US Navy develops technology to turn seawater into fuel

[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?

[bogan]

About as strong on tech knowledge as financial stuff I see

[mashman]

About as strong on tech knowledge as financial stuff I see

"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

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

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 ... 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 ... nah, that's just too positive of a thought.

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 :

[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 ... 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]

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 :

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.