US Navy successfully demos jet fuel made from seawater

[skimple]

The Navy has been working for several years on an attempt to create a fuel source for aircraft that doesn't require constant refueling at sea.

Article from 2009 discussing the project:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html#.U0akf6hdW4I

Now the Navy has successfully flown a model airplane using fuel extracted from seawater.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/#.U0aluqhdW4I

The article mistakenly claims that the Navy wants to use this to fuel ships, but the intent is actually to fuel aircraft. The ships power plant would have to provide the energy to perform the conversion.

What's more interesting is that this technology could be used to create hydrocarbons fuels for cars and trucks, which would not require petroleum extraction. (Goodbye OPEC, anyone?)

The article claims they could produce fuel for $3 - $6 gallon, which seems pretty reasonable compared to petroleum. Also, many global warming advocates believe that the oceans are absorbing CO2. This process would extract CO2 from seawater, which may lead to a "recycling" of CO2.

 

[Markbnj]

Did they get the seawater in Galveston bay? Because it probably already had fuel in it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Did they get the seawater in Galveston bay? Because it probably already had fuel in it.

haha, that's just what I was was thinking, did they grab the seawater that was already half fuel from spills anyway?

It is an interesting development though, very promising.

 

[DrPizza]

It is not a fuel SOURCE any more than a rechargeable battery is an energy source. The energy came from some where - this method provides a mechanism to store and transfer energy.

Re: the recycle CO2/green thing. The effects would be incredibly insignificant.

 

[phreaqe]

That is pretty cool. Things like this fascinate me. I wish I was smarter to understand it, but I am glad someone out there can. The technology has an uphill battle to get used by more then just jets, but I hope it(or something like it) can help reduce the use of fossil fuels.

 

[Broheim]

if they can perfect this to the point where we can rely solely on this process for carbon based fuel it would change the world. The world could tell the middle east to go fuck itself, Russia would become completely irrelevant, and we could stop burning coal. The only ones missing out on the new resource would be landlocked countries and nobody gives a shit about those.

 

[PokerGuy]

It is not a fuel SOURCE any more than a rechargeable battery is an energy source. The energy came from some where - this method provides a mechanism to store and transfer energy.

Re: the recycle CO2/green thing. The effects would be incredibly insignificant.

It looks like they need some form or energy to actually get the hydrogen needed to make this stuff, which means the process uses more energy than what they get out of it. Isn't that the same with any other fuel though? Instead of getting oil out of the ground and refining it to get fuel, we get the fuel out of seawater (or rather, the CO2 in the seawater). It costs more energy than what you get out of it, but you'd no longer be beholden to getting the carbon source from unstable regimes around the world. At least that's my understanding. Am I missing something?

If this process looks feasible, it would seem to be a good thing to do on a large scale no?

 

[DrPizza]

The U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer typically burns 1,000 gallons of petroleum fuel an hour. Most of the Navy’s fleet shares the same ravenous appetite for fuel, and refueling these massive warships can interrupt missions and present challenges in rough weather. However, researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory have now proven that it’s possible to power engines instead with a cheap, convenient supply of fuel: seawater.
Scientists have spent nearly a decade laboring to turn the ocean into fuel. The breakthrough, demonstrated in a proof-of-concept test, was made possible by a specialized catalytic converter that transforms carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

Shame on Discover Magazine - employees writing articles who don't even know some of the most basic laws of physics, namely, conservation of energy. There is no free lunch. The energy available as fuel in a plane, jet, or ship had to come from somewhere. The hydrocarbons that they're producing turn back into CO2 and H2O when they're burned. The amount of energy to turn the CO2 into a hydrocarbon is MORE than the energy you get by burning that hydrocarbon. There needs to be a source of energy, say a nuclear reactor (very feasible on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier). But, to think that a ship is going to make its own energy from seawater to fuel itself? That's worse than even Rossi's claims.

 

[PokerGuy]

if they can perfect this to the point where we can rely solely on this process for carbon based fuel it would change the world. The world could tell the middle east to go f*ck itself, Russia would become completely irrelevant, and we could stop burning coal. The only ones missing out on the new resource would be landlocked countries and nobody gives a shit about those.

Unless I'm not understanding this correctly, you actually need more energy (ie, fuel) in order to get this fuel from the seawater (extracting the co2), so you're not actually reducing the need for energy. It just gives you another way to store the energy and move it around, but doesn't lessen your need for other energy sources.

Again, my understanding is admittedly limited.....

 

[DrPizza]

if they can perfect this to the point where we can rely solely on this process for carbon based fuel it would change the world. The world could tell the middle east to go fuck itself, Russia would become completely irrelevant, and we could stop burning coal. The only ones missing out on the new resource would be landlocked countries and nobody gives a shit about those.

It looks like they need some form or energy to actually get the hydrogen needed to make this stuff, which means the process uses more energy than what they get out of it. Isn't that the same with any other fuel though? Instead of getting oil out of the ground and refining it to get fuel, we get the fuel out of seawater (or rather, the CO2 in the seawater). It costs more energy than what you get out of it, but you'd no longer be beholden to getting the carbon source from unstable regimes around the world. At least that's my understanding. Am I missing something?

If this process looks feasible, it would seem to be a good thing to do on a large scale no?

I think you're both misunderstanding. Let's say you need 5megawatt hours of energy to power <whatever>. That energy doesn't come from the ocean. That energy comes from the nuclear reactors on the aircraft carrier. It would take more like 6 megawatt hours of energy from the nuclear reactors to process the CO2 in the sea water to make the 5 megawatt hours worth of energy for the jets.


To put it another way, it's like saying, "hey, we don't have to rely on hydrocarbons (or nuclear fuel) any more for our cars! We can just plug them into an electrical outlet, and charge up their batteries!" It completely ignores that you needed a source of energy to make that electrical energy.

What this would actually revolutionize is that you don't need big tankers carrying liquid fuel to refuel jets - they can make the jet fuel on board the aircraft carriers by using nuclear energy.

 

[Broheim]

Shame on Discover Magazine - employees writing articles who don't even know some of the most basic laws of physics, namely, conservation of energy. There is no free lunch. The energy available as fuel in a plane, jet, or ship had to come from somewhere. The hydrocarbons that they're producing turn back into CO2 and H2O when they're burned. The amount of energy to turn the CO2 into a hydrocarbon is MORE than the energy you get by burning that hydrocarbon. There needs to be a source of energy, say a nuclear reactor (very feasible on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier). But, to think that a ship is going to make its own energy from seawater to fuel itself? That's worse than even Rossi's claims.

yeah, it's definitely not some kind of magical perpetual energy machine, but it could work very well alongside green energy initiatives as a way to store energy. Excess Wind and solar energy could be funneled into the production of hydrocarbons.

 

[PokerGuy]

Shame on Discover Magazine - employees writing articles who don't even know some of the most basic laws of physics, namely, conservation of energy. There is no free lunch. The energy available as fuel in a plane, jet, or ship had to come from somewhere. The hydrocarbons that they're producing turn back into CO2 and H2O when they're burned. The amount of energy to turn the CO2 into a hydrocarbon is MORE than the energy you get by burning that hydrocarbon. There needs to be a source of energy, say a nuclear reactor (very feasible on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier). But, to think that a ship is going to make its own energy from seawater to fuel itself? That's worse than even Rossi's claims.

Thanks for the explanation, now it makes more sense. Basically, an aircraft carrier has a nuke reactor to generate electricity, but it's kind of hard to use that to power planes. Instead, they carry around fuel and tankers etc for that. This process would use the energy from another source (a reactor or anything else for that matter) to create this fuel, which can then be used to power jets or smaller boats or whatever.

 

[Broheim]

I think you're both misunderstanding. Let's say you need 5megawatt hours of energy to power <whatever>. That energy doesn't come from the ocean. That energy comes from the nuclear reactors on the aircraft carrier. It would take more like 6 megawatt hours of energy from the nuclear reactors to process the CO2 in the sea water to make the 5 megawatt hours worth of energy for the jets.


To put it another way, it's like saying, "hey, we don't have to rely on hydrocarbons (or nuclear fuel) any more for our cars! We can just plug them into an electrical outlet, and charge up their batteries!" It completely ignores that you needed a source of energy to make that electrical energy.

What this would actually revolutionize is that you don't need big tankers carrying liquid fuel to refuel jets - they can make the jet fuel on board the aircraft carriers by using nuclear energy.

I understand that perfectly, but we do have nuclear reactors here on the ground. And so far electrical cars just aren't getting the job done so storing the energy in hydrocarbon form would work depending on the level of efficiency they could achieve.

 

[DrPizza]

Or, in other words, if you want to power cars this way, then you need to build more nuclear reactors to power the plants that convert CO2 in water into hydrocarbon fuels for your cars. That's kind of a pointless step since you can transport the energy more conveniently using electricity & store the energy in batteries, rather than store the energy chemically. Further, combustion engines are incredibly inefficient (and their efficiency is limited by physical laws). Whereas, efficiency is much higher using electrical energy. So, converting nuclear energy (or solar, or wind) to electrical energy, using that energy to convert to a chemical energy storage system, and then using combustion to convert that to mechanical energy increases the number of steps, and introduces a step that's far more inefficient (combustion.) It would be a pointless direction to go.


(I didn't see your post before posting this) - it would take huge changes in our infrastructure - but going from nuclear to electrical is far far more efficient than nuclear to chemical to combustion. We don't have the infrastructure presently for battery recharging stations, but implementing that would be much better in the long run.

 

[PokerGuy]

I think you're both misunderstanding.

Nope, I got it, I'm just slow at typing See my earlier post, you helped clear it up for me.

It is an interesting idea, especially since storing energy is one of the big problems associated with various 'green' forms of energy. I'm thinking (for example) solar. One of the problems is they can produce a lot of energy at some times, very little at others, and batteries are a poor (inefficient) way to store that energy to smooth out availability. This process seems promising in that regard.

 

[SSSnail]

Yeah, but aren't most modern ships run on nuclear anyways? In other words, the power source is already onboard. So while the energy requirement maybe large, it's not like you have to burn fuel to produce it.

 

[NetWareHead]

Unless I'm not understanding this correctly, you actually need more energy (ie, fuel) in order to get this fuel from the seawater (extracting the co2), so you're not actually reducing the need for energy. It just gives you another way to store the energy and move it around, but doesn't lessen your need for other energy sources.

Again, my understanding is admittedly limited.....

You understand this correctly.

The attractiveness of this is purely military. Aircraft carriers, while nuclear and being able to steam for 40 years without new fuel are still constrained by the fact that a fleet oil tanker must replenish the ship at sea for the needed aviation fuel. No aircraft fuel means all of the power projection capabilities of an aircraft carrier are gone.

This concept is a way to use the seemingly limitless energy of a nuclear reactor as the energy source behind the reaction to electrically crack the seawater for its hydrogen, extract the carbon dioxide dissolved within the seawater and then react them together to form a hydrocarbon fuel.

This is an energy intensive process that needs something like nuclear power to drive it. It wouldn't be feasible other than a military scenario where limitless nuclear power is already available. I for one am glad this is happening because the technology will be refined by military use and then trickle down to consumer and other applications.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's kind of a pointless step since you can transport the energy more conveniently using electricity & store the energy in batteries, rather than store the energy chemically.

That's true, but there are also some very negative aspects of that, including the need to charge the batteries for a (relatively) long time. That's why you see (comparatively) clumsy solutions like hybrids that have combustion engines as well as electric ones, people don't want to be stuck having to charge a battery when they want to do something right away.

I can see applications where this could be useful.

 

[NetWareHead]

Yeah, but aren't most modern ships run on nuclear anyways? In other words, the power source is already onboard. So while the energy requirement maybe large, it's not like you have to burn fuel to produce it.

The only nuclear ships in the navy are carriers and submarines. The rest of the fleet are oil burners.

 

[SSSnail]

The only nuclear ships in the navy are carriers and submarines. The rest of the fleet are oil burners.

One would think an operation on this scale can only be fitted on a carrier, and they have those flying thingies on them already...

 

[PokerGuy]

The only nuclear ships in the navy are carriers and submarines. The rest of the fleet are oil burners.

Interesting, so the carrier could itself then provide fuel for all the "support" vehicles and it wouldn't need a fleet of tankers around

 

[Broheim]

Or, in other words, if you want to power cars this way, then you need to build more nuclear reactors to power the plants that convert CO2 in water into hydrocarbon fuels for your cars. That's kind of a pointless step since you can transport the energy more conveniently using electricity & store the energy in batteries, rather than store the energy chemically. Further, combustion engines are incredibly inefficient (and their efficiency is limited by physical laws). Whereas, efficiency is much higher using electrical energy. So, converting nuclear energy (or solar, or wind) to electrical energy, using that energy to convert to a chemical energy storage system, and then using combustion to convert that to mechanical energy increases the number of steps, and introduces a step that's far more inefficient (combustion.) It would be a pointless direction to go.

yeah, but all of our current infrastructure is based completely around hydrocarbon fuel, also current battery tech (and for the foreseeable future) just isn't there to take over. It's expensive and just can't store enough energy.

also, you've gotta factor in a 6.5% (Transmission and distribution losses in the USA in '07) energy loss in the electrical plan.

 

[NetWareHead]

One would think an operation on this scale can only fitted on a carrier, and they have those flying thingies on them already...

My point is that this "fuel from seawater" process is only benefiting naval aviation fuel requirements. The navy's need for fuel would still be large since the rest of the fleet is oil powered.

Now if a carrier could also create fuel for its ship-mates in the carrier battle group (cruisers, destroyers, frigates and other vessels that typically sail with a carrier), the battle group could be self sufficient and not need fuel replenishment at sea.

Interesting, so the carrier could itself then provide fuel for all the "support" vehicles and it wouldn't need a fleet of tankers around

Realistically I think this would put all of the navy's eggs in one basket and make the carrier the sole point of failure for the entire battle group. Take out the carrier and the rest of the ships will run out of fuel too. Who knows though...

 

[SSSnail]

My point is that this "fuel from seawater" process is only benefiting naval aviation fuel requirements. The navy's need for fuel would still be large since the rest of the fleet is oil powered.

Now if a carrier could also create fuel for its ship-mates in the carrier battle group (cruisers, destroyers, frigates and other vessels that typically sail with a carrier), the battle group could be self sufficient and not need fuel replenishment at sea.



Realistically I think this would put all of the navy's eggs in one basket and make the carrier the sole point of failure for the entire battle group. Take out the carrier and the rest of the ships will run out of fuel too. Who knows though...

Well, it is the Navy, andthey have the jets that need to be fueled...

Anyways, I think at some point, they'll scale down the technology and retrofit all ships with nuclear plants > turn sea water into fuel hocus pocus and eliminate the dependency. Wait, so Jesus is working for the Navy? :awe:

 

[IronWing]

I think wave-powered generators on ships would be swell.