Latest Breaking News

eppur_se_muova

(36,246 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 $$$.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel [View all] 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