This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
US Navy Makes Gas from Seawater
Follow ZeroHedge in Real-Time on FinancialJuice
Age-old myths and fantasies about turning stuff that was worthless into gold. Alchemists leaning over their cauldrons of bubbling brew in the dark recesses of the dungeon of some mythical castle somewhere unknown to mankind. Well, perhaps not so unknown and not so fantastical. Today, the US Navy has succeeded in transforming sea water into gasoline. No point in having sea water these days either for all the eco-warriors that will worry about the fauna and flora. My, oh my! Since when did people actually care what might happen to the fish in the sea or the plants? We have been shown for many a year now that it’s the economy that counts; fuel and energy are the key-words of the 20th century and they are even more so in the 21st. Holy Cow! Damn the sea water, fill the barrels and turn it into gas!
How can they do it? Simple: Seawater contains carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Separating them in H2O would mean being able to create hydrocarbons. Oil is just one form of hydrocarbon, that’s all. The gasses are transformed into a fuel by using a process of gas-to-liquid using catalytic converters. Easy-peasy. Even the US Navy can do it! We wanted renewable energy, didn’t we? Haven’t we been harping on about the ethics of preserving our mode of consumption and at the same time not wasting our resources for years now? It’s taken the US Navy decades, but now they have managed to power a small model plane. All that there’s left for them to do is to produce it in industrial quantities. The proof-of-concept test was carried out in September 2013 atBlossom Point, Maryland on a model P-51 Mustang 2-stroke engine. It was made public just a few days ago.
The US Navy relies on oil-based fuel for 289 vessels. There 72 submarines rely on nuclear power. Moving into a new era of producing enough gas to power those vessels would mean that there would be incredible savings to be made and thus less reliance on the Middle East or other countries for the source of energy. The idea would be that the vessels would be transformed into floating refineries that would transform seawater into their own energy source, thus doing away with the need to refuel with tankers in tow. The Navy has called it a “game-changer” and a “huge milestone”.
Strangely, it can power ships, it will power aircraft too on the aircraft-carriers, but the Navy says that after a decade of research they can’t make cars run on it yet. Oh! Really? Does that mean the common and mortal American will have to continue digging in his pocket at the pump to get the tank filled with gas before he speeds off to the factory to produce…(what do we produce still in the USA?)? Right! So we’ll have to bleed the planet dry, use it all up, spend all the money and then maybe then, just maybe, they will have come up with the miraculous solution that they will announce to us in a few decades. Nice!
The predicted cost for the US Navy to fuel a jet has been estimated to work out to roughly $3-$6 per gallon. The US Navy has suggested that the project would come to commercial fruition within the next 7 to 10 years and that would mean that there would be removal of dependence on gas from other countries. But, what they fail to realize is that the object of a fight is not the important thing it’s the reason why the punches get pulled. If we aren’t fighting over gas in the future, then we’ll be fighting over sea-water. There’s lots of it on the planet, and everyone could get to it. But, whatever it is, if it’s coveted, then it’s a reason to go to war, invade, pillage, burn and plunder. If that new object is going to be seawater, so be it.
Just as well they decided to use the seawater. Apparently, the seas and oceans are rising in level due to the melting of the ice caps. Hey, you know, the Americans will end up being the saviors of the planet, ecologically-speaking!
There’s 96% of the world’s water in the oceans today. Water covers 70% of the planet. The US Navy has 332, 519, 000 cubic miles of water to turn into fuel now. Who cares about the fish? Having trouble working out how many gallons that works out to be? It’s simple: 352, 670, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
That’s going to take a hell of a long time at the gas pump, isn’t it?
Originally posted: US Navy Makes Gas from Seawater
Day Trading Data Sheets Futures and Forex
»
- Pivotfarm's blog
- 12120 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Laws
My science background is minimal, so I figure you're the one to ask.
Is there any way to get AL2O3 to react with H2O to release the H2 using only an electric current, or do you have to have another molecule present to facilitate the release of an Oxygen atom from the alumina?
Thanks
My focus, and the focus of people I work with is applications in outer space. And in that environment, H2 and O2 are actually a great fuel combination in many ways. Also, it is easier to liquify H2 and O2 in outer space. Also, energy density is more important. Not that other fuels are not viable in outer space, but H2 and O2 have the additional benefit of zero pollution (not exactly the prime directive for outer space applications, but still very important). Also, when not in planetary orbit, solar energy is available 24/7/365... or close to it.
Nonetheless, considerations are different on earth, and many people get crazy about anything that releases CO2. Everything you say is correct as far as I know.
What I forgot to mention was the amount of sea water / air that is needed to be processed in order to produce a litre of fuel. As you can imagine, the figure is quite high for air (can't remember the number, I might work it out again some day and I haven't even thought about sea water). This may make the idea impractical. I'll work it out again one day. Otherwise, there are people who are working on the problem who could be asked.
The process you refer to is called electrolysis. The amount of solar energy to produce hydrogen through electrolysis currently is enormous. Currently. It's just not efficient enough.
And, you cannot run a conventional car on browns gas. You can augment but not hydrogen alone. Simply because you can't produce enough of it on demand and internal engine parts would not be able to withstand the extra heat as hydrogen burns much hotter than gasoline. You could certainly design an engine that would be able to withstand the heat and vulcanization of rubber and plastic parts but the cost would be prohibitive for the average consumer. It would never be safe to drive around with tanks of hydrogen so on demand production is the only option.
There are a plethora of instructions and kits to buy that individuals can ad hydrogen to their engines intake manifold. You then have to trick the cars computer because it will enrich the fuel air mixture because of the H2 input. You actually lose mileage. Older carburetor vehicles have to have custom tiny jets made. It is a complicated, by no means do-it-yourself for the average person.
I spent many hours experimenting with H2 and found that you can increase mileage on some vehicles. But, but, I found that generally speaking I was only releasing efficiency that was already there. Depending on the manufacturer, engines are de-tuned for longevity. More compression in the cylinder, equals more heat which means less life for the engine. So getting 80 mpg in a Honda Civic is great except it didn't last very long and my cost per mile was actually more than had I just used gasoline. Honda engineers spent countless hours testing to get the right balance of efficiency and longevity and I just confirmed what they already knew. The H2 car generators do not produce extra energy! Laws of physics prevent this. Nothing, with the exception of fusing or splitting the atom, produces more energy than it consumes.
The laws of thermal dynamics are hard to over come, so we do need a technological leap. Electrolysis is a net energy loser.
You'd better have some high compression rings on those pistons, dude.
Wasted energy isn't a problem when it was going to be wasted anyway. Solar powered "fuel producers" are the go (More accurately - storing a portion of that otherwise "unused" solar energy). Costs two Joules to produce one Joule? Doesn't matter if you got those two Joules for free out in the desert where no-one goes and weren't going to be used anyway. Now it comes down to how many square metres do you need and how efficient can you make those square metres?
Free Energy existed(was discovered) by Nicola Tesla in the early 20th Century, but you can't make money on "free" so we where burning up fossil fuels ever since.
Even if you can't power a car with this directly you could surely power up a Power Station that would power electric cars ?! not ?
This is almost as bad as saying with a straight face that the Earth is 6000 years old...
I would go with 'not'.... Nothing is free.
Sunlight is free. Wind is free (though not particularly reliable). Waves / tides are free. Geothermal is free. EMR is free ( but you'll probably only get enough to power your crystal radio. Actually, that energy was supplied by the radio station. P(noise) = k T delta f. That energy is free, if you can work out how to harness it in any decent quantities ( or would I be violating some thermodynamic principle? ) I have not given up on the idea of free energy. That doesn't mean the latest quack is right. We've already got free sunlight and wind. How long has wind been powering mills and sailboats? No reason why there can't be another, as yet undiscovered, form of energy out there. No, I won't hold my breath waiting. And I won't believe the latest quack without having a thorough look.
We need to be careful with terms, or we [rightly] get jumped upon for saying something wrong, while in fact we're being clear. The term "free" is a great one for causing confusion. In fact, this very term drives people nuts in the domain of software... ask someone what "free software" means sometime.
All the processes of nature (that is, in reality) are causal, and all are consistent with the ultimate scientific principle, namely, the fundamental "conservation principle". Of course, this term and phrase is a tricky one, and requires careful explanation to avoid causing confusion. To give the simplest example of what this means, the principles called "conservation of mass" and "conservation of energy" are reasonable enough... except they're not precise. It is possible to convert mass to energy (and energy to mass), but that is because "energy" and "mass" are just two configurations of the same underlying "fundamental field". And thus, converting mass to energy does not violate the ultimate, fundamental conservation principle.
Perhaps the easiest way to state that principle in a way everyone can understand is simply to note that, "nothing fundamental pops into existence" and "nothing fundamental vanishes from existence". That which is the fundamental existent never vanishes, but the configuration can change from what we call "mass" to what we call "energy".
So the easiest way to say this is... we see all sorts of "things" pop into existence and vanish from existence... but when we look close enough... when we figure out how... we will always see that no underlying reality popped into existence or vanished from existence, but the never-ending changes in the underlying reality did enter or leave a certain configuration (that we call "mass" or "energy").
As you rightly point out, the universe is chock full of energy! And if that isn't enough, we know that energy is just another form of mass, so we can try to figure out how to convert some of the monumental pile of mass that we call the universe into energy.
What we can't do is... create energy from nothing.
Which is no problem at all, since nothing doesn't exist.
We just need to be careful not to imply we claim to be able to convert "nothing" into "something" (mass, energy, wealth, etc). To claim that would be a lie. But no need, there are endless places to extract energy. The entire universe is a study in that topic!
Sorry, it ain't free...
Unless you have the adequate energy to realize the technology, you are screwed...
Yes, yes, you got me there. But the energy is still free. Just the "harnesser" has a cost.
The article is obviously whimsy and not to be taken seriously. Nevertheless, the problem isn't fuel. The problem is energy conversion. How are you going to convert seawater into fuel? Gas faeries?
The problem isn't energy conversion: nuclear carriers have a nuclear reactor that can generate the electricity to split hydrogen from oxygen. If necessary, you could convert some other hull into a floating nuclear-powered processing plant to accompany a battle group. It could probably be smaller and more versatile than the usual hydrocarbon-based refueling vessels.
The problem is that hydrocarbon-based engines are a stable, mature technology with a ton of refinement already done, while hydrogen-based engines are still in R&D. Sure, Mr. Wizard may have a prototype or two lying around, but that doesn't mean they're as efficient, strong, and stable as the hydrocarbon engines that the Navy has in use today. "Seven to ten years down the road" is R&D talk for "this idea may well never pan out, but we'd like to keep looking." Which, as you point out, is whimsy (or "vaporware").
The big question that was never asked and so never answered: How many Joules of energy does it take to create one Joule of energy by using this method?
Next big question: Can we just run the whole thing on solar power? That way even if it is thermodynamically inefficient it really doesn't matter. A shitload of sunlight energy is being wasted anyway.
Try rephrasing the question: How many Joules of energy does it take to store one Joule of energy in this medium? On a moving platform like an aircraft, you need a lightweight, energy-dense medium (all of which are, by nature of energy density, explosive). That's why you don't see solar or nuclear on aircraft (except experimental models): solar provides only a little power over large surface areas, and nuclear takes too much weight and volume for shielding to be energy-dense. Hydrocarbons are the current best solution for energy-density, and hydrogen may be a good follow-up bet. If you can generate it with electricity from the nuclear reactor on board the carrier, all the better: that's less fuel the fleet needs to haul around.
The problem with solar is collection. They are making strides in solar panels. A recent UK breakthrough (don't know the URL, google it) potentially means we could one day collect 30 something percent of TOTAL solar energy the earth receives which engineers say is the magic number to sustain entire countries. Key word is potentially. We still need a massive breakthrough in technology or undiscovered physics. And when it comes to solar panels rare earth metals are in short supply and high demand.
Physics is a bitch!
Having the majority of our time, effort and wealth stolen by predators-DBA-government and predators-DBA-corporations and predators-DBA-centralbanks... is an even bigger bitch!
It is difficult for "regular folks" to understand how many thousands of breakthroughs would occur every year if the individuals of this planet were able to keep all the value they produce... not be fleeced of so much that they only have enough to pay "everyday bills", and near nothing to attempt the next breakthrough.
And batteries. Nature abhors a vacuum, and also seems to abhor rechargeable batteries.
Quantum yields are a bitch. There is a reason the sun degrades materails, too. Nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky.
Its real. Its been around for a long time. Lots of stuff can be turned into fuel.
Since you all seem serious about this subject, here's something that I read some time ago that stuck in my brain: burning nano iron, aluminum, or boron for energy.
http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v39_1_06/article18.shtml
"Like hydrogen, a metal fuel is an energy carrier and burns cleanly. But unlike hydrogen, metal fuels—such as iron, aluminum, and boron—possess a higher energy content per unit volume, can be stored and transported at ambient temperatures and pressures, reach combustion at high efficiency in a heat engine, and avoid the high costs of fuel cells.
Large particles of metal do not burn until heated to the metal's boiling point. At this temperature, metal vapor combusts to form metal oxides. Unfortunately, the process leads to very high combustion temperatures, fouling of the internal surfaces of the combustion chamber, and the production of nitrogen oxide pollutants. Metal nanoparticles, however, burn faster and more completely at lower temperatures with no gas phase combustion. "These particles oxidize fast enough that they never reach the peak combustion temperature," Beach says."
Hey Rafter. Im still big on CTLF. It does fit the bill on its own. Turning sea water into fuel not so much. F/T is the real deal imo. Maybe some day it could happen but not the way things are done now. After the petrodollar?
At some point price solves all.
Yeppers.
Believe it when I see it.
Are you drunk?
Dude.........
This is nothing new.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Convert-Water-into-Fuel-by-Buildi...
Problem is, it's not efficient to split the hydrogen from the carbon. The best way is using electricity to split it.
But...
You could use the nuclear reactors in those carriers to supply the power.
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?
Pivot Farm!
Incoherent and gullible is he!
Pivot Farm!
If Nautical nonsense be somethin' ya wish -
Read this dreck then flop like a fish!
.
Spongebong Hemppants! Spongebong Hemppants!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPW9vwe1f2I
Two things:
1) please search on Stanly Meyer and Murder. He and many others "invented" HHO and were killed for it. HHO works and manny independant truckers are quietly using it now to reduce fuel consumption http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
2) who would have the balls to announce this if it was real? The same guys who were targeted on 9/11 when their Office of Naval Intelligence was taken out?
3) the co2 angle is a bullshit confusion story to blunt shills like the ones coming out of the woodwork on this site
Ok, three things.
Here in DC we are blessed with a radio station focused on the federal gubmint - Federal News Radio, 1500 am. Good for lots of laughs. Yesterday, they interviewed a Navy scientist on the topic of the Navy's efforts to turn seawater into fuel. The gist of it is that, get this - they could use more funding and resources to make it a reality. Listen to the interview, which like all interviews on this station, features an earnest but brain-dead gubmint bureaucrat blathering on, talking her book (her bloated paycheck) whilst sprinkling in requisite buzzwords such as scalability, funding, enterprise this, enterprise that, blah blah blah...
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/412/3608779/Dr-Heather-Willauer-Research...
The navy has been experimenting with thermoelectric generators for at least two decades. They utilize the heat differential between the outer hull and the inside of submarines, for example. Electricity for free, and free to split water. The ocean is a huge heat sink.
This would actually cool the earth.
Oh and hydrogen is very explosive and difficult to handle safely however.
I made a few "bubbles" of the stuff in my own generator one time and bout damn near blew my hand off...
Metal sponge
https://www.google.com/patents/US4079523
Generate at point of use, store small excess for downtime.
Bob Lazar, yep the area 51 dude, actually developed a tank with some sort of aggregate inside that would soak up the hydrogen and release it when heated slightly. He claimed you could fire a bullet through it and it would not explode. I think there are a few variations of this technique. Still, the problem is efficiency.
Wedge - that technology was around in the 80s, when I was in grad school. Interstitial absorbtion of hydrogen. The titanium surface overcomes Vander Waal's forces and splits the hydrogen molecule on the surafce of the metal. Heating vibrates the atoms adsorbed of the metal surface, they detacch and recombine to form H2 for immediate use.
I knew a guy who developed an engine that ran on micronized coal, slurried with water. The engine was put into both a tank and helicopter, successfully. The coal water slurry (typically 80/20) had a higher octane rating than aviation fuel. You could put multiple rounds through the gas tanks and had no fire issues at all. Wonder what happened to that....
That was about the time I got to see all sorts of uses for MASERs too..........
The coal water slurry (typically 80/20) had a higher octane rating than aviation fuel.
80/20 makes the best burgers, too, but everybody knows that.
80/20 is a handy ratio for many, many things.
Read something about this weeks ago.....why is ths front page?
I'd be curious to know just how much energy was used to break the atomic bonds and make the same amount of energy in the form of "gasoline". I'm guessing that it took a whole lot more energy "in" to get the equivalent "out". You don't get nothing for nothing in this world. Unless you're a banker of course.
Not too impressed...
I have been making gas with pinto beans for years!
Most of us can run our cars on sea water from the gulf