :scratch:

I'll spell it out for you, hydrogen from seawater takes more energy to produce than it can give out, burning it in engines only harnezses a fraction of that power 60% is the upper end iirc. So for energy in, you get roughly half out, compare that to electricity of 90+%, only those in a very stupid world would wish to use this technology where standard electrical infrastructure can be a thing.

[mashman]

So at best the CO2 can be classed as a byproduct with no practical use. Far cry from when you implied that hydrogen was a byproduct of the fuel they were pulling out; I'm still unclear on what fuel it is you thought was the main product there :scratch:

I'll spell it out for you, hydrogen from seawater takes more energy to produce than it can give out, burning it in engines only harnezses a fraction of that power 60% is the upper end iirc. So for energy in, you get roughly half out, compare that to electricity of 90+%, only those in a very stupid world would wish to use this technology where standard electrical infrastructure can be a thing.

It was how I read it. The simultaneously bit made it sound like a byproduct to me.

Really? You felt the need to establish that all over again? Clean your keyboard and then send an email to the US Navy.

[bogan]

It was how I read it. The simultaneously bit made it sound like a byproduct to me.

Really? You felt the need to establish that all over again? Clean your keyboard and then send an email to the US Navy.

Well you're wrong, because it isn't a byproduct, nothing else of use comes out of it.

They are well aware of those facts, as are most of us, I just thought you were missing a few. I mean there is a reason why they only plan to use them in circumstances where traditional infrastructure is not a reliable option.

[James Deuce]

Fundamentally the same process is done with coal to produce hydrogen, however that method is only 35% efficient. The seawater hydrogen extraction method has been around for decades, but like the coal process requires electricity and a catalyst. Storage and transport of hydrogen is a massive problem, however the US relies heavily on their CV groups to project power and the CVs can stay at sea for months at a time, meaning that the rest of the CV group needs to meet up with tenders for fuel and food. Fuel transfer is complex and time consuming and leaves two vessels very vulnerable in a war zone while linked, to say nothing of the dangers of refuelling in poor weather. Having to store hydrogen on a warship does leave them vulnerable to Hindenburg syndrome though.

[Banditbandit]

This is the bit I like


The US Navy plans to have a "green" carrier strike force by 2016, with all its escort ships and aircraft powered by an equal mix of biofuel and oil.

So - they are going to do a guilt-free, carbon-neutral trip to where ever they want to nuke the fuck out of huh ... that's very Green of them

[Brian d marge]

Wasnt hindenburgh due to thermite

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

[mashman]

Well you're wrong, because it isn't a byproduct, nothing else of use comes out of it.

They are well aware of those facts, as are most of us, I just thought you were missing a few. I mean there is a reason why they only plan to use them in circumstances where traditional infrastructure is not a reliable option.

Sorry, can't hear you over your wah wah wah.

Yet they are still doing the very thing that is so horribly inefficient. Here's a radical thought for ya...maybe they've found out how to make things drastically more efficient :shit:... nah, that's just too positive of a thought.

[mashman]

Fundamentally the same process is done with coal to produce hydrogen, however that method is only 35% efficient. The seawater hydrogen extraction method has been around for decades, but like the coal process requires electricity and a catalyst. Storage and transport of hydrogen is a massive problem, however the US relies heavily on their CV groups to project power and the CVs can stay at sea for months at a time, meaning that the rest of the CV group needs to meet up with tenders for fuel and food. Fuel transfer is complex and time consuming and leaves two vessels very vulnerable in a war zone while linked, to say nothing of the dangers of refuelling in poor weather. Having to store hydrogen on a warship does leave them vulnerable to Hindenburg syndrome though.

Wouldn't a blow off valve sort the Hindenburg issue?

[bogan]

Sorry, can't hear you over your wah wah wah.

Yet they are still doing the very thing that is so horribly inefficient. Here's a radical thought for ya...maybe they've found out how to make things drastically more efficient :shit:... nah, that's just too positive of a thought.

:scratch: They say in the article 93% efficient, that's fairly good. Not sure where you get drastically more efficient from though.

It's fine to be pro-alternative energy and whatnot mashy, but try and be a bit more pro-logic eh :2thumbsup:

[pzkpfw]

Sorry, can't hear you over your wah wah wah.

Yet they are still doing the very thing that is so horribly inefficient. Here's a radical thought for ya...maybe they've found out how to make things drastically more efficient :shit:... nah, that's just too positive of a thought.

No.

It's because an American aircraft carrier has a nuclear power station on board.

[Ocean1]

:scratch: They say in the article 93% efficient, that's fairly good. Not sure where you get drastically more efficient from though.

It's fine to be pro-alternative energy and whatnot mashy, but try and be a bit more pro-logic eh :2thumbsup:

You're talking to the porcine master of circular logic, dude, do you not recognise this exact topic/reaction from last time?

The time where dozens of people tried to educate him about hydrogen? Repeatedly? With no discernible effect whatsoever?

Give it up, you're just annoying the pig.

[bogan]

You're talking to the porcine master of circular logic, dude, do you not recognise this exact topic/reaction from last time?

The time where dozens of people tried to educate him about hydrogen? Repeatedly? With no discernible effect whatsoever?

Give it up, you're just annoying the pig.

Oh yeh, something about lawnmowers wasn't it? Boggles the mind a bit if I'm honest...

[mashman]

No.

It's because an American aircraft carrier has a nuclear power station on board.

No doubt... but, are you certain (know for a fact) that that's all it is? There is absolutely no way to make the process more efficient, such as using various frequencies to limit the energy required for separating the elements? Or perhaps using a specific metal catalyst that enhances the reaction? Perhaps a combination of both?

[mashman]

Give it up, you're just annoying the pig.

Neither of you have the wherewithal... fun to watch you try though, even if you are scraping the barrel these days.

[bogan]

No doubt... but, are you certain (know for a fact) that that's all it is? There is absolutely no way to make the process more efficient, such as using various frequencies to limit the energy required for separating the elements? Or perhaps using a specific metal catalyst that enhances the reaction? Perhaps a combination of both?

I think you'll find the combination of both is how they have got it as efficient as they have. There is a theoretical limit of around 120% efficiency, there just isn't room for the vast increases which are required. Electrolysis of hydrogen is a dead end when it comes to energy generation, as energy transport it has some use, but has largely fallen out of favor compared to 5-10 years ago for the aformentioned reasons.

[mashman]

I think you'll find the combination of both is how they have got it as efficient as they have. There is a theoretical limit of around 120% efficiency, there just isn't room for the vast increases which are required. Electrolysis of hydrogen is a dead end when it comes to energy generation, as energy transport it has some use, but has largely fallen out of favor compared to 5-10 years ago for the aformentioned reasons.

How do you get 120% efficiency? Energy Transport?

[Winston001]

Having to store hydrogen on a warship does leave them vulnerable to Hindenburg syndrome though.

Did a bit of research on this once and hydrogen isn't as dangerous as we think.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/dangerous-hydrogen-fuel2.htm

The problem with the Hindenburg was the coating on the fabric which was extremely flammable.

[bogan]

How do you get 120% efficiency? Energy Transport?

There is a thermal side to the process, electrolysis sucks in heat energy from the environment, while a hydrogen fuel cell put out heat energy to the environment. So the electrical to hydrogen efficiencies are 120% and 83% respectively, or 100% overall. You ever get the feeling that those of us who understand such numbers might be worth listening to when we say its a dead end?

[mashman]

There is a thermal side to the process, electrolysis sucks in heat energy from the environment, while a hydrogen fuel cell put out heat energy to the environment. So the electrical to hydrogen efficiencies are 120% and 83% respectively, or 100% overall. You ever get the feeling that those of us who understand such numbers might be worth listening to when we say its a dead end?

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine :bleh:.

[R650R]

This is the bit I like



So - they are going to do a guilt-free, carbon-neutral trip to where ever they want to nuke the fuck out of huh ... that's very Green of them

This is a common thing now for various govt depts. to be involved as a token effort to get the public to buy into the lie of 'clean' green energy...
BTW the US military is the single biggest user of petroleum products worldwide. If they ended their constant intervent shenanigans there would be no 'peak oil' BS either...

I'd say that (heavy) metal catalyst will be uranium inside a nuke reactor and the excessive electric used to crudely make hydrogen, compress and store it.
I doubt it will be a major source for the fleet, justa select few vessels whose use it suits.
The real clean energy would be to put sails back on the damn boats!

[James Deuce]

Did a bit of research on this once and hydrogen isn't as dangerous as we think.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/dangerous-hydrogen-fuel2.htm

The problem with the Hindenburg was the coating on the fabric which was extremely flammable.

You're ignoring the effect penetrating munitions has on hyper-cooled pressurised storage vessels. Hydrogen is difficult to transport and store without turning it into liquid. Hit a hydrogen tank with 8 SABOT rounds from a Mk 110 Bofors that project a stream of molten copper ahead of the projectile and it will be like a magazine on Battleships of old going up.

Normal handling is fine. Imagine if the Sheffield had been hydrogen powered? It would have evaporated.

[James Deuce]

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine :bleh:.

Is Meyer's work repeatable and has it been done by anyone reputable on an industrial scale? If not it's BS or pointless mucking about. I'm not being close minded. If it is documented, peer reviewed, repeatable and most of all able to be turned into a tool for the mass production of hydrogen, then it adhere's to scientific principle. If not, it's techno-shamanism.

[bogan]

Sometimes practicality wins over efficiency. I guess that's where the frequency's help the electrolysis in regards to sucking in heat. Meyer claimed to have sussed it and some of his vids, if believed, show how he managed the heating issue. Would love to have the time and cash to have a real play... although a fuckerised steel bin, an old PSU, "shims", cable ties and a battery charger did the trick... just not in a spectacular way. Was a fun experiment though.

Your assumption is that I never listened in the first place and you seem to have persisted with your perception... oddly Ed like and not a concern of mine :bleh:.

Practicality is a type of efficiency though. No, frequencies can't help it get past that theoretical efficiency. What heating issue? the poor efficiency is the issue.

So, you now recognize hydrogen is a dead end in regards to energy generation? and not much use as energy transport either? Because your earlier posts suggest otherwise. What's Ed like is your persistence in dodging any meaningful discussion; my persistence in putting a case forward with correct facts to back it up certainly isn't like him :killingme

[mashman]

Is Meyer's work repeatable and has it been done by anyone reputable on an industrial scale? If not it's BS or pointless mucking about. I'm not being close minded. If it is documented, peer reviewed, repeatable and most of all able to be turned into a tool for the mass production of hydrogen, then it adhere's to scientific principle. If not, it's techno-shamanism.

Unfortunately we end up in tin foil hat territory when we walk down that path. His brother suspects foul play, but hey, we're never going to know. Most of his documentation is available somewhere on t'internet. I had a copy at one point along with a feckload of vids, might have it lying around somewhere, but meh, yeah, tin foil territory in regards to replication and death.


Practicality is a type of efficiency though. No, frequencies can't help it get past that theoretical efficiency. What heating issue? the poor efficiency is the issue.

So, you now recognize hydrogen is a dead end in regards to energy generation? and not much use as energy transport either? Because your earlier posts suggest otherwise. What's Ed like is your persistence in dodging any meaningful discussion; my persistence in putting a case forward with correct facts to back it up certainly isn't like him :killingme

Practicality is a type of efficiency, as is political expediency and patent/IP. I wasn't asking if the limits could be surpassed by frequency use. The heating issue was that the water would start to boil as the plates/rods/metal catalysts heated without another catalyst added, like baking soda for instance. Practicality in light of there being a shortage or non-existent alternative is the line they seem to be promoting.

Not a dead end, no, but certainly have more of an appreciation for its efficiency in relation to the currently widely available alternatives. No, :facepalm:, that's not the Ed like thing I'm talking about at all... but hey, I can't tell you that because you know better.

[bogan]

Practicality is a type of efficiency, as is political expediency and patent/IP. I wasn't asking if the limits could be surpassed by frequency use. The heating issue was that the water would start to boil as the plates/rods/metal catalysts heated without another catalyst added, like baking soda for instance. Practicality in light of there being a shortage or non-existent alternative is the line they seem to be promoting.

Not a dead end, no, but certainly have more of an appreciation for its efficiency in relation to the currently widely available alternatives. No, :facepalm:, that's not the Ed like thing I'm talking about at all... but hey, I can't tell you that because you know better.

I would say more like production costs, but w/e. The heating issue is the efficiency issue, heat is where the wasted electricity goes. Exactly, hydrogen is practical in this specific military case because the alternatives are not as practical as they are everywhere else.

Then you don't understand the basic theory of it, so you haven't been listening. Hydrogen generation/useage is at its practical best a neutral sum energy transfer; you just can't generate energy with it because you have to put as much (or more) in to begin with than you get out. It's theoretical best would be a very expensive, and likely low temperature differential self powering heat pump; I think there are other more realistic and more worthy projects to pursue. Let's prove we're not Ed then, so keep to meaningful discussion and avoid flippant/insulting comments; and above all, back up things with facts :sunny:

[mashman]

I would say more like production costs, but w/e. The heating issue is the efficiency issue, heat is where the wasted electricity goes. Exactly, hydrogen is practical in this specific military case because the alternatives are not as practical as they are everywhere else.

Then you don't understand the basic theory of it, so you haven't been listening. Hydrogen generation/useage is at its practical best a neutral sum energy transfer; you just can't generate energy with it because you have to put as much (or more) in to begin with than you get out. It's theoretical best would be a very expensive, and likely low temperature differential self powering heat pump; I think there are other more realistic and more worthy projects to pursue. Let's prove we're not Ed then, so keep to meaningful discussion and avoid flippant/insulting comments; and above all, back up things with facts :sunny:

Money eh... you sure you wanna bring that into the equation? Meyer bumped into the heat issue and claimed to have solved it using a particular frequency, metal catalyst and metal shape. The water kept a constant temperature.

Ugh. Let's not go there again eh. My "argument" for it's usage was all based on practicality grounds, not the cost, not the efficiency, not anything other than practicality. I certainly asked questions when you and the rose tinted spectacled one were high horsing it, but never denied that you were right. Got that? Or do you still want to believe that it is/was something other than I say it is/was?

[bogan]

Money eh... you sure you wanna bring that into the equation? Meyer bumped into the heat issue and claimed to have solved it using a particular frequency, metal catalyst and metal shape. The water kept a constant temperature.

Ugh. Let's not go there again eh. My "argument" for it's usage was all based on practicality grounds, not the cost, not the efficiency, not anything other than practicality. I certainly asked questions when you and the rose tinted spectacled one were high horsing it, but never denied that you were right. Got that? Or do you still want to believe that it is/was something other than I say it is/was?

No, production cost in terms of energy, as energy efficiency could be good for useage, but if it costs far far more energy to produce then it is not practical/efficient in the larger scheme of things. Meyer claimed a lot of things I've heard, not seen any substantiated though.

You don't understand still, electrical generation, means a net gain of electricity; it is not possible to gain it with hydrogen electrolysis because you have to put more in than you get out. That is why I keep saying it is only of some use as energy transport, and none as generation.

[mashman]

No, production cost in terms of energy, as energy efficiency could be good for useage, but if it costs far far more energy to produce then it is not practical/efficient in the larger scheme of things. Meyer claimed a lot of things I've heard, not seen any substantiated though.

You don't understand still, electrical generation, means a net gain of electricity; it is not possible to gain it with hydrogen electrolysis because you have to put more in than you get out. That is why I keep saying it is only of some use as energy transport, and none as generation.

Yup, you've continuously stated that and I have accepted that and agreed on many occasions. He did, but again, we step into tin foil hat territory.

I've not seen that statement in any definitions I've read... but hey, I haven't read everything and I don't doubt you given that the process being used by the US Navy is 92% efficient.

[bogan]

Yup, you've continuously stated that and I have accepted that and agreed on many occasions. He did, but again, we step into tin foil hat territory.

I've not seen that statement in any definitions I've read... but hey, I haven't read everything and I don't doubt you given that the process being used by the US Navy is 92% efficient.

Then it is good to hear I've imparted some knowledge on the subject, as only through knowledge can positive change be affected.

[mashman]

Then it is good to hear I've imparted some knowledge on the subject, as only through knowledge can positive change be affected.

So kind of you to take the time.

[avgas]

Did a bit of research on this once and hydrogen isn't as dangerous as we think.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/dangerous-hydrogen-fuel2.htm

The problem with the Hindenburg was the coating on the fabric which was extremely flammable.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Mwh07fYNdCY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Banditbandit]

There is a thermal side to the process, electrolysis sucks in heat energy from the environment, while a hydrogen fuel cell put out heat energy to the environment. So the electrical to hydrogen efficiencies are 120% and 83% respectively, or 100% overall. You ever get the feeling that those of us who understand such numbers might be worth listening to when we say its a dead end?

I do kinda wonder that if it is so obvious that this is a dead end why is the US navy pursuing this one?

And it reminds me of al the other scientific advances that have been made that other people said were a waste of time ... (like - railways are a waste of time because at speeds greater than 30mph human beings will not be able to breath ...) Oh yeah - and remember the scientists who said Human Beings can not catch mad cow disease ...

[bogan]

I do kinda wonder that if it is so obvious that this is a dead end why is the US navy pursuing this one?

And it reminds me of al the other scientific advances that have been made that other people said were a waste of time ... (like - railways are a waste of time because at speeds greater than 30mph human beings will not be able to breath ...) Oh yeah - and remember the scientists who said Human Beings can not catch mad cow disease ...

They aren't, the US navy is using it an energy transport system to use the nuclear reactor's power to make fuel for the planes and shit.

And yet, for all the effort, perpetual motion and free energy haven't been created. Pursuing the possible has made a lot more gains than those who disregard theory; challenging the theory is in fact how many of those 'waste of time' advances are gained, not by ignoring it.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ahhh, no wonder the aliens in Battle Los Angeles and Battleship chose to land in the water...

They must have even more efficient means of turning seawater into fuel, and with 70% of the earth's surface being seawater, we're just a big fuel dump.

also PACIFIC RIM.

[bogan]

also PACIFIC RIM.

and Finding Nemo, you just know that little orange bastard was plotting something.

[Brian d marge]

and Finding Nemo, you just know that little orange bastard was plotting something.

The copy writer , the man in the submarine , or the fish ...... either way, Nemo is latin for no one .....

hey lets go looking for no one .......

Stephen

[Winston001]

I do kinda wonder that if it is so obvious that this is a dead end why is the US navy pursuing this one?



It isn't a dead end and no-one is saying that. Instead its a well known technology which makes sense in a specific (limited) set of circumstances.

An American aircraft carrier is nuclear powered which means it has abundant electrical energy, much more than the ship needs to operate. That energy in that specific circumstance is free so it can be used to create hydrogen fuel.

If we had an abundance of nuclear reactors we too could do this but alas, it is not to be.

[avgas]

They aren't, the US navy is using it an energy transport system to use the nuclear reactor's power to make fuel for the planes and shit.

And yet, for all the effort, perpetual motion and free energy haven't been created. Pursuing the possible has made a lot more gains than those who disregard theory; challenging the theory is in fact how many of those 'waste of time' advances are gained, not by ignoring it.
Same could be said about Li-Ion batteries vs Super Caps..... :blip:

[avgas]

The copy writer , the man in the submarine , or the fish ...... either way, Nemo is latin for no one .....
hey lets go looking for no one .......
It's a bit like the "Land before time" really......

[speeding_ant]

Problem is, they're using iron as a catalyst. That'll get used up quite quickly, probably one of the reasons why it's so efficient. Mass producing energy from sea water would require an epic design to ensure waste is handled correctly. Catalysts are very messy when they break down, so there would need to be a constant flow of water to stop sludge from blocking pumps / filters. Then the iron runs out...

That's just my experience anyway, I'm sure the US Navy have already figured that stuff out :)

[Ocean1]

An American aircraft carrier is nuclear powered which means it has abundant electrical energy,

500MWt isn't abundant, it's fucking ridiculous, it’s enough to cover Wellington’s peak demand.

Which is why, when it comes to pressing up a lil’ hydrogen overall efficiency is utterly irrelevant.

[bogan]

Same could be said about Li-Ion batteries vs Super Caps..... :blip:

Indeed, fucking supercap powered bike be way more use than hydrogen. Would get past the charging limitations of Li-Ion too. Good thing there are clever chappies working both angles eh!

[husaberg]

You guys are too busy arguing to see Carbon and Hydrogen and oxygen ....................


It works by pulling (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/13/newser-navy-seawater-fuel/7668665/) carbon dioxide and hydrogen from water using a catalytic converter, Discover explains. Those gases are turned into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel that could, experts hope, power both planes and ships, AFP reports.

"We don't necessarily go to a gas station to get our fuel," Vice Admiral Philip Cullom tells AFP. "Our gas station comes to us in terms of an oiler, a replenishment ship.
My guess is the big tanker ships that fuel the conventional fleet are less that 93% efficient......
btw hydrogen works well in a Wankel allegedly........

[mashman]

Problem is, they're using iron as a catalyst.

Smelt it (http://www.onr.navy.mil/media-center/fact-sheets/electromagnetic-railgun.aspx)...

[husaberg]

Smelt it (http://www.onr.navy.mil/media-center/fact-sheets/electromagnetic-railgun.aspx)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEmgSpJK9qQ

[Winston001]

Here's a bit more information from the US Navy and must admit it is interesting: they are ripping out CO2 plus a bit of H2 and creating complex hydrocarbons. As Speeding_ant said iron is used as a catalyst to turn gases into a liquid but I've no idea how.




"CO2 in the air and in seawater is an abundant carbon resource, but the concentration in the ocean (100 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) is about 140 times greater than that in air, and 1/3 the concentration of CO2 from a stack gas (296 mg/L). Two to three percent of the CO2 in seawater is dissolved CO2 gas in the form of carbonic acid, one percent is carbonate, and the remaining 96 to 97 percent is bound in bicarbonate.


NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules. In the first patented step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins). These value-added hydrocarbons from this process serve as building blocks for the production of industrial chemicals and designer fuels.

In the second step these olefins can be converted to compounds of a higher molecular complexity using controlled polymerization. The resulting liquid contains hydrocarbon molecules in the carbon range, C9-C16, suitable for use a possible renewable replacement for petroleum based jet fuel."

[Winston001]

What doesn't get mentioned is the process requires 23,000 gallons of seawater to produce one gallon of fuel.

Furthermore the seawater has to be extracted by a molecular sieve through reverse osmosis which isn't going to happen in five minutes. Probably not even in five hours.

A Nimitz class aircraft carrier which is reasonably humongous and has 2 Westinghouse nuclear reactors, bunkers 3 million gallons (sorry about all the US measures) of jet fuel which can keep flights rotating up to two weeks.

In order to manufacture that amount of fuel, the ship would have to process 30 billion gallons of seawater a week. Through a sieve.



Very cool stuff but a hard ask even for the USN.