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.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by jdub297

I think you didn't read the OPs source here is the article in its entirety.

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.

JP-5 is what fuels Navy jet fighters and results in multiple fuel transfers to aircraft carriers to maintain their onboard fuel stock. Producing that fuel from the abundant sea water would save the Navy from executing those sometimes risky transfers.

“The potential payoff is the ability to produce JP-5 fuel stock at sea reducing the logistics tail on fuel delivery with no environmental burden and increasing the Navy’s energy security and independence,” said Heather Willauer, a research chemist with NRL.

Navy officials estimate the process used to convert the seawater to fuel would cost the Navy between $3 and $6 per gallon.

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.

Read more:

It clearly states Republicans killed it the source is from .

If they can convert fuel for 3$ per gallon that is cheaper than it could be bought and transported. You are obviously trying to defend the republicans without looking at the facts.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM

Originally posted by detachedindividual

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.

You're understanding of tax breaks and economics is severely simplistic. I'm not discounting the long term cost savings of a proven solution, which this is not. I'd rather see private industry come up with the solution and sell it to the military / government (but obviously the oil companies have a tendency to buy up these kinds of solutions for some mysterious reason...). Usually when the government gets in the business of innovation the tech either gets classified or is so burdened with red tape that it ends up becoming anything but cost effective. I'm not arguing that this is a great idea, just that it's all too popular to demonize those who suggest not jumping into half cocked solutions and spending (or losing) tax payers money at the same time.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:19 PM
OF COURSE the republicans don't want that happening. Or any politican most likely. There is no money to made for them if they can turn sea water into jet fuel. They want us depended on oil for the rest of eternity on this earth.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:27 PM
A little off topic here, but is anyone else concerned that the Secretary of the Navy is named Mabus?

That is the exact name that Nostradamus cited as the 3rd antichrist.

If you believe that sort of thing....

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:57 PM
you have got to be kidding rediculous is this government...if it was such a breakthrough one would assume that Obama would be preaching this from the rooftop that the evil republicans and big oil are blocking this...very odd

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:58 PM
reply to post by liquidsmoke206

that's funny Mabus does ring a bell

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by allstarninja

Regardless if it's private or through the military if the government considers it a threat to national security we can consider it dead in the water not matter what....I'm ok with the miliary having a go at it as we get a lot of benefits from their technology from limb replacments to stuff we use everyday...sure we put a cap load of money in but the returns in my opinion are worth it....

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Mkoll

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.

I agree, there isn't room down there for what is already in place!

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:06 PM
reply to post by dominicus

this whole post is waaaayyy short on details. there is a serious problem going on in the military that at a time of severe budget problems, they are being forced to waste resources to implement questionable green policies. how about some links on what the process is, how far along is it, how much has been spent so far, and, how much more to make it happen. another link on exactly what is being blocked and why. is this particular project being blocked, or is it an offshoot of some giant failing program?
I have found that issues are usually way more complicated then some politician being for or against something. Call me cynical, but whenever someone introduces a bill called "teddybears for orphans", buried on page 739 says that for every dollar given to orphans, ten goes to a boondoggle project run by some cronycorrupt corporation. then when someone votes against the bill, the media comes out saying so and so hates orphans. and it is no accident that things are done that way.
Hey, trivia time. How many know that buried in TARP were multi million dollar set asides for wooden toy makers and rum distillers?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:51 PM
Turn water in to jet fuel....
Good idea! The earth makes more water everyday.....wait....that's oil.....Damn.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:10 PM
Mabus will soon die, then will come.

A horrible slaughter of people and animals.

At once vengeance is revealed coming from a hundred lands.

Thirst, and famine when the comet will pass.

This the quatrain?
Mabus = antichrist supposedly.....
but hey......isnt there a Comet comming now?
edit on 15-10-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Philodemus
Turn water in to jet fuel....
Good idea! The earth makes more water everyday.....wait....that's oil.....Damn.

You are partially right. The earth does accumulate more water each day from asteroids. You will not need to worry about it running out.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:00 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.

Gas is $5 a gallon in southern Ca,w no signs of going down in the future.

Somethings got to give eventually.

By the way did i mention i really dislike republicans?

Boo hoo, $5 a gallon. Here in the UK it's $8 - $9 a gallon, depending where you live. This is why I am not in a hurry to drive.

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by stirling

To which comet are you speaking of?

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:17 PM
Its very cost effective, it's more energy out than in, in effect, its overunity. Its not new either.

Run Your Car On Salt Water Fuel

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:18 AM
Look at all the money our government has wasted on conflicts overseas. I am simply sick and tired of Republican shenanigans of this nature. Their whole doctrine, whether people realize it or not, has to do with supporting things that will make more money for those who are involved in the upper echelons of big business.

So the budget doesn't allow for anything that would potentially benefit mankind in a HUGE way, despite the fact that so much money can be wasted on wars. And those wars are making the upper echelons of big business filthy rich. So the Republicans start the conflicts, and then make billions of dollars, basically using government as a tool for personal wealth. And now here they are doing it again by blocking something of such magnitude because it will hurt their bottom lines, their stocks for Rep. Congressmen, and the bank balance of all their campaign contributors, who are filthy rich Republicans.

So basically they do not care about doing things that would benefit mankind. They like to do things that make them money, while attempting to sell the idea to the public by saying they are helping mankind, but they are only helping themselves. And anything good done in between is done simply because it was convenient, wouldn't hurt their pocketbooks, and would make them seem like they actually care about benefiting mankind.

So what I'm saying is that they will find the money if it is going to benefit them, their supporters, and colleagues in money making, but cannot find it when it will really put a dent in their income levels, effectively making their largest supporters angry with them. So we have representatives, our supposed voice in government, making decisions not based on what they think is right, not based on what the people want, but based on nothing more than what is going to make their sources of money happy.

It is not a coincidence that so many people in high level government go on to get jobs at large financial firms, the oil business, and a whole host of other businesses that their voting history has benefited. So in effect, big business does control the fate of this country, because it indirectly makes some of the most important decisions, and it does while not giving a crap about what would benefit us.

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
This is just insane.

What is wrong with our leaders. They would hold humanity in the dark ages for financial gain.

I wonder why we cant get enlightened and brilliant people in power.....oh wait....that is who is there and is doing this, to protect the businesses of their enlightened and brilliant friends......

too bad, so sorry earth and humanity, we like scrooge mcduck money we can swim in......
edit on 16-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:15 AM

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.

Once again an Elite conservative, corporatist is protecting the Oil Lobby because said person doesn't
understand that oil lobby doesn't want the world to move past oil

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by allstarninja

The matter about if "technology isn't cost effective" or it is, depends on the scenarios. Consider the capability of producing your own fuel in a location that it is not readily available or the transport is not only costly but risky...

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:05 AM
Turning Water into CO2 and Hydrogen in order to make Jet Fuel ist like Mixing Hamburgers with Sushi in order to make bread.

Are they really that retarded ? Hydrogen is a much more advanced and powerful propellant. Only a fool would process it into hydrocarbons.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in