US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel

[DeSwiss]

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

By Christopher Harress
International Business Times
April 08 2014 6:00 AM

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel. The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

The Navy’s 289 vessels all rely on oil-based fuel, with the exception of some aircraft carriers and 72 submarines that rely on nuclear propulsion. Moving away from that reliance would free the military from fuel shortages and fluctuations in price.

"It's a huge milestone for us," said Vice Adm. Philip Cullom. "We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it. We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel."

MORE

- Well it would seem that we've been saved by the Navy. We can now bring all the troops home. We can close all the foreign bases. And we can begin shutting down the oil industry.

Thank you Navy.

[Xipe Totec]

1. BULLETIN: U.S. NAVY INVENTS PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE

First to garble the story was the International Business Times. “Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer,” ran the headline over a report the next day. “The Navy’s 289 vessels all rely on oil-based fuel, with the exception of some aircraft carriers and 72 submarines that rely on nuclear propulsion,” wrote reporter Christopher Harress. “Moving away from that reliance would free the military from fuel shortages and fluctuations in price.” CNBC immediately reproduced the story verbatim under the headline: “US Navy Wants to Power Warships With Seawater.”

Emily Thomas of the Huffington Post fell hook, line, and sinker for the whole thing, directly quoting IBT: “Currently, most of the Navy’s vessels rely entirely on oil-based fuel, with the exception of some aircraft carriers and submarines that use nuclear propulsion, reports the International Business Times. The ability to render fuel from seawater may change that.”

Others quickly followed. FoxNews blew it with a headline, “Powering the Ships of the Future? Navy Develops the Technology to Turn Seawater into Fuel.” The supposed scientific experts at Discover didn’t get it right either. “If Navy ships create their own fuel they can remain operational 100 percent of the time, rather than conducting frequent fuel-ups with tankers while at sea, which can be tricky in rough weather,” reported Carl Engelking imaginatively.

Even DefenseSystems.com, a website devoted exclusively to military ordnance, got it all confused: “It might not be cold fusion,” wrote Kevin McCaney, “but researchers at the Naval Research Laboratory have, on a small scale, tapped into what could prove to be a nearly unlimited source of fuel for air, sea and even land vessels.”

...


All these stories overlook the inconvenient fact that it takes energy to do all these things. It takes energy to split hydrogen out of water. It takes energy to synthesize it back into a hydrocarbon. And because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, energy is always lost in the process. Consequently, you always end up with less energy than when you started.



http://spectator.org/articles/58747/bulletin-us-navy-invents-perpetual-motion-machine

[madokie]

5. At best it could be a range extender

If they get some of the energy from that big shining ball in the sky that would help extend the distance they sail some more but in the end they'll still have to have that oily shit we pay so dearly for, both in lives lost in wars and at the pump

No free lunches

[riversedge]

2. I do hope this technology is for real and can be used for good

causes in the near future

[msongs]

3. that's from April 2014, wonder what has happened since? nt

[edhopper]

4. I am much more interested in the outcome

of the Lockheed fusion announcement.

[nichomachus]

6. I don't have time to read it

I'm too busy turning straw into gold.

[Scootaloo]

7. This again, with hte same replies...

This is technology that converts seawater into liquid fuel for ships - basically it's a form of biodiesel. However, it requires a much greater input of energy to create, than it provides (the laws of thermodynamics hit this technology rather hard).

You won't be seeing seawater diesel at the pump anytime soon unless you want to pay $40 a gallon. At which point it's probably more cost-effective to just thread some copper and zinc wire through potatoes to run your car.

This is an auxiliary technology meant to keep ships running even if the oil runs out (as projections say it's going to within our lifetimes) - mostly because ships are huge, expensive, and difficult to retrofit with newer energy technology.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. But but but the US military is *known* for bringing projects in well under budget !!

So that $3-6 a gallon is ***SURE*** to be a high estimate !

(Be sure to browse the standard response links ... )

[ColesCountyDem]

8. Unless the Second Law of Thermodynamics has ceased to operate, it's impossible. n/t