US Navy turning seawater into Jet Fuel

[Jacknast]

Not sure if this has been posted but it is too cool to not share.

The USN has developed a way to take seawater and the carbon dioxide dissolved in it and through a modified fischer tropsch process and electrolysis convert it into jet fuel.

Here is a link to the PDF report.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539765


So when they finally make a 35 foot nuclear powered sailboat, we can make our own diesel, lol

enjoy

[GaryMayo]

Water is hydrogen and oxygen. Laced together, puts out fires. Release the components and you have the makings for a great bang.

You tube HHO and follow the rabbit holes of videos. After about a hundred videos, you will find one that is real and working. The real issue on home brewed fuels are against the law because the Feds and states are not collecting tax on them.

One police department is running partially on water for fuel. It's ok if the government is doing it.

http://youtu.be/MUgUF5M3FTI

[Jacknast]

nuh uh, is water really hydrogen and oxygen together??

yeah that's where they are getting the hydrogen for the fischer tropsch reaction.
The Germans that developed the FT process used coal, which had the hydrogen and carbon, that's how they made synthetic oil during the war.

This new process is making "synthetic" jet fuel and surely could be further modified to make "synthetic" gasoline or diesel.

You can obviously just burn the hydrogen from the electrolysis of water in a modified internal combustion engine, that's old news. Back in the early 90's we made our own hydrogen to burn in the lab to power our GC's.

This new process could make the US fossil fuel independent for ever. We wouldn't have to give up fossil fuels or hurt the environment as it would recycle the carbon and hydrogen released from the burning the fossil fuels.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

You tube HHO and follow the rabbit holes of videos. After about a hundred videos, you will find one that is real and working. The real issue on home brewed fuels are against the law because the Feds and states are not collecting tax on them.

The real issue is that fuels home brewed this way will never be cheaper than what you buy at the pump. Even here in Europe...
You need energy to split H2O in H2 and O2, and you don't get much of it back when you burn it...

One police department is running partially on water for fuel. It's ok if the government is doing it.
SHOCK! Police Uses Water Instead of Gas for All Cars - YouTube

Have they collected their nobel prize yet? Or are they just one of the many that have fallen for the HHO scam?

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Jacknast

This new process could make the US fossil fuel independent for ever. We wouldn't have to give up fossil fuels or hurt the environment as it would recycle the carbon and hydrogen released from the burning the fossil fuels.

You would still need an energy source. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The only way this could work is if combined with lots of nuclear power...

[GaryMayo]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

The real issue is that fuels home brewed this way will never be cheaper than what you buy at the pump. Even here in Europe...
You need energy to split H2O in H2 and O2, and you don't get much of it back when you burn it...

Have they collected their nobel prize yet? Or are they just one of the many that have fallen for the HHO scam?

That is what the people told Edison about the lightbulb.

I may start an energy thread in off topic

Back to the navy

[cal40john]

Yeah, the numbers in the paper say this is a good idea. You get a little over half the energy in fuel than what it takes to make it. It takes more energy to make than you get out of it. They also give the numbers for a refinery, 20% of the energy produced in fuel is used to process the fuel.

It works out to about 2.5 kWhr/hr per gallon of fuel to make. If I had enough solar panels on my boat for that, I wouldn't be dicking around making fuel, I'd have electric motors, electric stove, electric everything.

The only reason this makes sense is to not have to run a supply chain to an aircraft carrier in a war, one that has a nice big nuclear power plant with excess capacity.

John

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

That is what the people told Edison about the lightbulb.

No, that is not what people told Edison about the lightbulb (which Edison even didn't invent himself).

And anyway, for every inventor that succeeded despite wide skepticism there are a 1000 where the skepticism was entirely justified.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by cal40john

It works out to about 2.5 kWhr/hr per gallon of fuel to make.

Sorry, but when I see supposed scientists see using units like that I have my doubts. Knowing how the SI system of measurements works is something you need to get your junior high school diploma where I'm from.

kWhr/hr is just kW...

Anyway, I work it out to 16kWh/l to produce, where one litre of fuel typicaly contains 10kWh in energy. So it's not very efficient. But it can be solution for some applications. Produce lots of fuel in a floating nuclear power plant, and ship it somewhere else...

If I had enough solar panels on my boat for that, I wouldn't be dicking around making fuel, I'd have electric motors, electric stove, electric everything.

The only reason this makes sense is to not have to run a supply chain to an aircraft carrier in a war, one that has a nice big nuclear power plant with excess capacity.

It only makes sense for applications where the high energy density of fuel is absolutely needed. Jet planes for example. It's a good but expensive way of storing energy. It's not a way to generate energy though.

If you have a lot of electricity, and a lot of uses for it, it's always better to just use it directly.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by cal40john

... You get a little over half the energy in fuel than what it takes to make it. It takes more energy to make than you get out of it. They also give the numbers for a refinery, 20% of the energy produced in fuel is used to process the fuel...

The Fischer Tropsch process ranges in efficiency from 25 to 50 percent.
➥ Fischer

[Blue Stocking]

Many are quenching their thirst on the Kool-Aid of the Ethanol "breakthrough".

Jus sayin.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

You would still need an energy source. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The only way this could work is if combined with lots of nuclear power...

Exactly. Very inefficient process and requires lots of energy to run. Main benefit to this process as mentioned, is that you can produce a high energy density liquid fuel (like jet fuel) in a situation where production or delivery is problematic.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Whilst I don't believe that Oil will ever run out - sooner or later it will get too expensive to use for making cheap sh#t.

My take is that the alternative will not be one thing, but a multiple of approaches for different purposes. I like Electric Power - and great big Nuclear Power plants are the future (and yes I have one on my doorstep - with a processing plant, all run by the French!)......Whilst Electric will cover most personal transport requirements (not the same as wants!) won't cover everything. But doesn't need to. For some applications "burning" sea water will be the solution (mostly not), and likely other solutions that make my brain hurt (easily done!), whilst for others it will still be oil.....but oil probably won't still be used to make Xmas.........in China!

and despite my hope that an electric future arrives sooner rather than later, I speak as someone not exactly on the "green" end of the spectrum - me would run my car by burning Penguins if I could (it's sustainable - and funny!).

The big problem with replacing oil in the economy is not technoligical - it's the problem of replacing the tax take.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by GaryMayo

That is what the people told Edison about the lightbulb.

Wrong. Edison never claimed that his lightbulb was able to violate the known laws of physics.

Besides, the concept of creating light by running electricity through a thin wire was well-known and had been demonstrated many times before Edison even got interested in it. What he did was figure out a way to take the basic concept and turn it into a viable consumer product.

(Which is not meant to denigrate Edison's contribution. What he did was a remarkable accomplishment and changed the way we live our lives. He just didn't "invent" the idea of making light by running electricity through a wire.)

[Captain Bill]

My take on this is that it will never get past the environmental impact statement. It is dependent on using the CO2 tied up in bicarbonate and being 100% or close to 100% efficicient at removing it from the seawater. Bicarbonate is the primary pH buffer in seawater. Removing it would make the water extremely toxic to marine organisms. While on a global scale the amounts are probably not significant on a local scale you would probably have a bunch of dead thngs. I noted that the places they were proposing this tended to be tropical near large coral reef assembleges. There is tremendous concern in the scientific community about ocean acidification and the effects on reef building corals. The local effects on the reefs in these areas could be pretty significant. The other problem with at least the OTEC proposal is that they aren't mobile or at least not very mobile. one goes from having a long vulnerable supply line that is at least moving and hard to target to a nice fixed target for one's enemy to shoot at.