It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Navy says it can now convert seawater into fuel

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

buster2010

Bilk22

Bedlam

Bilk22
reply to post by interupt42
 


I think this was someone else's invention. Didn't the disappear him or something? The guy with the dune buggy.


This is different, because it's not bull#.

They're not magically turning water into fuel. They're taking the water apart, filtering out the CO2, taking it apart, and putting together hydrocarbons the hard way.

That takes a huge amount of energy input. More than you'll get out of it by burning the fuel. So the Navy's using nuclear reactors for energy input. It's not efficient. But it's better (maybe) than shipping fuel around.
Well if I remember correctly, that's exactly what the dune buggy guy did. He even used a microwave if I remember correctly.


You are thinking of Stanley Meyer and he used electricity to extract the hydrogen. And his dune buddy did run on it.
edit on 8-4-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)
I just looked at the video. He used a laser to perform some function.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Technically, they aren't creating anything. They're changing one form of energy for another. It takes energy to make the conversion (nuclear energy) which produces waste as well. They're not cleaning up anything, just taking what they have and making it useable somewhere else with a probably detriment to the atmosphere as well as the water.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JacobsLadder
 


Not sure anyone was suggesting that they were breaking the law of Conservation of energy or that they created a perpetual motion machine?

In regards to the environment:



When carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, a significant fraction is passively taken up by the ocean forming carbonic acid that makes the ocean more acidic. This acidification has been shown to be harmful to many species of marine life, especially corals and shellfish. By the middle of this century, the globe will likely warm by at least 2 degrees Celsius and the oceans will experience a more than 60 percent increase in acidity relative to pre-industrial levels. The alkaline solution generated by the new process could be added to the ocean to help neutralize this acid and help offset its effects on marine biota. However, further research is needed, the authors said.

Read more at: phys.org...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Looks like they demonstrated the proof of concept

phys.org...




Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, demonstrated proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Read more at: phys.org...


they used a World War II P-51 Mustang red-tail RC plane:

edit on 53430America/ChicagoTue, 08 Apr 2014 11:53:06 -0500up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I think a lot of people here are missing the point of the breakthrough. Spliting water to make hydrogen gas is old tech but this process is splitting water + taking CO2 out of the water and converting it to "liquid" fuel.

JP5 fuel to be precise which can then be used to refuel military aircraft at sea.


It would do away with resupply tankers meeting fleets on extended tours.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


This just means that the resupply tanker will be with the fleet the entire time.
If warships aren't going nuclear then they will need to be refueled by something.

I foresee a fast nuclear powered resupply ship tagging along with the fleet.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


When I read about this a few years ago and they were still trying to get the process down the Navy had said they would use existing nuclear carriers that were going to be mothballed to process the fuel.

Does hat mean the planes will be able to land and refuel on them I do not know but even if they are just floating refineries that is still better than having resupply tankers in need of escort traversing the ocean to meet up with the fleet every week or two.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Not to mention the more limited dependency on Oil as an energy source.

edit on 39430America/ChicagoTue, 08 Apr 2014 18:39:03 -0500up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
If the technology does pan out, it could be a game changer for the entire world. The applications could be a shining marvel of technology and ultimately end up solving several problems. The first is that the question would be could this application be used to clean the air?

Can it be used in areas where the smog is very bad, like Beijing or say LA? Could it be used in areas, where fossil fuels are used to generate energy? If so, then it could be used to make the air cleaner and healthier all around for everyone and the entire planet.

However, what is the down side to this, or the dangers involved?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

sdcigarpig
If the technology does pan out, it could be a game changer for the entire world. The applications could be a shining marvel of technology and ultimately end up solving several problems. The first is that the question would be could this application be used to clean the air?

Can it be used in areas where the smog is very bad, like Beijing or say LA? Could it be used in areas, where fossil fuels are used to generate energy? If so, then it could be used to make the air cleaner and healthier all around for everyone and the entire planet.

However, what is the down side to this, or the dangers involved?


The energy put in to create the fuel is more that the energy potential of the fuel created. So no.

This is good for the Navy because it could possibly lead to a tanker/refinery (with a nuclear reactor to provide the necessary ship power and refinery power) that could supply the Navy's fossil-fuel powered craft with fuel without the tanker ever needed to go back to port to restock itself with fuel. It would give the Navy a virtually inexhaustible fuel supply -- albeit at higher fuel production cost (although those costs me offset in other ways).

I'm not too sure about the air-cleaning aspect, either, because the planned purpose of the fuel it creates would be to be burned again by another ship -- thus pumping that C02 back into the air.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The only way I can see that process replacing fossil fuel is if some other technologies are refined.

Such as: www.abovetopsecret.com...

At that point power consumption for the conversion process wouldn't be much of a factor.


There have even been some recent breakthroughs at geothermal plants so if they scaled up and used their excess electric they could use that to produce liquid fuel for the market. Even power plants operating off-peak hours could use their overstock of current to produce fuel.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Bilk22
Well if I remember correctly, that's exactly what the dune buggy guy did. He even used a microwave if I remember correctly.


None of these guys can give you an explanation of what they're doing, and then have someone replicate it outside their influence. Because they're cranks and frauds. And Meyer was among them.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   

buster2010
You are thinking of Stanley Meyer and he used electricity to extract the hydrogen. And his dune buddy did run on it.


Hell, YOU can do that. Electrolysis is old school. What ISN'T true is any "resonance" hoohah wherein you put in less energy to crack the water apart than you get back burning it. That's where you can play Spot The Crank, and Meyer was definitely one.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Bilk22
I just looked at the video. He used a laser to perform some function.


I'm sure. If it doesn't have lots of flashy lights and gadgetry, you might notice that the thing's not actually doing what he claims.

I imagine Tesla, fields, vibrations, resonance, ZPE, dark matter and quantum something-or-other were involved too.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The article doesn’t describe the method which is simply to use nuclear generated electricity, to split water into hydrogen gas, which is then combined with CO2 extracted from seawater in order to create liquid fuel. Any volume of seawater naturally contains 140 times more CO2 (dissolved within it) than from an equivalent volume of air.
I’ve long wondered why all off-peak electricity, provided by e.g. renewables such as wind & solar, but also nuclear, is not used to create hydrogen, which is then stored, awaiting collection from use in any industrial process…

To make this happen does not require hydrogen production occurring at the location of any isolated wind turbine, or single solar cell. The electricity they produce should simply be sent down the grid, where it can join with all surplus electricity (locally produced) from all wind-solar at any centralised hydrogen producing facility (thereby benefiting from economies of scale). I am amazed this is not already being done, but then, what do I-you know of its cost-effectiveness?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Cliff notes on the process:



The NRL process begins by extracting carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater.
As seawater passes through a sepcially built cell, it is subjected to a small electric current.
This causes the seawater to exchange hydrogen ions produced at the anode with sodium ions.
As a result, the seawater is acidified.
Meanwhile, at the cathode, the water is reduced to hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide is formed.
The end product is hydrogen and carbon dioxide gas, and the sodium hydroxide is added to the leftover seawater to neutralize its acidity.
In the next step, the hydrogen and carbon dioxide are passed into a heated reaction chamber with an iron catalyst.
The gases combine and form long-chained unsaturated hydrocarbons with methane as a by-product.
The unsaturated hydrocarbons are then made to form longer hydrocarbon molecules containing six to nine carbon atoms.
Using a nickel-supported catalyst, these are then converted into jet fuel.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... ater.html#ixzz2yMMV3E8P
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




This looks like the Patent and contains more details about the process, reason for the need, goals, and summary:

www.google.com...




Publication number US7420004 B2
Publication type Grant
Application number US 11/108,149
Publication date Sep 2, 2008
Filing date Apr 12, 2005
Priority date Apr 15, 2004
Fee status Paid
Also published as US20050232833, WO2006004583A2, WO2006004583A3
Inventors Dennis R. Hardy, Timothy Coffey
Original Assignee The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy

Abstract
A process for producing synthetic hydrocarbons that reacts carbon dioxide, obtained from seawater of air, and hydrogen obtained from water, with a catalyst in a chemical process such as reverse water gas shift combined with Fischer Tropsch synthesis. The hydrogen is produced by nuclear reactor electricity, nuclear waste heat conversion, ocean thermal energy conversion, or any other source that is fossil fuel-free, such as wind or wave energy. The process can be either land based or sea based.


edit on 41430America/ChicagoTue, 08 Apr 2014 23:41:24 -0500up3042 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
This is a very important advance that will go a long way towards solving issues like global warming and peak oil.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Grimpachi

JP5 fuel to be precise which can then be used to refuel military aircraft at sea.


It would do away with resupply tankers meeting fleets on extended tours.


This would not do away with resupply tankers. but resupply tankers would become nuclear powered ships that made fuel on the move with the fleet or to supply shuttle tankers that delivered fuel to the fleet in combat zones allowing them to stay far from enemy action.

I believe as soon as the navy builds there first fuel ship other will take this to the corporate market.

Many island nations would love to have power and fuel supplied from a large barge set off shore.
The barge would contain a nuclear power plant and fuel plant.
The barge would supply fuel and electrical power.

A nuclear power plant on a barge is a lot safer then a shore based nuke plant.
built in a dry dock type barge in case of a reactor problem the reactor could be cooled by lower it into the sea stopping any chance of a melt down. once the problem is fixed you them could raise the reactor and resume operation.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
if the by product is CO2 isnt that a bad thing??

I was under the impression that we were trying to reduce green house gasses??



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

TiM3LoRd
if the by product is CO2 isnt that a bad thing??

I was under the impression that we were trying to reduce green house gasses??


The Navy necessarily isn't trying to do that -- at least that is NOT the goal of this process.

The goal of this process is to have a ship that can make fuel for many of the other ships in the navy. That way the Navy would not need to transport tankers full of fuel all over the world and into a theater of operations. They could simply have a few of these refinery ships out there, constantly supplying fuel without needing to transport it over vast distances.

This is not a "free energy" solution -- its takes more energy to MAKE the fuel than can be gotten out of the fuel. That's why they are using nuclear power to make this fuel. They use nuclear power to make fuel for their fossil-fuel powered ships.

This is not necessarily an ecological solution either, because (the way I see it) while they may be taking CO2 out of the environment to create this fuel, they will simply put that CO2 back in when the fuel is eventually burned.


edit on 4/9/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join