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

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.

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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Navy 'Game-Changer': C...»Reply #34