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.
I think wave-powered generators on ships would be swell.
You should try to float that idea by them.
No, they can shore up any technological voyage, as often seen.It would probably break the bank.
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:
It would be frigate awesome!No, they can shore up any technological voyage, as often seen.
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?
what source of energy to start with? if you have more energy to start with than what you get out of the process why not just use the energy you have to start with? Whats the point?
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
The advantage here is that they wouldn't have to waste energy carrying jet fuel that they can make as needed. Because it takes energy from the ship it is less efficient than using the ship's power source in the first place. They only do it because there is no such thing as an electric jet. It makes more sense to power our day to day lives from the same energy source the ship uses: nuclear power.
Ahem, tools of liberty and freedom.yeah looks like the navy is moving more and more towards electrically powered ships. they've got railguns for bombardment, FEL lasers for anti-missle/aircraft and now this to power their aircrafts. kind of cool if you can look past the tools-of-mass-killing part.
yeah looks like the navy is moving more and more towards electrically powered ships. they've got railguns for bombardment, FEL lasers for anti-missle/aircraft and now this to power their aircrafts. kind of cool if you can look past the tools-of-mass-killing part.
I was referring to this: " 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. " Compared to the volume of the oceans, and the amount of CO2 in the oceans, the effect of removing some of that CO2 from the oceans is incredibly insignificant. My analysis is based simply on the volume of the ocean.Your analysis is based on what? Your vast knowledge of refining hydrocarbons from seawater? How much CO2 per gallon of seawater is extracted? How much CO2 from fossil fuels is absorbed into each gallon of seawater?
Please point to the sentence in the article where the writers claim that they are getting energy for free. I believe the words they used are:
Researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory have now proven that its possible to power engines instead with a cheap, convenient supply of fuel: seawater.
Well, except for the part of the infrastructure where we increase the capacity of our electric grid via more nuclear reactors, more wind, more solar. It would be rather silly to use fossil fuels to create electricity to create fossil fuels.Umm, we are already in a "chemical to combustion" model. The only difference is the raw material. You don't pump crude petroleum out of the ground into your car. If a usable consumer fuel could be made from this process, there may not be a need to convert any infrastructure.
I make no such assumption. I merely make the point that if you produce 100 units of energy from nuclear, wind, or solar, it seems incredibly wasteful to not use them in vehicles whereby about 70% or more of that energy goes to power the vehicle, rather than somewhere in the 25% ball park.And I think your assumption that electric cars are "better" needs to be reviewed:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/13/electric-cars-not-so-green-after-all/
It looks like your belief that electric cars are more efficient and better for the future is making you blind to the potential environmental and political impact. Broheim's post is more on target:
I agree that it's better than reusing french fry oil, except perhaps for that one employee of a restaurant that might be able to get a large enough supply. But, how do you eliminate transportation of this fuel? The ocean isn't at the end of my street.If this process could be commoditized for "the masses" - it could eliminate the need to drill and transport petroleum. What's the long term impact of that?
It would eliminate the monopoly that OPEC and other dictatorships hold on global petroleum. You know - those countries where they don't give a rat's ass about what the environmental activists say?
This is a much better solution than re-using french fry oil.
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.
Taking CO2 sequestered in the ocean and liberating it into the atmosphere does nothing but increase atmospheric CO2. Because that's where it originally came from anyway, it will be absorbed back in the ocean even faster and we are simply left with the intermediate problem with higher atmospheric CO2 in the time between. If you believe that oceanic acidification due absorption of man-made atmospheric CO2 is a problem then you probably also believe that atmospheric CO2 comes with a host of it's own problems that this does nothing to resolve.I was referring to this: " 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. " Compared to the volume of the oceans, and the amount of CO2 in the oceans, the effect of removing some of that CO2 from the oceans is incredibly insignificant. My analysis is based simply on the volume of the ocean.
Taking CO2 sequestered in the ocean and liberating it into the atmosphere does nothing but increase atmospheric CO2. Because that's where it originally came from anyway, it will be absorbed back in the ocean even faster and we are simply left with the intermediate problem with higher atmospheric CO2 in the time between. If you believe that oceanic acidification due absorption of man-made atmospheric CO2 is a problem then you probably also believe that atmospheric CO2 comes with a host of it's own problems that this does nothing to resolve.
Soooo...
Build a reactor-ship with significant output so it can create the fuel for the CSG, planes, and helos. Bam, no more refueling for any sea-based vehicles?
That is the obvious solution. The new Ford class of carrier already has a much greater emphasis on electricity generation and upgradeability. They could probably install a unit as soon as it's ready for production, with no need for a dedicated fuel ship.