Navy eyes turning sea water into jet fuel

[Ethnod]

Ok, first off... How is this not a story that has already been post here???? I was reading like my 3rd article on it and wondered what the fine folks at LTT forums were thinking and saying and was stunned to not find the story in 15 pages of this section... D:

 

Anyway, as crazy as this sounds, as mad as it sounds, and yes as awesome as it sounds, it seems to be true. Sea water as fuel at the same cost level of petrol, today, so imagine what it will cost in 20+ years when the tech is perfected

I originally thought that this might be an April fools thing but by all accounts its for real. Amazing. 

Water as fuel as been a thing for years

And many many more vids, articles and so on but this is incredible and on the scale they expect it is astonishing. Could be a huge turning point in our future and the first time in history that a Military force actually may be preventing wars and conflicts on a massive scale

 

Source:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121013/NEWS/210130317/Navy-eyes-turning-sea-water-into-jet-fuel

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-navy-develops-technology-turn-seawater-into-fuel-1444498

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/us-navy-develops-technology-turn-seawater-fuel-110527282.html#gtkTLmA

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/10/tech/innovation/navy-new-technology/

[bob345]

This is not new technology. The reason it is not used everywhere is because getting hydrogen from water is extremely inefficient and requires quite a bit of power

[bcredeur97]

OH YEAH! I remember looking into HHO generators for cars

 

supposedly they can give you a small gas milage boost, though I have NEVER seen it properly tested by anyone. all the people that did test it either forgot to put an electrolyte in the water or didnt reprogram their car to use a bit less fuel instead of more (a car tends to want to put more fuel when there is more air, at least that's what I have seen from my reasearch[spending maybe a day looking all this up ])

[Ryan Leech]

The entire deck would have to be a solar panel to get enough electricity to do this.

[Jaybird]

The entire deck would have to be a solar panel to get enough electricity to do this.

not necessarily but yes it would have to be such that they dont tap into their nuclear fuel reserves. but I believe they have more than enough nuclear power to generate the hydrogen.

edit: solar panels are super inefficient at converting sun light into electricity.

 

edit: I think this was my 1000th post. woohoo!

[wpirobotbuilder]

Water electrolysis is useful on something like a ship, where it is expensive to carry fuel, both in terms of money and of storage space (which is a super premium). It could allow ships to carry less fuel in reserve and more food/nonrenewables, allowing a ship to stay at sea for much longer. Though some sailors might not enjoy that. For context, one of the biggest limitations on submarines staying out at sea is the amount of food they can carry.

 

This annoys me:

The analysis estimated fuel from this process would cost between $3 and $6 per gallon, including initial start-up costs. The report cited the Navy's 2011 average cost for JP-5 at $3.51; media reports have put that number closer to $4. These prices don't include shipping and storage costs, which would be cut drastically or eliminated by making JP-5 at sea.

 

"Historical data suggest that in nine years, the price of fuel for the Navy could be well over the price of producing a synthetic jet fuel at sea," the journal article says.

 

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has set goals to cut the Navy and Marine Corps' use of fossil fuels, calling for using alternative fuels for 50 percent of the Navy Department's total energy usage by 2020.

 

His plan has come under attack, largely from Republicans, who say the Navy should not pursue alternative fuel program until alternative fuels are more cost-effective. The Navy's work in alternative liquid fuels has used a blend of traditional fuels mixed with either an algae- or camelina-based based fuel.

From the Navy times.

 

If it costs about the same (on the whole) as current JP-5 and can make our military more effective, I'd certainly call that cost-effective.

[kuddlesworth9419]

This is not new technology. The reason it is not used everywhere is because getting hydrogen from water is extremely inefficient and requires quite a bit of power

Yea but as the technology matures it will get more efficient over time. At the moment producing hydrogen costs about as much or just a little more then diesel. Which is pretty good for a relatively new procedure compared to refining petroleum. 

[LOLPhilips]

Ok, first off... How is this not a story that has already been post here????

 

Because I did this in school a "billion" (more like 10) years ago. And many people before that. How is this news ?

[Misanthrope]

Anyway, as crazy as this sounds, as mad as it sounds, and yes as awesome as it sounds, it seems to be true. Sea water as fuel at the same cost level of petrol, today,

 

Well shit now you know too much, I bet the Americans will send their drones to democratize you out of this nonsense about replacing oil!

[ACatWithThumbs]

Well shit now you know too much, I bet the Americans will send their drones to democratize you out of this nonsense about replacing oil!

Oil won't last till end of this century anyways.(Especially if you take into consideration the population growth)

In Europe the oil prices are already so high that it won't take that long for mass usage of electric cars.

In Germany you pay right now $8,48 a gallon.(In other EU countries it's even more expensive)

For the US this might not be a good fit (yet) but in the rest of the world stuff like this will replace oil sooner than you might think.

 

[Misanthrope]

Oil won't last till end of this century anyways.(Especially if you take into consideration the population growth)

In Europe the oil prices are already so high that it won't take that long for mass usage of electric cars.

In Germany you pay right now $8,48 a gallon.(In other EU countries it's even more expensive)

For the US this might not be a good fit (yet) but in the rest of the world stuff like this will replace oil sooner than you might think.

 

 

Well yeah but (western) Europeans are rich and can afford to start using more inefficient energy sources right away. Most third world countries however, yeah it's already getting out of hand but it will quickly devolve into all out war, anarchy and mass suffering everywhere.

[flibberdipper]

I know before watching the video that I've heard about and seen this tech before, but it's still cool, nonetheless.

[TopWargamer]

That's pretty neat, and it would potentially save the military billions of Dollars over time. 

[bob345]

The problem with this is that it takes more energy than you would get from the hydrogen. You are essentially just separating water into hydrogen and oxygen and then turning the hydrogen back to h2o through combustion.

[ShiverMePenguins]

That is actually no longer true. For about a year now MIT designed a working transluscent polymorphic solar cells. Basically its An increase in surface area with multiple layers (the top most being fairly transluscent). Efficiency was increased by around 300% more efficient.

not necessarily but yes it would have to be such that they dont tap into their nuclear fuel reserves. but I believe they have more than enough nuclear power to generate the hydrogen.

edit: solar panels are super inefficient at converting sun light into electricity.

 

edit: I think this was my 1000th post. woohoo!

[ShiverMePenguins]

The increase in surface area was brought by each array Having slightly different varying angles, so light could bounce between the angles much like sound does with proper deadening material

[Jaybird]

That is actually no longer true. For about a year now MIT designed a working transluscent polymorphic solar cells. Basically its An increase in surface area with multiple layers (the top most being fairly transluscent). Efficiency was increased by around 300% more efficient.

Intetesting, but it takes decades to recoup the cost of a solar panel.

[rashdanml]

On-the-fly hydrogen production and using it as fuel is inefficient. Even with higher efficiency solar panels. The amount of surface area needed to generate enough hydrogen to power a ship (using fuel cells), is far too high. Not to mention, solar energy isn't consistent, as it depends on the exposure, orientation of the panels relative to the sun, etc. 

 

Which is why producing hydrogen ahead of time, and then using it as tanks of hydrogen is more efficient. But that brings another problem: hydrogen storage. Pressurized storage and liquid hydrogen are the two most common methods, and both are currently very painful to accomplish. 

[Ethnod]

Because I did this in school a "billion" (more like 10) years ago. And many people before that. How is this news ?

You must mean the fresh water tech I was referring to at the end because Electrolysis has been around for well over a decade but that is referring to distilled and clean water

 

 

I know before watching the video that I've heard about and seen this tech before, but it's still cool, nonetheless.

 

up till now that tech was reserved for distilled water, clean water not even dirty water never mind salt water. Only 0.007% of the worlds water is none salt water and accessible by us (ie not salt water or fresh but in ice, clouds, snow and so on). About 97.5% of the worlds water is salt water so this is a huge breakthrough

[ShiverMePenguins]

Intetesting, but it takes decades to recoup the cost of a solar panel.

not really. a single home in florida with 3 average sized panels can recoup the cost in about 4-5 years depending on their transformers

[Jaybird]

not really. a single home in florida with 3 average sized panels can recoup the cost in about 4-5 years depending on their transformers

but if you deduct the government subsidy that is usually placed on solar panels what sort of cost are we considering? Ive spent probably the past 6 years thinking that solar panels cost/output would take +10-15 years. 

 

I may be conservative but I think solar panels could have potential but I think that as long as the government is stirring the post we wont see true break through. 

[ShiverMePenguins]

but if you deduct the government subsidy that is usually placed on solar panels what sort of cost are we considering? Ive spent probably the past 6 years thinking that solar panels cost/output would take +10-15 years. 

 

I may be conservative but I think solar panels could have potential but I think that as long as the government is stirring the post we wont see true break through. 

not calculating deductions from the state it is around 5 or so years; that means just calculating the amount of electricity you won't spend (0$) and how much you can sell back. that is if you know how to place and angle the panels. you would get even more time out of them if you place them on a rocker system, to follow the sun throughout the day with around a +- 15* tilt.

 

it's very easy to generate 22kwh if you know what you're doing and run miniature transformers.