Date: 8/04/2014 07:01:03
From: Spiny Norman
ID: 515386
Subject: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

I doubt the process is anything really new, but anyway …..

Washington (AFP) – The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as “a game-changer” because it would signficantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: “It’s a huge milestone for us.”

More – http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 07:12:59
From: Rule 303
ID: 515390
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

It’s… a perpetual motion ship?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 07:58:52
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 515398
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

Spiny Norman said:


I doubt the process is anything really new, but anyway …..

Washington (AFP) – The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as “a game-changer” because it would signficantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: “It’s a huge milestone for us.”

More – http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html

Is this serious?

Where do they get the energy from for this process, and why not use that energy to drive the ship?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 10:46:42
From: transition
ID: 515433
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/seawater-alternative-jet-fuel.htm

The answer, according to Dorner, is a modified version of the chemical reaction known as the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Typically Fischer-Tropsch starts with carbon monoxide and hydrogen and, using metal catalysts and heat, ends with a mixture of methane, waxes and synthesis gas (syngas), which can then produce fuel or plastic.

Fischer-Tropsch is expensive and energy-intensive, which often limits its usefulness. One of the few times it has proven economical was using solid coal to produce liquid fuel for World War II Germany.

Instead of coal, Dorner and his colleagues want to use the carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater (140 times the amount found in the atmosphere) and hydrogen stripped from water as the base materials for the reaction.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

The Fischer–Tropsch process (or Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis or F-T) is a set of chemical reactions that turn a mixture of carbon monoxide gas and hydrogen gas into liquid hydrocarbons (fossil fuels like gasoline or kerosene). The F-T process has received attention for many different reasons, like a way to make diesel low in sulfur.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html

Dorner and colleagues found that using the usual cobalt-based catalyst on seawater-derived CO2 produced almost entirely methane gas. Switching to an iron catalyst resulted in only 30 per cent methane being produced, with the remainder short-chain hydrocarbons that could be refined into jet fuel.

Heather Willauer, the navy chemist leading the project, says the efficiency needs to be much improved, perhaps by finding a different catalyst.

http://defensetech.org/2012/10/02/converting-sea-water-to-navy-jet-fuel/

JP-5 is what fuels Navy jet fighters and results in multiple fuel transfers to aircraft carriers to maintain their onboard fuel stock. Producing that fuel from the abundant sea water would save the Navy from executing those sometimes risky transfers.

“The potential payoff is the ability to produce JP-5 fuel stock at sea reducing the logistics tail on fuel delivery with no environmental burden and increasing the Navy’s energy security and independence,” said Heather Willauer, a research chemist with NRL.

Navy officials estimate the process used to convert the seawater to fuel would cost the Navy between $3 and $6 per gallon.

And to something related,not sure if legit.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/salt-water-fuel.htm

You may have heard about an invention created by a 63-year-old named John Kanzius that claims to create an alternative fuel out of salt water. Through sheer serendipity, Kanzius, a former broadcast engineer, found out something incredible — under the right conditions, salt water can burn at high temperatures……

…..During his first test, however, he noticed a surprising side effect. When he aimed the RFG at a test tube filled with seawater, it sparked. This is not a normal reaction by water.

Kanzius tried the test again, this time lighting a paper towel and touching it to the water while the water was in the path of the RFG. He got an even bigger surprise — the test tube ignited and stayed alight while the RFG was turned on.

News of the experiment was generally met with allegations of it being a hoax, but after Penn State University chemists got their hands on the RFG and tried their own experiments, they found it was indeed true. The RFG could ignite and burn salt water. The flame could reach temperatures as high as 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit and burn as long as the RFG was on and aimed at it.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 10:52:01
From: dv
ID: 515434
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

Mmm, having read the article, I’m still none the wiser about what the energy source is.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:06:27
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 515437
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

dv said:


Mmm, having read the article, I’m still none the wiser about what the energy source is.

Glad I’m not the only one

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:10:07
From: dv
ID: 515438
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

Given that this appears to be a serious study, I am going to put it down to sloppy journalism rather than scientific fraud.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:14:00
From: dv
ID: 515439
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

DGMW, I can see that it could be useful for, say, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to use some of its nuclear power to make jet fuel.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:17:43
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 515440
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

dv said:


DGMW, I can see that it could be useful for, say, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to use some of its nuclear power to make jet fuel.

That would make sense (although if it is really a much more efficient way of generating liquid fuels from H2 and CO2 it has much more significant applications than that), but the quote in the OP specifically excluded nuclear powered craft as ones that would benefit from this technology.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:19:31
From: dv
ID: 515441
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

DGMW, I can see that it could be useful for, say, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to use some of its nuclear power to make jet fuel.

That would make sense (although if it is really a much more efficient way of generating liquid fuels from H2 and CO2 it has much more significant applications than that), but the quote in the OP specifically excluded nuclear powered craft as ones that would benefit from this technology.

Yes…

There is some piece to this puzzle missing.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:24:49
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 515442
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

From random internet forum:

“Slight error there…

you can turn sea water + lots of electricity into fuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
now how about we start hooking the rest of society up with that technology? I wonder how efficient it truly is?

You can simulate it. Buy 3 solar panels and put them on your roof, disconnect two of them and smash them up with a hammer, then go and enjoy your electricity from the remaining solar panel.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 11:27:10
From: dv
ID: 515443
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

The Rev Dodgson said:


From random internet forum:

“Slight error there…

you can turn sea water + lots of electricity into fuel

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbelievable View Post
now how about we start hooking the rest of society up with that technology? I wonder how efficient it truly is?

You can simulate it. Buy 3 solar panels and put them on your roof, disconnect two of them and smash them up with a hammer, then go and enjoy your electricity from the remaining solar panel.

ROFL but probably a LITTLE harsh…

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 15:37:39
From: wookiemeister
ID: 515596
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

What if all these ships just started running on coal again??

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 15:40:19
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 515600
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

wookiemeister said:


What if all these ships just started running on coal again??

Or wind?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 15:46:02
From: party_pants
ID: 515604
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

wookiemeister said:


What if all these ships just started running on coal again??

It would be against all sorts of OH & S rules these days.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 15:55:06
From: Tamb
ID: 515617
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

party_pants said:


wookiemeister said:

What if all these ships just started running on coal again??

It would be against all sorts of OH & S rules these days.


And wind would be worse. All that unsafe rigging climbing.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 17:09:24
From: poikilotherm
ID: 515640
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

I didn’t read the article, but it may have more info than the news websites…

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

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 17:18:42
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 515648
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

Tamb said:


party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

What if all these ships just started running on coal again??

It would be against all sorts of OH & S rules these days.


And wind would be worse. All that unsafe rigging climbing.

I’m surprised that OH & S rules don’t prevent all wars now, ‘cos the express reason for war is to kill or injur the other team, which is what they are trying to do to your team, come to think about it, I wonder when OH&S rules will stop a lot of sporting activities?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 20:02:53
From: transition
ID: 515798
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

>I’m surprised that OH & S rules don’t prevent all wars now, ‘cos the express reason for war is to kill or injur the other team, which is what they are trying to do to your team, come to think about it, I wonder when OH&S rules will stop a lot of sporting activities?

Add sex, and just standing alongside someone in a queue at the bank (flu), or even touching ATM keypads and shopping trolly handles. Oh, birth too, quite risky, and back to sex and all, recombining DNA.

But of sport, it should be criminalised, for sure.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 20:27:43
From: Soso
ID: 515812
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

The Rev Dodgson said:


dv said:

DGMW, I can see that it could be useful for, say, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to use some of its nuclear power to make jet fuel.

That would make sense (although if it is really a much more efficient way of generating liquid fuels from H2 and CO2 it has much more significant applications than that), but the quote in the OP specifically excluded nuclear powered craft as ones that would benefit from this technology.

Hard to see how anything other than a nuclear powered ship could do this, but I guess it would potentially turn all nuclear powered vessels into refueling ships. But anyway, the production of totally artificial liquid fuels isn’t just useful for US Navy ships I imagine.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/04/2014 21:10:19
From: morrie
ID: 515833
Subject: re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

They say that they are extracting carbon dioxide from seawater.

The amount of carbon dioxide in seawater is about 80mg/kg

Lets assume that they can recover all of that. Then to obtain the equivalent of 1kg of carbon, they would need to process around 45 tonnes of seawater. This would have to be pumped through a process where some energy would have to be applied to remove the carbon dioxide. Compared with the heat of combustion of carbon, the enthalpy of dissolution of carbon dioxide could perhaps be neglected, but that is a lot of water to process just to get one kg of carbon equivalent.

A jet fighter hold about 10 tonnes of fuel, most of which is carbon. So, to fuel a single jet fighter, they would need to process around 45*10*1000 = 450,000 tonnes of water. That’s about 180 Olympic swimming pools.

Or, put another way, running a process full time, 24 hours a day, at 100% efficiency, around 5 tonnes a second of seawater per jet fighter mission.

I invite anyone to check my calculations.

Reply Quote