US Navy develops technology to turn seawater into fuel

[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-e...ogen-fuel2.htm

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

[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.....

[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.