It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Navy close to turning Sea water into jet fuel, Republicans try to block it. Go Figure!!!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:08 AM
reply to post by pacific_waters

Well the question here is, "Does the extra cost per gallon surpass the handling cost of a regular tanker?"

If we are using an old carrier then we are saving the cost of a tanker and using the nuclear reactors to generate power.
And remember the tanker has to go to a fueling port. So it too has to pay for the fuel to go to port then back to the fleet.

A ship that can generate it's own fuel and continuously travel with the fleet might be a more reasonable cost saving than a tanker or multiple tankers that have to go thousand of miles to and from a fuel port.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
Sounds like another subsystem of a nuke powered carrier. Whats a few more tons

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:38 AM
Well, this is obviously motivated by money (why is everything motivated by money, anyway? seriously?). The oil industry in America has a history of trying to sabotage efforts at making alternative energy because they know it will compete with their business model.

You know what will happen when we run out of oil? The world will be a better place. But the oil industry will probably try to corner the alternative energy market at that point.

Also, you can totally create fuel out of water, it just takes energy to do that. And considering that a lot of Navy vessels have nuclear power plants on them, they probably have the energy required. I think this is a great idea.
edit on 15-10-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:43 AM
The moon has plenty of Helium3, 1 ton of moon rocks contain enough Helium3 to power a large city for a year. The technology to extract it is only 10 years away. It's just like Tesla's free electricity and natural gas. The big corporations are making too much money to allow any alternative energy source to thrive.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:01 AM
reply to post by dominicus

S&F for the OP! It's because republicans want to take this country "back." Not sure, but I think they made some kind of pledge to a guy named Grover Norquist to insure that the only direction this country goes is backwards. At least as long as Barack Obama is POTUS.

TPTB behind these republicans are the very same people who want to quash all development of alternative fuels and energy sources because their monopoly over our supply of "energy" is the key to maintaining their worldwide dominance. It's literally the tool they use to enslave humanity.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by allstarninja
but we (the USA) are broke, yo!

Try telling that to the Republicans who want to give their already rich buddies tax breaks, which the middle and lower classes with have to pay instead. The bill doesn't just go away, someone has to pay it. If the elites are paying even less than they are now, who the hell do you think ends up with that bill, the tooth fairy?

As for this process, some are suggesting it would cost more, but in the long run it would save billions. When you factor in the storage and transport of existing fuel, having fuel on-tap at the scene when you need it is vastly more efficient that transporting it and storing it.

You have to factor in everything from the creation of the fuel to the use of it. You have to calculate the costs of creating it, storing it, handling it, treating it, transporting it and using it. Using sea water on site would remove a lot of the costs from the production and transportation of it.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by Mkoll

Well, this could, and probably would, be accomplished on a nuclear aircraft carrier, which has virtually unlimited energy due to it's two nuclear reactors. The energy to produce this probably isn't even an issue.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:39 AM
If you think the Navy would share any of their discoveries with us plebes I have a bridge to sell you in Arizona.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:40 AM
Elites will not allow such cheap alternative energies to reach the public . If people move towards free/alternative energy sources , their global dominance will collapse .

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM
i heard some people said that the effect of producing hydrogen does not as good as saving the environment.
is it true?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by detachedindividual

Not to mention the reduced risk of spills.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:51 AM
What I want to know more about is what were the Military Using in Afgahnastan that they referenced???

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:01 AM
We need a bigger military budget, not revolutionary technology. I think we could kill a lot of people with the money libs will be wasting on this project.

Romney 2012!

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by dominicus

You're going to get a lot of stars from zombie Democrats for blindly trashing the Republicans, but I'm sure there is a ,legitimate reason for them blocking the funding. Hey, wait a second., Aren't you Dems/left wingers all about cutting funding from the military?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:37 AM
Rather than the Navy spend MORE to meet a planned goal for cleaner fuel, just think of the weapons they could buy instead. We can then invade those countries who use wind power, hydro, thermal and solar.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by dominicus

With all the oil being dumped into the Ocean, I'm not surprised this is possible.
*I kid

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Mkoll

Well, this could, and probably would, be accomplished on a nuclear aircraft carrier, which has virtually unlimited energy due to it's two nuclear reactors. The energy to produce this probably isn't even an issue.

I think the navy would have more interest in using their spare nuclear energy to power high energy lasers to shoot down missiles or to power other combat systems instead of trying to install large water/fuel tanks and hydrolysis systems in an already cramped as hell engineering deck to fulfill a task (getting fuel to jets) that is already handled perfectly well by USN logistics. You'd still have to resupply frequently anyways to replenish munitions.

This isn't even touching R&D and construction costs for a system that isn't even necessary.

In the future when fuel is less available this may come in handy but we aren't there yet and until we are it is not economically viable to invest in fuel sources like these. Lets use cheaper fuel while we can.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by Mkoll

That sounds like an energy intensive process which would have a negative energy return on investment unless I'm missing something.

You gotta start somewhere, then refine, refine, refine, update, renew, and eventually you get to a really nice place.

The reason why you will not get more energy out from this process than you put in is because of the laws of thermodynamics. If you expend energy to break the bonds of water and get 2 H and one O you cannot possibly get more energy than you put in back by recombining the atoms in a reaction to form water.

You cannot refine this process past a certain point, and that point will still be one where you are creating fuel at an energy loss. The only reason why you would want this is because the opportunity cost of another fuel source is higher. Like for example if the carrier group cannot resupply and they want to be able to make their own jet fuel. That's about the only scenario I can think of where this technology would be useful and even then it is fairly dubious.

Biofuels you can make without an energy loss on investment (if you do it right) because most of the energy you get out of biofuels comes from sunlight absorbed during the lives of the plants or algae you're turning into fuel, it doesn't require massive amounts of electrical energy to create.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by dominicus

Either you didn't read the article which you cite as the source of your claim, or you are deliberately misleading and misrepresenting the story.

The article says nothing about Republicans blocking a seawater alternative!
You could've quoted it, but then you'd have to change the title and lose the impact of your conservative-bashing B.S.

The article referes to congressional hearing on alternative fuels in the wake of the Solyndra debacle. The Navy didn't ask for support of this program, but for others with fuel costs as high as $40.00.gallon!
What a pathetic abuse of facts, truth and "analysis."

Here's the true story from your own "source:"

Republican members swarmed in to attack his alternative fuel plans as a waste of precious dollars in a time of austere budgets. Since 2009, the Navy has been paying anywhere from $16 to $40 per gallon — or more — for its various batches of alternative fuel, but it was only recently that anyone appeared to take notice.

See anything in there about "seawater conversion?"
This thread is nothing more than a blatant attempt to build a lie out of legitimate news that says more about your motives than any conservative or Republican defense of "big oil."
The deeper the Obama administration keeps digging its own holes, and the farther back they fall among votera, the more despaerate crap like this gets thrown at the public walll to see what if anything will stick.
What a waste of bandwidth.

Deny oignorance.


posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:42 PM
This would be useful for extended trips with carrier groups as mentioned before they would be converting nuclear energy into liquid fuel as the OP stated JP5. I had thought they phased out JP5 for safer JP8 which I know they use in Apache battalions and all ground vehicles. This tech could still be used in civilian applications because all power plants run at higher rates where power is not being used at full efficiency but because it takes more power and time to shut off and turn on something like coal stacks they just keep them running. That excess energy could be diverted into hydrolysis or even compressing air in underground tanks to be later used at peak power times. I had read a few years ago that all US power plants could implement some sort of system where it would increase efficiency by 20% and would reduce the need for new plants drastically.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in