Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,898 posts)
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 07:39 PM Apr 2014

US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel

Source: Industry Week

WASHINGTON - The U.S. 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 significantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U.S. experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

Read more: http://www.industryweek.com/transportation/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel (Original Post) kpete Apr 2014 OP
Not a CO2 neutral fuel if I'm reading it correctly. Fearless Apr 2014 #1
Perhaps not CO2 nuetral... its not quite clear on that point, however... Veilex Apr 2014 #6
True it may be cleaner. Fearless Apr 2014 #10
You can convert methane to Navy distillate using the Fischer-Tropsch process jmowreader Apr 2014 #26
The point is to make jet fuel -- jets can't carry nuclear reactors. eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #49
The first article on this clearly talked about fueling ships jmowreader Apr 2014 #50
Except for Carriers and Submarines, the Navy presently use only oil burning ships happyslug Apr 2014 #52
If you're going to do that, you'd be better off putting the fuel maker in its own ship jmowreader Apr 2014 #53
Such a ship will have to have a nuclear generator happyslug Apr 2014 #55
Pretty crappy journalism not to address the carbon pollution issue AAO Apr 2014 #11
They didn't address any science. Gore1FL Apr 2014 #22
Sounds like it. AAO Apr 2014 #23
Carbon isn't the point; not carrying around tons of oil is (nt) Recursion Apr 2014 #35
The world isn't an either/or we can have both. Fearless Apr 2014 #38
Oh, I agree, I just meant that's what makes this a game-changer for the Navy Recursion Apr 2014 #39
Imagine if we used this research towards non-defense utilization... Earth_First Apr 2014 #2
If works as they say, I'd say it's safe to assume it will be used in the civilian world too penultimate Apr 2014 #4
Let's hope... Earth_First Apr 2014 #5
This isn't it. This is premium-price fuel. $6/gal, accepting their rosy projections. nt eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #47
And the microwave oven! Invented from WW2 radar technology. nt 7962 Apr 2014 #27
Koch brothers not going to like this lobodons Apr 2014 #3
:) tofuandbeer Apr 2014 #7
This is ridiculous. Let me explain ... aggiesal Apr 2014 #8
It's not a 'solution to our energy needs'; you need electricity to run it muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #16
"Inventions" like that come up all the time, reported by less than reputable sources. pffshht Apr 2014 #37
If anyone knocked on his door, they didn't know shit about chemistry ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #48
guessing... Locrian Apr 2014 #9
I believe that would defeat the purpose, no? penultimate Apr 2014 #12
From a naval point of view, it allows them to remain at sea longer muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #15
That makes sense for making jet fuel, but they seem to penultimate Apr 2014 #17
I think they're saying an aircraft carrier could produce fuel for its escort ships (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #19
Ahhh, that makes more sense and seems far less sci-fi. penultimate Apr 2014 #21
No, the purpose is to not have to carry around oil everywhere Recursion Apr 2014 #36
I think that's right muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #13
that assumes CO2 is a problem... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #25
About 150 years of science does point to CO2 causing atmospheric warming muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #40
Take a stats class...there is no statistical significance, just a correlation... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #41
The warming effect of carbon dioxide is about physics, not statistics muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #42
And the scientist in question... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #43
Bollocks. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #44
and your college major was? hoosierlib Apr 2014 #57
Specifically, "This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature" muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #59
It is relevant... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #61
Are you saying that *you* understand, while the Royal Society and NAS don't? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #64
Yes... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #65
So you think you're smarter than every scientist that works at a university anywhere in the world muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #66
Models are like that, approximations, at best. That doesn't mean they are wrong. bemildred Apr 2014 #45
Well gee hoosierlib Apr 2014 #58
So are you saying, "Correlation cannot indicate causation?" immoderate Apr 2014 #51
Sigh... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #56
So it appears that a correlation CAN indicate a causalty. immoderate Apr 2014 #60
Yes, it can indicate causality, but... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #62
A mathematical relationship does exist. It's called a correlation. immoderate Apr 2014 #63
You obviously know nothing of statistics analysis hoosierlib Apr 2014 #68
Just enough to compute a "least squares." immoderate Apr 2014 #69
Nothing from nothing, means nothing. AAO Apr 2014 #14
With reactors on board you wouldn't need to go around your elbow with this seawater scheme jmowreader Apr 2014 #28
Link to 2010 Navy Technical Report which covers this Bosonic Apr 2014 #18
Thanks - that says it's a little over 50% efficient muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #20
The technical details... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #24
Damn, I read that and understood every word - scary! groundloop Apr 2014 #32
Lots of Navy ships use jet engines for propulsion. oldbanjo Apr 2014 #29
Thermodynamically, more like Converting Electricity into Jet Fuel cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #30
Right. GeorgeGist Apr 2014 #31
It's a start. Not perfect, but anything that frees us from defending ffr Apr 2014 #33
This is indeed good news. daybranch Apr 2014 #34
over $1 BILLION per plant to produce $6/gal fuel, ASSUMING ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #46
When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap. happyslug Apr 2014 #54
how much energy does it take to do this, and where does it come from? yurbud Apr 2014 #67
 

Veilex

(1,555 posts)
6. Perhaps not CO2 nuetral... its not quite clear on that point, however...
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 07:52 PM
Apr 2014

If it replaces traditional oil-based fuels, overall CO2 levels will still dramatically decrease

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
10. True it may be cleaner.
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:08 PM
Apr 2014

My disappointment however is that it appears to state that it takes CO2 and H2 and combines them to create a burnable hydrocarbon. My guess would be ethanol as they said it was liquid in it's final form. They could just burn the H2, but they'd need to retrofit everything to burn it.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
26. You can convert methane to Navy distillate using the Fischer-Tropsch process
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 09:28 PM
Apr 2014

The problem isn't the kind of fuel this is going to produce, but the amount of energy it's going to take to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. If they have to install a nuclear reactor in a frigate to generate electricity to make fuel from seawater, it'd be more energy-efficient to bypass the middleman and hook steam turbines to the reactor.

eppur_se_muova

(36,227 posts)
49. The point is to make jet fuel -- jets can't carry nuclear reactors.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:33 PM
Apr 2014

The Navy resents being dependent on shore-based technology -- this is the whole justification. The whole thing is just another military boondoggle. I hope someone in Congress figures out it's a potential money pit before it sucks down too many billions of $$$.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
50. The first article on this clearly talked about fueling ships
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:55 PM
Apr 2014

It also said they wanted to do it on the ship using the fuel...which suggests a new class of ships because the Navy already uses every square inch on a ship for two different things.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
52. Except for Carriers and Submarines, the Navy presently use only oil burning ships
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 03:59 PM
Apr 2014

In the 1960s some Cruisers were nuclear powered, but they have since been retired. In the 1970s the main differences between "Cruisers" and "Destroyers", were the "Cruisers" were nuclear powered and the "Destroyers" were conventional powered (Technically the difference was size, but the nuclear powered ships tended to meet the "Cruiser" definition, while the conventionally powered ships meet the "Destroyer" definition, but both had roughly the same level of weapons). This caused problems for other nations used different definitions of Cruisers and Destroyers. This difference in definition produced a "Cruiser" gap, the Soviets had more "Cruisers" then the US, while the US had more ships that meet the Soviet and international definitions of Cruisers then did the Soviet Union. To eliminate this "Gap" the US in 1975 re-designated its ships to the same definition other nations had been using::

More on the 1975 re-designation of US Ships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

This still kept the Nuclear Ships Cruisers, but re-designated several Destroyers and "Frigates" as Cruisers (and re-designated even smaller "Destroyer Escorts" to "Frigates", thus Frigates went from a US designation of a large destroyer, almost Cruiser in size. to the present designation as a small escort vessel, NOT to be used to escort Carriers, but slower conveys).

Side note: The top speed of Carriers is classified, but it is officially admitted to "33 knots plus". I have heard stories of 50-60 knots top speed, due to nuclear power. A Conventionally powered ship going that speed would eat up to much fuel, thus a conventional ship may be able to do a burst up to that speed, but not keep it up for more then a few minutes do to how much FUEL such a burst would consume (Nuclear powered ships have an unlimited supply of fuel for such "bursts", needed to be refuel once every five years or so).

Present practice in the US Navy has been to build conventionally powered Destroyers to do the duties of escorting nuclear carriers. I do NOT believe the US Navy, at present, has anything Nuclear other then Carriers and Submarines.

An example of the change is the Ticonderoga class Cruisers, originally designated a "Destroyer", but as the first one was built reclassified as a Cruiser. It powered by gas-turbine engines. IT is the only class of Cruisers still active in the US Navy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga-class_cruiser

One more note, today's latest destroyers, Arleigh Burke class, are missile destroyers, that have to be taken back to port to reload its missiles and almost as large as the Ticonderoga class Cruisers (9,600 long tons, 9,800 Metric tons, for the Ticonderoga, vs.9,800 Metric tons 9,600 long tons, 10,800 short tons for the latest flight III version of the Arleigh Burke Destroyers and 14,564 long tons, 14,798 metric tons for the Zumwalt class of Destroyers):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

All other classes of Destroyers are retired or sold to Taiwan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidd_class_destroyer

Anyway, Today's navy is dependent on oil even for surface ships, let alone aircraft. Given this level of oil usage, anything that permit excess power of Nuclear ships to be used to produce oil may be worth it. Remember, except when operating at top speed, most Nuclear ships have excess power being produced, power that can be used to produce "oil" from the sea as being proposed.

As to using other ships to produce the oil, extending a power line from a Nuclear Carrier is NOT that hard, ships have been doing similar connection with oil lines since WWI. I can see a conventional power ship with a Nuclear Carrier task force, hooking up to the Carrier and using the excess power of the Carrier to make fuel for itself and other ships. If the Carrier has to go some place in a hurry, a quick detachment of the power line can be designed into the power line connection and off go the carrier leaving the ship with the ability to convert sea water to oil behind.

In theory you may be able to send the power via microwaves, but that technology is less developed then conventional power cable. Remember the key is the excess power provided by the Nuclear power plant of the carrier when the Carrier is NOT operating at full speed (which is most of the time). That excess power is the energy required to convert sea water into oil. Without that excess power, conventional oil will be preferred.

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
53. If you're going to do that, you'd be better off putting the fuel maker in its own ship
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 06:14 PM
Apr 2014

I think they want to have the complete fuel production system including the power source on one ship...another of their wishes was to not have to tie up to another ship during refueling...which powering the fuel maker off an aircraft carrier's reactor would not correct.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
55. Such a ship will have to have a nuclear generator
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 11:06 PM
Apr 2014

Or connected to a ship with a nuclear generator, such as a carrier. My point is the NUCLEAR reactor has excessive energy being produced 90% of the time. If that excess power is transferred to another ship, then that other ship can contain the actual device to convert sea water to oil. If the Carrier has to leave, a quick disconnection can be done and the ship with the converter left behind. That ship can then either slowly catch up to the Carrier, or go elsewhere.

The advantage of having the device on another ship is you do NOT have to find room for it on the Carrier itself. A carrier is a complex ship, with little room for all that is needed by the aircraft and personal on that carrier let alone a new device to make oil out of sea water. The better option is a custom made ship for that device, with just a minimum amount of armaments (mostly for self protection, but most of its protection will be from the Carrier and the Carriers escorts). Hooking up ships to exchange fuel has been common practice for the US Navy since after WWII, thus adding an electrical hookup will NOT be that difficult. I can see two lines, one for the electricity from the Carrier to the ship with the oil converter, and another to carry the oil to the Carrier. In an emergency, the Carrier could cut off both lines and drop them into the ocean and be on its way. The ship with the Converter will have to recover the lines, but as a non-combat ship, could be left behind to do so, with orders to abandon ship if actually attacked.

In fact I can see such a ship have two lines to the Carrier, and another line to a Destroyer waiting to fuel up, both leaving behind the ship with the converter in times of crisis.

Think about the alternative. When the price of oil goes through the roof after 2020 (maybe 2035, the exact time is unknown do to to many lies being told by countries as to how much oil they can produce), the alternative may be the Carrier HAULING its escorts to the battle site, to save fuel (i.e. the destroyers and Cruisers escorting the Carrier would be hauled where they are needed by the Carrier they are to escort, and only then turn on their engines. All this to save oil).

Sorry, this proposal is an attempt to reduce the usage of oil, in a future where we may have other priorities for oil, then for escorts of Carriers. For example, the US food production requires a massive input of oil. If Farmers do NOT get their oil, you would have famine, maybe not in the US, but in the rest of the world as US food production drops do to lack of food. Given that fear, a priority for oil for tractors to plow fields and harvest crops would have a higher priority then escorts for a Nuclear Carrier.

I once made a list of oil priorities for some future time period where you have a 10-20% drop in the supply of oil to the US, who gets the highest priorities?

1. Would be farmers, if no food is produced, you will have riots in the streets and no government would survive to do anything else. Remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Food and Safety must be addressed FIRST, before anything else. In fact FOOD, is at the same level of breathing, Shelter, and clothing. Such needs MUST be addressed before we get to "Safety Needs".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Please note, Maslow's hierachry of needs have been attacked, but mostly as those levels above the bottom two levels and that the first two levels are really one on top of the other, as opposed to being intermixed and should be judged as one level. On the other hand, for this paper I am only dealing with the first two levels, for the other three levels assume those two have been meet, and NOT meeting those two levels make a society unstable, as oppose to NOT meeting the higher levels.

Thus "Physiological needs" must be meet before we even address "Safety Needs". These are the two bottom levels of Maslow's hierarchy. These "Physiological needs" also include getting to a hospital on time when such care is needed, a roof over your head and Clothing to keep you warm and relatively dry. Notice these are all very basic needs, but if NOT addressed, you can NOT address anything else, including safety needs.

The Arab Spring followed Putin's decision to cut Russian Grain exports do to a drought in Russia, Putin did not want the price of food to go up to much in Russia, so he cut exports. This resulted in higher prices of food elsewhere, mostly in the Middle East and we then saw the Arab Spring. Yes high tech was important in how the Arab Spring developed, but the big push was the huge increase in the price of grain and that the Governments of the Middle East were NOT addressing the "Physiological needs" of its poorest residents.

Thus "Physiological needs" are related to food and having a home to return to. Thus Food production must have first priory when it comes to oil. This also includes food distribution, thus trucking may be cut back, but if the trucking, train or barge that uses oil is involved in food distribution, it must have a high priority

2. The next level of Maslow's hierarachy of needs are the "Safety Needs", which include, Personal security, Financial security, Health and well-being. Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts. This include fire protection and access to medical care (i.e. Ambulances and Hospitals). People get hurt, and they want medical attention as soon as possible, thus ambulance service must be preserved as while as all other medical care, including hospitals, Doctors, Nurses and even Dentists.

3. Maintenance of Roads and Fire prevention. These tend to reinforce one's Safety needs for security and well being, and thus must be addressed before you deal with anything above them, including sending sailors and troops overseas.

The next list of priorities do not fit into the first two level of Maslow's hierarchy, but are important when it comes to allocation of oil.

4. We finally get to Internal Security, including the police. Police must understand the above three have higher priority then they do, for if worse comes to worse, Police can walk or bike to the scene of a crime. Police are needed for same level of Safety, but not at the same level as Food, Fire Protection and Medical care. If they is an internal problem, such as a riot, Police must be able to respond and call on the National Guard and regular military forces for support if needed. This tends to be land based military operations, which can include naval personal being used as Infantry, Police or even as Engineers (someone has to dig ditches, and clean up messes).

5. Maintaining electrical and other energy sources. In a time of energy shortages, other forms of energy will be called on, often to a degree that will lead to massive over use and failures of the energy distribution system (I am trying to use terms applicable to not only electrical power but other forms of energy including natural gas and oil). These will have to be maintained. Whatever oil is available will have to still be shipped to where it is needed.

6, Education. We can NOT sacrifice the future for today, thus Education must have a high priority

Now, I have never been able to track down energy usage by the above categories, the tendency is to use "Transportation", "Industry", "Business" or "Residential" not Farming, fire protection, medical care and maintenance of highways and other means of moving energy.

On the other hand, if you just walk down your street, you will see these are important, the local store has your food, somewhere near you is a fire station (except in Rural Areas, where the distances may be to far), you will see someone working on the road, sidewalks, the electrical or cable lines (and the Natural Gas lines and electrical line underneath the ground) around your home, you may see a police cruiser or an ambulance, you may pass a doctor's office or a hospital. These are important to your safety needs. We Americans tend to ignore them, for safety needs are rarely a concern for Americas, but in a time of severe oil shortage safety needs will quickly climb to the # 1 concern.

Remember in 1973 and 1979, the US was only importing about 5% of its oil needs (and most of that from Mexico and Venezuela) but the cut off of Arab oil caused all types of problems in 1973 (less in 1979, you did not have as many or as long waits at the then fewer gasoline stations). People sacrificed by moving around less, but you still had a fuel shortage. One of the reasons South Vietnam fell in 1975, was the US was trying to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and also protect that foreign oil in case of a war with the Soviet Union, that something had to give, and was was given up was any support for the South Vietnamese government. Notice how that was tied up with the 1973 oil embargo, the Oil Embargo showed that the US had to be able to intervene in the Middle East in any situation where war in Europe was a possibility. That requirement meant cutting something else out, and that ended up being South Vietnam.

Sidenote, I grew up in the City of Pittsburgh in the 1970s. In 1979, every suburban mall, except South Hills Village, reported a drop in sales. South Hills Village was able to hold its own. The main reason, through not mentioned in the Articles I read, was South Hills Village was built about 1/2 mile from the last streetcar line in Pittsburgh. That line survived for it was on its own right of way from Downtown Pittsburgh to the Allegheny County line. I remember taking it and walking to South Hills Village with many other people making the same walk. I suspect South Hills Village survived for it was near that line and the people who decided NOT to drive, took the Streetcar instead, and while at the mall made their purchases. Thus South Hills Village did better then the other malls for it had an alternative to oil for its customers to get to it.

I bring the above 1979 situation up, for like South Hills Village in 1979, the US Navy may be looking to some way to reduce its dependence on oil. In South Hills Village it was 1/2 mile away in the form of a Streetcar line. In the case of the US Navy, the alternative is either this method of obtaining fuel for its escorts OR having those escorts hauled to where they are needed by the Carrier they are suppose to Escort. Hauling one's escort is NOT a good option, but it is better then having NO escorts. The ability to produce fuel for those escorts may just mean less hauling of those escorts.

The US Navy may be looking at a future it does not like and looking for a way to being able to perform its duties in such a future. Allocation of oil is one such problem and producing oil from excess nuclear power may be a better option then saving fuel by using the carrier as a tug.

Gore1FL

(21,027 posts)
22. They didn't address any science.
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:52 PM
Apr 2014

I suspect, based on the article, it will probably be similar to fuel currently in use, however.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
38. The world isn't an either/or we can have both.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:52 AM
Apr 2014

As I said above, it is an improvement potentially, but it isn't carbon neutral, which should be our ultimate goal.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
39. Oh, I agree, I just meant that's what makes this a game-changer for the Navy
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 01:07 AM
Apr 2014

It's just not the holy grail for general civilian transport.

penultimate

(1,110 posts)
4. If works as they say, I'd say it's safe to assume it will be used in the civilian world too
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 07:50 PM
Apr 2014

Much like what happened with this wonderful thing we call the internet.

aggiesal

(8,863 posts)
8. This is ridiculous. Let me explain ...
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:00 PM
Apr 2014

About 5-10 years ago, I came across an article where a scientist at
the University of Buffalo found that when you apply a specific frequency
to seawater it would ignite. This means burnable energy was created.

When this information was published, the government was knocking
down the door the next day.

Never heard anything about this technology ever since.

I have nothing to do with Univ. of Buffalo, so it's not like I'm bragging
for any personal or want to see some alumni or reasearch center at
thisvschool to succeed.

At the time I just felt that with an abundance of seawater this was a
viable solution to our energy needs.

I wish I could find the article and post a link.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
16. It's not a 'solution to our energy needs'; you need electricity to run it
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:20 PM
Apr 2014
The method used is an electro-chemical process.

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140407-seawaterfuel.html


It could be useful for producing transport fuel from electricity.

pffshht

(79 posts)
37. "Inventions" like that come up all the time, reported by less than reputable sources.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:41 AM
Apr 2014

It's always "suppressed by the government" and it always turns out to be a scam or hoax.
Stanley Meyer's was the most famous of the bunch.

It sounds like you're describing ultrasonic cavitation hydrolysis.
Interesting idea, may have useful applications but it's very unlikely you would get more useable energy out in the form of hydrogen than you put in to break down the water.
Here's a patent I found that may be the same thing or something different.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6719817

Update- This is even more like it, found on Youtube:



Again, yes, it works, no, it's not an energy source unless you can burn the hydrogen and oxygen back to water and get more than enough energy to run the thing.

Locrian

(4,522 posts)
9. guessing...
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:05 PM
Apr 2014

since the article is short on details that this involves massive amounts of electricity, generated from shipboard nuclear reactors...

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
15. From a naval point of view, it allows them to remain at sea longer
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:18 PM
Apr 2014
Cullom said that such a renewable fuel could dramatically affect fleet logistics. For example, an aircraft carrier on station has to leave station every few days to take on jet fuel for its air wing and escort ships from a fleet oiler. With the capability to convert seawater into jet fuel, the carrier would not have to leave station. He said that bringing the renewable fuel to operational use would “re-invent the way we do business.”

http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140407-seawaterfuel.html

penultimate

(1,110 posts)
17. That makes sense for making jet fuel, but they seem to
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:21 PM
Apr 2014

making it sounds as if ships would be able to make their own fuel to fuel themselves while out to sea. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that part?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
36. No, the purpose is to not have to carry around oil everywhere
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:27 AM
Apr 2014

If this works it does that admirably. It's a way to convert nuclear to hydrocarbon.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
13. I think that's right
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:16 PM
Apr 2014

though it gives no idea about the amount, but somehow puts a prices on it of $3 to 6 a gallon. Useful for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

On land, the production of hydrocarbons from electricity may be useful for aircraft fuel - you could use solar or wind. It would take CO2 from the air and/or carbonate/bicarbonate from seawater and, once you've burnt the fuel, produce CO2. Neutral if from the air; take it from the sea, and I'm sure what would be the end result - someone needs to explain the equilibria involved.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
40. About 150 years of science does point to CO2 causing atmospheric warming
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 04:50 AM
Apr 2014

This is not some new-fangled hypothesis from someone who noticed a correlation of 2 values. It's what the science expected, as well as what has been observed.

 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
41. Take a stats class...there is no statistical significance, just a correlation...
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 08:51 AM
Apr 2014

I put little faith in a data set that is only 150 years old on a planet that billions of years old and climate cycles that last hundreds to thousands of years.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
42. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is about physics, not statistics
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 09:35 AM
Apr 2014

That's what's been known for 150 years.

Here, see what scientists say:

The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences released a joint publication today that explains the clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, and that addresses a variety of other key questions commonly asked about climate change science.
...
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well-understood, and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen to levels not seen for at least 800,000 years, and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term warming trend. The publication explains that measurements that distinguish between the different forms of carbon in the atmosphere provide clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, and discusses why the warming that has occurred along with the increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes such as variations in the Sun’s output.

The publication delves into other commonly asked questions about climate change, for example, what the slower rate of warming since the very warm year in 1998 means, and whether and how climate change affects the strength and frequency of extreme weather events.

http://royalsociety.org/news/2014/climate-change-evidence-causes/
 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
43. And the scientist in question...
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 10:55 AM
Apr 2014

Are continously having to update their predictive models because actual temperatures are not behaving as they expect. This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature variations. AGAIN CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAUSATION!

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
59. Specifically, "This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature"
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:45 PM
Apr 2014

is bollocks. You made that up. My college major is not relevant; it's that you're talking bollocks.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
64. Are you saying that *you* understand, while the Royal Society and NAS don't?
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 05:27 AM
Apr 2014

Is your understanding of the physics, observations and models superior to all of them?

As it happens, I read engineering at university.

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750.
...
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and
understanding of the climate system.
...
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes
in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and
in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for
human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been
the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Quite simply, you're denying reality.
 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
65. Yes...
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 12:05 PM
Apr 2014

I am also not reliant upon research grants for my livelihood...i.e. I am a bit more "objective" than they are. And again, I am just skeptical. Show me an objective statistical anakysis and I might change my view.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
66. So you think you're smarter than every scientist that works at a university anywhere in the world
Thu Apr 10, 2014, 12:10 PM
Apr 2014

and more 'objective' because you don't make a living from science? (It's not just American and British scientists - http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf . And it's not just climate scientists. Scientists from other fields look at the work they do, and agree.)

Just look up climate science papers. They're objective.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
45. Models are like that, approximations, at best. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 11:11 AM
Apr 2014

And with models correlations is what you are looking for, that they somewhat agree with the facts. The higher "somewhat" is, the better the model. The fact is that climate is changing and we fuck with it at our peril, and we are fucking with it.

Did you know the Sun is getting hotter, and we have almost run out of room to pull CO2 out of the air too cool the Earth off? That's the real problem. There is very little CO2 left, and the plants need it. We are going to have to find another way to cool the planet. We are on the inside edge of the habitable zone as it is.

Meanwhile, the increased heat is causing massive releases of methane into the air, which is a couple orders of magnitude stronger as a greenhouse gas, which results in even more CO2 when it oxydizes, and which sucks Oxygen from the air in the process. How do you feel about living at, say, 6000 ft all the time?

There are several theories that propose that the Permian-Triassic extinction, the one that got 90% of the species on the planet, was caused by massive methane releases, and that is happening now.

 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
58. Well gee
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:32 PM
Apr 2014

If the sun is getting hotter, might that be a bigger driver of temp increases than an invisible gas that is the natural by product of celluar respiration and warming rocks?

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
51. So are you saying, "Correlation cannot indicate causation?"
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 01:34 PM
Apr 2014

That's what it sounds like. How then, should medical researchers test new therapies?

--imm


 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
56. Sigh...
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:28 PM
Apr 2014

There is a distinct difference between the two...statistical analysis 101 (which apparently no one paid attention to in college)...correlation can indicate, but it does not necessarily prove. A simple regression analysis of two variables (average annual temperature vs. CO2 levels) would show if there were any trye relationship (i.e. the change in X explains a certain in the change in Y)...

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
60. So it appears that a correlation CAN indicate a causalty.
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 03:52 PM
Apr 2014

Your mistake was using the word "proof." Scientists don't use that word. Usually when I hear it in this context, it's to introduce a red herring.

--imm


 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
62. Yes, it can indicate causality, but...
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 09:31 PM
Apr 2014

One needs to run a regression to see what if any mathematical relationship exists...it does then it suggests causation. I have yet to see a study with a complete data set that does this, hence why I am skeptical.

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
63. A mathematical relationship does exist. It's called a correlation.
Wed Apr 9, 2014, 10:54 PM
Apr 2014

Since we're not projecting a proof, the level of analysis is incidental to the data. I notice a correlation between umbrellas and water falling from the sky. Is there a causality? It needs to be determined. The same correlation exists between umbrellas and windshield wipers. Causality? The other possible explanations are coincidence and error, which can be revealed by replication.

In the case of CO2 there is some deduction that enters the picture. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG.) (If you fill a vessel with it, and shine a light on it, it gets warmer than an identical vessel-light combination filled with air. Happens every time.) And then, the incidence of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40% in the industrial age. That's after a million years of virtually no change. The conclusion implied by those premises is that the atmosphere is warming.

The predictions based on those models were set down 40 years ago. Temperatures, ocean levels, glacial decreases, droughts, storms, etc. It's happening. The warming, its feedbacks, the climate sensitivity -- is pretty much settled, unless you have some revolutionary information. If it's not CO2 behaving as predicted and expected, burden is on you to show how, and what it then might be. Solar cycles, Milankovitch cycles, and obliquity cycles have been proposed, and ruled out. You'll have to think up something new, and a way of detecting it.

--imm

 

hoosierlib

(710 posts)
68. You obviously know nothing of statistics analysis
Fri Apr 11, 2014, 12:36 PM
Apr 2014

And solar cycles have only been ruled out by scientist who benefit from the current "climate alarmist" status quo. Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton...

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
69. Just enough to compute a "least squares."
Fri Apr 11, 2014, 04:00 PM
Apr 2014

Just a couple of undergrad courses, and I admit there is much more to know. Too bad, that you, with your superior knowledge, is unable to adequately express it.

You think that Michael Crichton will be able to explain where the physics has gone awry? It takes a mighty big conspiracy to undermine basic science.

--imm

jmowreader

(50,447 posts)
28. With reactors on board you wouldn't need to go around your elbow with this seawater scheme
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 09:36 PM
Apr 2014

A nuclear powered warship is in concept a simple thing: the reactor core converts water to steam, which is used to turn a turbine, which is then used to turn a propeller shaft. (A ship with multiple screws has multiple turbines.) A nuclear powered electricity plant works the same way except the turbines are connected to alternators.

What will be entertaining is if someone installs this system on a Navy ship that has no reactor.

"Captain, we're not going anywhere!"
'That's because we generate our own fuel from seawater...and, unfortunately, all the fuel the fuel maker produces is being used to run the fuel maker."

muriel_volestrangler

(101,146 posts)
20. Thanks - that says it's a little over 50% efficient
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 08:39 PM
Apr 2014
The overall energy balance would be unfavorable with the produced liquid hydrocarbon fuel
being a little over half the energy of the entire process needed to produce the fuel. It should be
noted that the actual hydrogen and carbon monoxide/dioxide gas phase reactions are catalytic
and highly exothermic, so this would tend to improve overall energy balances [7]. Though the
energy balance is unfavorable, electricity can't and never will be able to fuel jet turbines, so this
unfavorable energy balance should not be a deciding factor against this proposed energy
conversion scheme.


So maybe worth it if you have a real need for hydrocarbon fuel (ie planes), and it helps if you can use the heat for something too (you could run a steam turbine off it, I guess, if the temperatures are high enough).

groundloop

(11,486 posts)
32. Damn, I read that and understood every word - scary!
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:02 PM
Apr 2014

Cool concept. A few thoughts popped into my head while reading the article.....

Obviously a reactor for this will be taking in a lot of sea water and exhausting a lot of waste water back into the ocean. I wonder if the waste water will have any impact on the oceans, or if it will be clean enough so as to be benign.

Also, the net result of this would be to transport CO2 from the ocean into the air. Equilibrium wise I wonder if enough CO2 will be re-dissolved by the oceans so as to have no effect on the atmosphere. In any case it's got to be a damned sight better than transporting carbon from oil wells or tar sands into the atmosphere.

ffr

(22,644 posts)
33. It's a start. Not perfect, but anything that frees us from defending
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:22 PM
Apr 2014

the Middle-East and its shipping lanes will pay off huge dividends. Cut those strings. Cut and run as fast as we can.

daybranch

(1,309 posts)
34. This is indeed good news.
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:54 PM
Apr 2014

before everyone gets into their carbon neutral and efficiency calculations lets look at the specific situation. This is a way of keeping Naval ships from returning to a port to secure more fuel. This from the viewpoint of a Navy command lets ships stay out longer, lets them avoid a potential outage of jet fuel in an emergency etc. This change in the logistics chain reduces the number of ships needed by the Navy because they can be on station longer with the ability to fully react to any crises. It reduces the number of emergency resupply runs as jet fuel is exhausted. It may even allow the ship themselves to carry less jet fuel , even delaying purchases from the Koch Brothers et al. Do you think that preventing a lot of trips back to port may save a lot of fuel in total? I certainly do and the Navy does too.
Before you apply generalized analysis to something you need to make sure that they are appropriate. The Navy has a game changer- their game is defense and providing the best defense they can with less resources is a very admirable goal. It looks like they have carefully examined their resupply process for weak links and have found a way to deal with it that works very well. I say Kudos.
A lot of the messages disparaging the achievement are based on little knowledge of what the Navy needs or does. It is civilian centric and ignores that when the Navy performs its assigned mission using a better more effective method, it is good for all of us.
This application of generalized methods to evaluate more unique situations reminds me of the study they did of putting thermostats on baseboard heater versus relying on the simple hi, low, off settings. Most believe that a thermostat that could be set to 70 degrees or so and left there would result in the most energy savings. But it just was not true, as those who used the high , low, and off settings proved . They turned them on high until they felt warm. Lowered them to low or off if they got too hot, etc. But the most saving resulted because unlike those who had a thermostat and lowered the units during the night by several degrees, those without such controls turned them off entirely. My point is as H. L.Mencken said for every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple , direct, and wrong. The same should be said of many of the analyses shown here. Sometimes you need more details, more understanding before you can draw valid conclusions. The best person to draw the conclusion is the people in the situation. Again Kudos to the Navy and thank you Navy for maximizing your effectiveness in this manner.

eppur_se_muova

(36,227 posts)
46. over $1 BILLION per plant to produce $6/gal fuel, ASSUMING ...
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 12:21 PM
Apr 2014

... that the military can actually complete a project on budget.

This is just a wealth-sucking boondoggle. There's actually no new technology here; the chemistry described has been known since the 1920's. It's just too inefficient to compete with other fuel sources. No one outside the Pentagon would consider this worth pursuing.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
54. When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 09:17 PM
Apr 2014

Tight oil production, the proper name for Fracking, is expected to peak around 2017-2018. At that point, the oil produced by then existing Tight oil wells will be dropping so much that they will be no way that the new wells put into production will prevent total oil production from dropping, slowly at first, then as a rock. The reason for this is tight oil wells are good for about five years, with most oil being produced within the first 18 months of production. Since the expected biggest wells are drilled first, and later on you move onto smaller oil fields, production of oil will increase till around 2017-2018 then drop.

At that point, oil is expected to go through the roof. Right now, oil has to be at least $80 a barrel of roughly $3.29 a gallon (including gasoline tax and cost of refining and distribution) for Tight oil wells to be profitable. When the price drops below $80 a barrel, production does NOT stop for most of the money into existing wells would have been already spent (thus you minimize loss by producing oil at whatever price you can get), but you do NOT drill any new wells (thus till the price goes over $80 a barrel, oil production drops, till it hits bottom and then spring back to a point when Tight oil is once again profitable). So far the price of oil has stayed over $80 a barrel so tight oil is being produced. No one is foreseeing a drop in the price in the near future.

On the other hand, come 2018, the price of oil is anyone's guess, for cost to produce will no longer be the restriction on price, the restriction will be how much will people pay? One of the reason for the economic collapse in 2008 was the price of gasoline per gallon was nearing Minimum wage per hour. In other countries, when the price of oil reached the prevailing lowest wage on a per hour basis, you saw a drop in gasoline usage, and thus a drop in demand (and the wreck of the economy). In the US, till 2008, you NEVER had a year where oil usage did NOT increase over the previous year. Since 2008, US usage of oil has actually DROPPED, do to the high price for gasoline. In 2008 the price of gasoline exceeded $4 in many parts of the US, when Minimum wage was $5.25 per hour. I did a calculation at that time period that showed that at $5 a gallon. people can NOT drive to work and pay for rent (if in public housing) and food. If the low income earner is NOT living in public housing (and most such workers are NOT is such public housing), the rent is much higher and the numbers are hit a lot sooner. Thus when the price of gasoline hit $4 a gallon, you had people who no longer could afford the gasoline to get to and from work. The economy tanked at about the same time (and I suspect this was the spark that caused the subsequent economic collapse, the actual cause was elsewhere, but minimum wage not being enough to someone to driver to work was the spark). Subsequent to that collapse minimum wage was increased to $7.15 a hour, and now there is talk of raising it again to $10 an hour and I suspect the reason for both increases is concern as to the future price of gasoline.

Now 2018 is four years away, but 2008 was Six years ago. Thus we are nearer 2018 then 2008. Thus $6 a gallon MAY not be that far away.

http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_01212013.pdf

The Energy Information Agency (EIA), based in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (of my suspicions of them later), says the price of oil will be anywhere between $80 and $250 a barrel, with the most likely price $150 a barrel, or roughly a 1/3 more then it is at present (Worse case would be three times the present price).

Now the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the #1 oil exporter (#2 in production, #1 in production is Russia, which is the #2 exporter, the difference is internal use), but is NOT considered a reliable source for its own oil supply (and if Saudi Arabia production has peaked, which some suspect, then the bets will be on a price of at least $250 a barrel by 2035 if not 2025). The #3 producer of oil is the US. These three nations, The US, Russia (both as the present Russian Federation and the former Soviet Union) and Saudi Arabia have been the top three oil producers since the 1960s (if NOT the 1950s). US and Russia have been in the top three since oil production started in the 1860s. It was popular to say as late as the 1990s that the reason for this is these three nations were the most explored for oil and oil fields as rich existed elsewhere. The problem is no one has found them. Oil fields have been found elsewhere but no where near the size OR number of fields as the big three (The US has the most oil fields, collectively bigger then any other countries total oil fields, Saudi Arabia has one big oil field, the biggest ever found, Russia is between these two extremes).

Now, the EIA report is NOT without critics. One Critic did the following chart, after correcting what he saw as errors in the 2013 EIA report (Including using "Natural Gas Liquids" as replacement for oil on a barrel to barrel basis, when the energy in a barrel of "Natural Gas Liquids" is just 70% of what is in a barrel of oil):

In effect while the EIA is predicting 100 million barrels of oil being produced by 2035, he is saying it will be closer to 40, while below today's 89 million barrels of oil.

You must understand the last big oil discoveries were in the 1960s and most of these came on line in the 1970s (including two huge Siberian Fields, the North Sea and the North Slope of Alaska). It is these fields AND the elephant fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran that have seen production increases since the 1970s, The problem is the North Sea is in rapid decline (Britain is now a Net Oil IMPORTER), the North Slope is in rapid decline (and the push for developing the Alaska Wildlife refugee is that such oil, can use the existing pipeline, but, at best, is expected to produce over a 20 year period, what the US uses in Six months). The countries of OPEC (including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran) have been know to lie about how much oil they can produce since the 1980s (the more oil they claim they can produce the more any one member of OPEC can produce, do to massive cheating, except for Saudi Arabia all OPEC nations have been producing at full speed, with the possible exception of Iraq, every year since the 1980s).

Saudi Arabia controlled the price of oil by determining how much oil it would produce. If the House of Saud decided the price was to low, it cut production till the price went up, when the House of Saud decided the price of oil was to high, it increased production. That is what has happened since the early 1970s (prior to 1969, the Texas Railroad Commission did the same in regards to Texas oil production, setting world wide oil prices in the process, an old joke about OPEC was it was founded in 1960 so the Seven Sisters only had to go to one place and tell the members of OPEC what price the Texas Railroad commission had set for oil). The Texas Railroad commission loss its control over the price of oil in 1969 when it permitted maximum production of Texas oil, and the price continued to climb. One of the reasons the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973 was so effective was that for the first time in history the US was an net oil importer, and thus was hit hard by the embargo, something that even shocked the House of Saud at that time. Till Saudi Arabia finally decided to take on the issue of price by how much oil it could produced, prices were unstable. Once Saudi Arabia took over that role, you had stable prices till 2002 (except for the massive drop in demand in 1997 when the economic criss in the far east cut oil usage in the "Asian Tigers" so much that the price dropped more the Saudi Arabia wanted it to, but was corrected within a year).

In 2002, the price of oil started to go up and up. Saudi Arabia opened up its taps, but the price continued to go up and up as other producers of oil saw they production drop (Britain and Mexico are two examples of this). Indonesia, a member of OPEC became a net oil importer. Russian production declined in the 1990s do to its own economic problems, but increased after Putin came in charge around 2000. Recent Russia has reached a new peak in production at about 3/4 of what the Soviet Union produced in 1987 (The subsequent drop in income from selling oil, do to less oil being sold, is one of the caused of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989).

In sum, we are facing a steady decline in production of conventional oil, while world wide demand is increasing. The Recession has reduced demand for oil, but the real issue is can the new sources, tight oil (the proper name for Fracking), "Unconventional" oil, "Natural Gas liquids" and new conventional fields to be found and exploited be enough to meet the demand for oil? Till 2018 that looks to be the case, but after 2018 the doubts are growing and six dollars a gallon may be CHEAP.





http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/what-future-for-petroleum.html

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Navy 'Game-Changer': C...