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

Sounds like a Joe Cell. Old technology that Stan Myers was using 30 years ago. People who have delved into this for production seem to meet an untimely end, but now the govt is using it. Makes me scared we could use up our water and make the seas too salty for life. And yet its still probably better than fossil fuels and way better than nuclear IMO. Too bad tptb have killed free and renewable energy for their profits, would be a lot freer and more peaceful world if it was abundant to the masses.

panaque
Sounds like a Joe Cell. Old technology that Stan Myers was using 30 years ago. People who have delved into this for production seem to meet an untimely end, but now the govt is using it. Makes me scared we could use up our water and make the seas too salty for life. And yet its still probably better than fossil fuels and way better than nuclear IMO. Too bad tptb have killed free and renewable energy for their profits, would be a lot freer and more peaceful world if it was abundant to the masses.

Isn't a Joe cell just use hydrogen from electrolysis?

I may be wrong, but I didn't think the "Joe cell" technology involved taking hydrogen extracted via electrolysis and THEN combining it with the CO2 (which was also extracted from the seawater, in this case) to create a liquid hydrocarbon fuel (a fuel similar to gasoline/petrol).

From what I know about a Joe cell, it does not involve combining hydrogen and CO2 to make a liquid hydrocarbon. I didn't think CO2 was involved at all, let alone CO2 extracted from water.

Yes, different combination of compounds and elements, but its still making fuel out of water by changing it into a hydrogen derivative. This is a cool new combination, but the technology to make fuel from water is not recent. I like the joe cell technology better as its a more simple method we could all use. But you are correct, its different.

Finally at last, the NAVY harneses WATER.

Took them long enough.

pookle
Finally at last, the NAVY harneses WATER.

Took them long enough.

edit on 11-4-2014 by pookle because: (no reason given)

Water isn't an energy source. You have to spend more energy than you get back as fuel.

Do not underestimate the importance of this advance just because it is not an energy source. Building lots of new powerplants may not be easy. However converting entire transportation infrastructure away from hydrocarbon fuel is insanely hard. And readily produced green and sustainable fuel means we wouldnt have to do that anymore. In a way, this is even better than having a free energy device or whatnot.

panaque
This is a cool new combination, but the technology to make fuel from water is not recent. I like the joe cell technology better as its a more simple method we could all use. But you are correct, its different.

Correct. Fuel from water is not that new. For example, most of the hydrogen used today to power hydrogen fuel cells is derived from water. Also, most of the liquid hyrdrogen used as a rocket propellent is also derived from water.

As you said, the fuel produced by the method outlined in the OP is different than other water-derived fuels in use today (such as the aforementioned hydrogen fuel cells) because this method produces something akin to gas/petrol.

Soylent Green Is People

Correct. Fuel from water is not that new. For example, most of the hydrogen used today to power hydrogen fuel cells is derived from water. Also, most of the liquid hyrdrogen used as a rocket propellent is also derived from water.

As you said, the fuel produced by the method outlined in the OP is different than other water-derived fuels in use today (such as the aforementioned hydrogen fuel cells) because this method produces something akin to gas/petrol.

I dont think thats true, most of hydrogen used today comes from fossil fuels.

en.wikipedia.org...

MysterX

No, you cannot make Hydrogen for no cost that's true. Even thinking about it, has at least some energy cost.

Although, the same old more out for less in argument rears its head again.

An example of this fallacy would be one of the most obvious and dramatic...a Hydrogen thermonuclear bomb. (or any of the trillions of stars, if you perfer)

Not really. You have to understand that there's a qualitative difference here, but in the end, you have the same issue.

Electrolyzing water is a chemical reaction. It deals with electron shells. Fusing deuterium and tritium is a nuclear reaction. It changes the nature of nuclei.

When you burn hydrogen in oxygen, you form water. Once it's burned, that's as far as you can go. "unburning" it takes as much energy as you get from burning it, if you do it perfectly. No one does it perfectly. So it takes MORE energy to "unburn" it than you can possibly get back from burning it. It takes a certain amount of energy to separate a hydrogen atom from a water molecule. There is no way to get that hydrogen with less energy. No resonance, nor orgone, no fields or vibrations, no good vibes, nor the adeledicnander force, nor happy thoughts will pry that thing loose with less.

When you fuse deuterium and tritium, you get He4 and a loose neutron, and a bunch of energy. Once fused, the He4 won't easily come apart. It takes all the energy produced by the fusion, plus a neutron, to take the He4 apart and make deuterium and tritium again. So if I wanted to do the nuclear analogy of the water electrolysis, I'd STILL be unable to do it - you can't unfuse helium and refuse the deuterium and tritium for a net gain. Because there is no way to "unfuse" helium and make a net profit in energy, any more than you can unburn water and get hydrogen again for a net profit in energy.

YES...it takes energy to create the chain reaction, usually in the form of another explosive device, a small chemical explosive or fission device is used to create a self sustaining thermonuclear reaction, and liberate MANY times more energy than that given off by the trigger device.

You think you can cause fusion with a small chemical explosive? There's a Nobel waiting for you!

But that energy you're getting is coming from the difference in binding energy between the D and T and the resultant He4. Once you get it, you can't unfuse the helium and do it over and over. Once you use that energy, it's gone. Sort of like what happens when you burn hydrogen.

So yeah, there's always a cost in going about liberating the true energy contained within, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a higher cost than the released energy gains, nor does it have to go against any cherished physical laws...at least in principle.

You already liberated the true energy within when you burned the hydrogen to make water the first time. It's gone.

Materials, construction, methodologies employed, reasonance, modulation of current are all integral parts of the puzzle that need to be employed in HHO (AKA Browns gas, Oxyhydrogen, Hydroxy) production.

There's no puzzle to solve - it takes a certain amount of energy to separate water into its constituent parts. All the hoping and flashing lights you like won't change that.

Personally, i don't think we're at the point of being able to run our vehicles purely on HHO developed on demand quite yet...but it's close, it's a matter of details and finding the correct certain little somethings that need to come together just so, to tease a little of the massive energies contained within Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms, and unlike a nuke, tease a little of it out in a very controlled way.

The massive energies contained within the atoms will stay there in a chemical reaction. They are two totally separate regimes.

Fuel will be needed to make the electrical energy required to drive the HHO cells to make the HHO gas, but such is life.

And, oddly, it will require more to make the electrical energy to drive the HHO cells to make the HHO gas than you get back from burning it.

...apart from the obvious interests, who wouldn't want that?

Wishful thinking won't make it so.

One thing is certain, if we don't try, if we use more effort in thinking or shouting how something won't work or can't be done, instead of putting that effort into finding ways of skirting around the obstacles to deliver the impossible (as the 'impossible' often becomes obviously possible once the right method is found)..we definitely won't be making any real progress.

Trying things that don't work is a waste of time and money. But have at it.

For one, i celebrate these pioneers in alternative energy methods...even if their attempts are ultimately proved to be a folly...it will be a magnificent folly.

In the case of the OP, it's not overunity, nor HHO, nor Joe Cells, nor any other scam, they're using electrical energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, and heat to run a F-T synthesis. Those things came from science. It works. It might not scale up, but it works. Joe Cells/Meyer etc are a sort of cargo cult. You see shiny blinky things on TV and put together hodge-podges of crap and say 'if only I had the magic combination'.

Maslo

Soylent Green Is People

Correct. Fuel from water is not that new. For example, most of the hydrogen used today to power hydrogen fuel cells is derived from water. Also, most of the liquid hyrdrogen used as a rocket propellent is also derived from water.

As you said, the fuel produced by the method outlined in the OP is different than other water-derived fuels in use today (such as the aforementioned hydrogen fuel cells) because this method produces something akin to gas/petrol.

I dont think thats true, most of hydrogen used today comes from fossil fuels.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for the correction.
Now that I did a little more research, I think you are right.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People




According to the patent the hydrogen will be produced fossil fuel-free , in the Navies case most likely nuclear

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.

interupt42
and how long before the salt tax is implemented?

Sorta the reverse of a salary....get it?

reply to post by interupt42


I think I read that there will be material cost as well in the conversion process.

Nickel is used in the process otherwise I would say they should set up plants at geothermal sites to produce fuel for export to me I think that would be prime locals for sea water to fuel refineries. Hawaii would be fuel rich.

I am curious as to how much nickel is used in the process if it isn't much I could see such refineries in the distant future.

They've got it all wrong.

Deuterium oxide is what they need. D2O = DOD = Department of Defense. LOL

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

Now all they need is planes that can fly for hours on a couple of drops of fuel.

I suspect the main purpose off this announcement is assure the government provides more funding to some company who makes it living off the US military machine.

Oh great now everyone will be able to run 100 foot yachts, just when you get one, everyone else has one, good grief.

roadgravel
I suspect the main purpose off this announcement is assure the government provides more funding to some company who makes it living off the US military machine.

I would think the main purpose of this (the goal of this research) is to reduce, or outright eliminate, the requirement for the Navy to operate fuel tanker ships that need to go back to port to re-fill their storage tanks.

I mean, it makes perfect sense why the navy would be looking to a way to create fuel for its ships in situ rather than having a fuel supply chain that includes a travel requirement for their tankers. The goal would be for the fuel supply chain for any ship to be self-contained to the ship's theater of operations.

True -- this method requires more energy put into the process than they get out of the process, but the Navy envisions using nuclear reactors on board these future tanker/refinery ships in order to power this seawater-to-hydrocarbon fuel process. It may be more expensive per gallon of fuel than simply using the fuel they currently use (produced from fossil-fuel raw materials), but the navy is not concerned about the cost per gallon as much as being concerned about supply chains and fuel availability.

Besides, I bet that if you consider the reduction is supply-chain costs, this process may end up being comparable in cost per gallon than the current fuel.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Of course, in the long run. Anyway, the government will probably spend as much on this as 20 to 30 years of fuel.

My point was is that we are hearing the story because helps keep money flowing.

When did the government start caring about the cost of military equipment? Been over paying forever and are happy to still do it today.

roadgravel
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Of course, in the long run. Anyway, the government will probably spend as much on this as 20 to 30 years of fuel.

Maybe -- but like I said, the goal is not fuel efficiency, but having a source of fuel that is not dependent on a long-distance supply chain -- a chain that could be disrupted or broken by a variety of reasons, and a supply chain that is in itself expensive to operate (a supply chain that requires its own fuel, time, and manpower to operate).

In times of need (war, for example), I can envision the elimination of the supply chain and the ability to create hydrocarbon fuel in situ to be worth any energy inefficiencies in the total system. It may or may not save money, but that is not what is relevant here. What is relevant is that a supply of fuel will be more easily available, even IF the total fuel production cost is higher.

My point was is that we are hearing the story because helps keep money flowing.

I think that even if this project was completely secret, its potential benefits would make it worthy of money and research. I'm sure the proponents of this research could convince the Pentagon (who writes the budget requirements) and the Congress (who approves that budget and gives out that money) to fund their research, even if the project was not known to the public.