It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Navy scientists and researchers say they are close to a breakthrough toward turning seawater into jet fuel.
The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory is working to extract the carbon dioxide and produce hydrogen gas from the seawater. The key is then converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons that can then be used to develop JP-5 fuel stock.
Text Of course, this supposed breakthrough comes as the Republicans in Congress have fought against the efforts by the Navy to develop alternative fuels. Republicans claim the Navy can’t afford to attempt to create fuel out of seawater or cooking oil when the defense budget is getting slashed.
Navy and Marine Corps leaders have said they can’t afford not to considering the advances the Marine Corps has made in operational energy in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by dominicus
This has been around for a while. The plan would be to use a decommissioned carrier [Enterprise comes to mind] to travel with the carrier group and produce distillate fuel using nuclear power.
That sounds like an energy intensive process which would have a negative energy return on investment unless I'm missing something.
You can't refine the laws of thermodynamics any further
It's people like you who swallow this kind of nonsense without any critical thinking that scare me
Originally posted by pacific_waters
Once again a libtard twists the facts to promote a lie. What Rep. Forbes and other republicans are objecting to is Navy Secretary Ray Mabus' plan to Navy fuel being supplied by 50% alternative fuels by 2020.
A study, commissioned by the Department of Defense stated the Navy will need to buy 336 million gallons of renewable fuel per year in order to meet its aim. Each gallon will cost between $1.43 and $5.24 more than petroleum. Which means the Navy could wind up spending an extra $1.76 billion annually on biofuels. In comparison, a new destroyer costs about $1.6 billion, at a time when the shipbuilding budget is getting cut.
The question is simple, Should the Navy have an open-ended budget to buy fuels whatever the price? It's not only Republicans who are opposed. The Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee went even further, blocking the Defense Department from helping build biofuel refineries unless “specifically authorized by law. This is nothing more than an attempt by a political appointee to ram a political agenda down the throats of the Navy. If the obama administration is concerned about relying on foreign energy sources perhaps it should look to push for expansion of US based oil sources such as shale and coal gasification instead of pushing an agenda that calls for buying fuels that add at least 1.7 billion dollars to the Navy's operating budget per annum.
It's hypocritical for the left to criticize oil company subsidies when Mabus' push is nothing more than a government bailout and funding of an industry that can't make it on its own. Once again the WH is pushing for another Solyndra.