US Navy turn seawater into fuel

[Romeojin]

---

Official US Navy Press Release:

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80171

Take note: No mention of ending the US military dependence on fossil (hydrocarbon) fuels.

Facts and numbers according to the press release:
1. Seawater contains higher level of Carbon Dioxide "if" compared to air. It mentions 100 mg/L (Convert to percent - 0.01%)
2. Dissolved Carbon Dioxide gas and Hydrogen gas in seawater is extracted using electrolytic cation exchange (90% efficiency).
3. Both gases are converted to liquid form using gas to liquid synthesis with iron as catalyst (60% efficiency).
_________

Do the math and compute how many gallons of seawater needed to produce a gallon of the liquid fuel fraction (and this is still a fraction). Pumping alone the seawater raw material will likely consume the predicted 6 USD cost of this fuel. Processing that same volume of seawater is another matter and will need a ton of energy.

In fairness, this technology is novel and innovative. However, it boils down to cost and efficiency. It is much cheaper to pump out oil in the desert or buy crude in the Middle East.

However, this could be put to good use (at a cost disadvantage) during fuelling jets in carrier groups wherein there is surplus supply of energy due to the ship's nuclear reactor and the ship is literally floating in seawater instead of supply ships pumping jet-fuel in remote locations.

hahaha, im sorry i have to react lol. Im pretty sure they wouldnt labelled this project a "game changer" if it was a bad idea Im sure the scientist/men involved thought a lot about it.

They already done the math lol, how come they arrive at 6 dollars a gallon? if they didnt do the necessary calculations. that 6 dollar value was based on the cost of power in producing the fuels. End results is $6 a gallon and be much cheaper if they do it on land costing them $3. I bet they will amass this fuel on land bases and probably lower the production cost by harnessing other means of power (solar,wind,tidal,OTEC etc). FYI pumping sea water doesnt cost too much energy cause it utilize pressure and gravity.

[Verbal]

US man ang largest supplier sa crude oil sa tibuok kalibutan dba?

[kageron]

nindota ani hopefully ang tae pud unta pwede mahimong oil

[M.A.D.]

Dili. Naa sa Russia ug sa middle East. Kung apilon nmo ang shale oil posible apil na ang US pero ang uban lugar sad daghan man sad ug shale oil deposit. Dli ra supply imong tan.awon tan.awon sad nmo ang gasto sa pag kuha/extract sa fossil fuel mas saun ug mas barato kung crude oil kaysa shale oil.

Ug natural gas, naa sad uroy ang US pero problema ang logistics kay lagyo kaayo ilang mga padad.an dli parehas sa Russia.

US man ang largest supplier sa crude oil sa tibuok kalibutan dba?

[b00rdz]

hahaha, im sorry i have to react lol. Im pretty sure they wouldnt labelled this project a "game changer" if it was a bad idea Im sure the scientist/men involved thought a lot about it.

They already done the math lol, how come they arrive at 6 dollars a gallon? if they didnt do the necessary calculations. that 6 dollar value was based on the cost of power in producing the fuels. End results is $6 a gallon and be much cheaper if they do it on land costing them $3. I bet they will amass this fuel on land bases and probably lower the production cost by harnessing other means of power (solar,wind,tidal,OTEC etc). FYI pumping sea water doesnt cost too much energy cause it utilize pressure and gravity.

The official press release have forward-sounding statements and clever play of words. It came short in stating that it will end the US military dependence on fossil fuels. IMO, the article is for pogi points to increase the budget of the Navy Research Lab. It is not unusual for them to do this for lobbying budget allocations.

Do you think the US military will release this kind of information if they can gain a huge advantage from it?

The media outfits/misfits came racing on who can misinterpret the press release first.

Good that you noticed the term "game-changing". Read again. It's the Carbon Dioxide extraction method that is game changing which can extract a high 92% of CO2 from seawater and not the whole shebang with it's false advantages which can solve the military dependency on fossil fuels. Their whole process consists of two steps. Carbon Dioxide gas per se cannot be used as fuel. It has to be converted/synthesized to a liquid hydrocarbon fraction using a metal catalyst before it can be used as fuel at only 60% conversion efficiency.

Even if they can extract 92% of Carbon Dioxide from seawater, based on their figures, seawater contains only 100 mg/L of Carbon Dioxide. That is exactly 0.01%. Carbon Dioxide is an impurity and not a major component in seawater.

By back-computing the figures from their press release, they can actually synthesize only 5.2 liters of fuel fraction from processing 100,000 liters of seawater. As I have said, It's a novel and brilliant discovery. Only snag is that it is not cost-efficient.

Notice the play of words e.g. "predicted cost of 3 to 6 usd" This is a lousy excuse in scientific research. A good scientist does not predict. However, it's a safe choice of a word when the worst comes.

[M.A.D.]

Well we don't know the exact process behind it given that is it for military purposes it would make one think that such technology may be a national security concern. We can only assume the advantage is has based on what they have claimed albeit it is certain some important details were left out.

It would be safe to assume the figures they cite though one should not take it on a definite metric. If such breakthrough would help improve US foreign policy even by a small fraction then we can say that the technology has been successful regardless if it is as efficient as claimed in the article. It's effectiveness won't be measured piecemeal but on a long, protracted length of time.

With US budget spending cuts and military downsizing the Pentagon needs every squeeze it can get.

The official press release have forward-sounding statements and clever play of words. It came short in stating that it will end the US military dependence on fossil fuels. IMO, the article is for pogi points to increase the budget of the Navy Research Lab. It is not unusual for them to do this for lobbying budget allocations.

Do you think the US military will release this kind of information if they can gain a huge advantage from it?

The media outfits/misfits came racing on who can misinterpret the press release first.

Good that you noticed the term "game-changing". Read again. It's the Carbon Dioxide extraction method that is game changing which can extract a high 92% of CO2 from seawater and not the whole shebang with it's false advantages which can solve the military dependency on fossil fuels. Their whole process consists of two steps. Carbon Dioxide gas per se cannot be used as fuel. It has to be converted/synthesized to a liquid hydrocarbon fraction using a metal catalyst before it can be used as fuel at only 60% conversion efficiency.

Even if they can extract 92% of Carbon Dioxide from seawater, based on their figures, seawater contains only 100 mg/L of Carbon Dioxide. That is exactly 0.01%. Carbon Dioxide is an impurity and not a major component in seawater.

By back-computing the figures from their press release, they can actually synthesize only 5.2 liters of fuel fraction from processing 100,000 liters of seawater. As I have said, It's a novel and brilliant discovery. Only snag is that it is not cost-efficient.

Notice the play of words e.g. "predicted cost of 3 to 6 usd" This is a lousy excuse in scientific research. A good scientist does not predict. However, it's a safe choice of a word when the worst comes.

[raissah]

But the fact that they can and is really doable is really brilliant. Worth the look.

[anubiz]

nindot ni oi kana kung e share nimo ang technology hehehehehehe

[Romeojin]

The official press release have forward-sounding statements and clever play of words. It came short in stating that it will end the US military dependence on fossil fuels. IMO, the article is for pogi points to increase the budget of the Navy Research Lab. It is not unusual for them to do this for lobbying budget allocations.

Do you think the US military will release this kind of information if they can gain a huge advantage from it?

The media outfits/misfits came racing on who can misinterpret the press release first.

Why would the US navy would utter such a bold statement that they will end their dependence on fossil fuels in the first place? The fact that many of the US navy ships runs on nuclear reactor for decades why still bother relying on fossil fuels if there was such a grand scheme of ending fossil base fuel dependency ?

Of course in years/decades time when oil become scarcer or expensive this technology would come handy. At the moment and as they said this technology ADDS Mobility not to end oil dependency, they can go on operation much longer before refueling.

Speaking of funding... the US had spend Billions of dollar and efforts to protect its oil interest abroad, and you saying the naval research team will have to beg for funding for their breakthrough fuel research? Cmon. keep your conspiracy theory for yourself, theres so many US military projects going on and this one doesnt deserve top most priority? The fact the Navy are encouraging university/private companies to help them improve efficiency and make this commercially viable since the Navy is not a commercial entity.. would you think all this fuss is about funding? They can bank on their ideas if they have too.

Personally, I think they are running out of new idea to improve fuel production efficiency so hence they need the help of private sector so to explain this press releases. They got a breakthrough in which can be commercially manifested in a decade time, if funding is an issue, would it take that long to have these technologies installed on their ships?

Good that you noticed the term "game-changing". Read again. It's the Carbon Dioxide extraction method that is game changing which can extract a high 92% of CO2 from seawater and not the whole shebang with it's false advantages which can solve the military dependency on fossil fuels. Their whole process consists of two steps. Carbon Dioxide gas per se cannot be used as fuel. It has to be converted/synthesized to a liquid hydrocarbon fraction using a metal catalyst before it can be used as fuel at only 60% conversion efficiency.

Even if they can extract 92% of Carbon Dioxide from seawater, based on their figures, seawater contains only 100 mg/L of Carbon Dioxide. That is exactly 0.01%. Carbon Dioxide is an impurity and not a major component in seawater.

By back-computing the figures from their press release, they can actually synthesize only 5.2 liters of fuel fraction from processing 100,000 liters of seawater. As I have said, It's a novel and brilliant discovery. Only snag is that it is not cost-efficient.

I said GAME CHANGER not game changing. its base on TS link not yours. dont put words to my mouth. why do people do that here ??

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer

No need to explain the process on how they do it and i know its not that efficient (for now). I know whats is Bipolar membrane electrodialysis thank you lol May I ask how you come up with "5.2 liters of fuel fraction from processing 100,000 liters of seawater" ? did you include the hydrogen component of this hydrocarbon fuel right ? Hydrogen like H2O in seawater Lol

The problem with you is that you keep stressing its not feasible/cost efficient and saying silly things that they need to compensate the power consumption of pumping sea water alone and processing it. When its clear that the $6per gallon is an END result of the process.

Honestly I dont know how they exactly compute it but I read and I equate...


Input --> ( $xxxx per kilowatt hour on a nuclear reactor ) + Investment (im not sure on this) = $6 per gallon <--- Output *

*Output can be decrease if $ per kilowatt is cheaper; $3 if done on land base
*the number of gallons of output can be increase if efficiency improve

Notice the play of words e.g. "predicted cost of 3 to 6 usd" This is a lousy excuse in scientific research. A good scientist does not predict. However, it's a safe choice of a word when the worst comes.

Its not a lousy excuse, its just intelligence on this matter eludes you lol.

eg

price of KWh varies so predicted result varies as well.

if KWH is $1,200 (cause its from nuclear reactor) and it produces 200 gallons of fuel they can sell it for $6 per gallon. Now this just an example of course they will sum up all the expenses and divide it to the number of gallon of fuel they produce hence the price of fuel.

If you wont agree and I ask you again, where do you think they come up of $6 per gallon if they didnt base it on parameters ?

[letsee!]

the time will come nga ang asian countries na pud ang madatu because of natural resources which rich countries are going shortages of.