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

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


it has more uses and is less volatile. You don't want people and ships to blow up handling the stuff..

uses of hydrocarbons

the use of hydrocarbons (alkanes) depends on the number of carbon atoms

number of carbon atoms form use

1-4 (g) heating and cooking fuel

5-7 (L) solvents and gasoline

6-18 (L) gasoline

12-24 (L) jet fuel and camp stove fuel

18-50 (L) diesel fuel, heating oil and lubricants

50+ (s) petroleum jelly, paraffin wax, tar and asphalt

wiki.answers.com...

uses of hydrogen

Uses of Hydrogen
•Used to process (‘upgrade’) fossil fuels.

•Used to produce ammonia- used in common household cleaning products.

•Hydrogen is used as a hydrogenating agent to produce methanol and convert unhealthy unsaturated fats and oils to saturated fats and oils.

•The triple point of hydrogen (the temperature where all 3 phases- gas, solid and liquid- are in equilibrium) can be used to calibrate some thermometers.

•Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is produced in nuclear reactions. It can be used to make hydrogen bombs and acts as a radiation source in luminous paints. In the biosciences, tritium is sometimes used as an isotopic label.

•Hydrogen (either used on its own or combined with nitrogen) is used in many manufacturing plants to determine whether there are any leaks. It is also used to detect leaks in food packages.

•Hydrogen is used as a rotor coolant in electrical generators.

•Hydrogen gas is used as a shielding gas in atomic hydrogen welding (AHW).

•Used in the production of hydrochloric acid- used widely in chemical industries.

•Hydrogen gas is used to reduce many metallic ores.

•Can be used to make water.
wanttoknowit.com...

both are useful, BUT, which would you opt for sustaining operation time of ships at sea?

edit on 16-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 



Liquid hydrogen has about four times the volume for the same amount of energy of kerosene based jet-fuel.


That's why.

The aircraft aren't designed for it and even with they were, they would have a far inferior range due to far inferior energy density.
edit on 16/10/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I can think of no better example of why I left the democrat party. Sure, that goes back to Reagan, yet, it has gotten worse. If we still had the Scoop Jackson era, I might be more inclined to think otherwise, but the sheer volume of hate that comes out of today's left, directed at conservative americans makes radical islamists look like their friends.....



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Hydrogen only does contain less energy per volume unit compared to carbon-based fuels when you burn it. This method is primitive and could long be obsolete, the technology exists. As example I point to the German Type 212 submarines which use hydrogen / proton exchange mechanisms to generate electricity. When you think about fusion .. well I don't need to explain you that the energy contained within a cubic centimeter hydrogen will equal many tons of any carbon based fuel, do I ?

The major question that should be raised is why these technologies have not been sophisticated and pursued to the full extend possible. I think this is because there is a strong force working to keep us dependent upon carbon based fuels.

And especially considering the OP title .. if anyone still believes that this party or that party had any say in these matters ... let me break it to you with three little words: They do not.

P.S. Anyone else have the feeling that the political stereotyping on ATS is becoming more and more unbearable ? Hardly a day goes by in which the ATS front page is not completely swamped with Obama and Romney and Hillary and Democrats and liberals and Republicans and .. bah getting OT here .. nvm



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
I am really close to turning lead into gold. It'll save the world economy!

Just give me a larger research grant and I know I can do it.



Here's reality: Don't believe everything a PhD says. Especially when it comes to money. Most aren't out to defraud the government, but "close" could mean a lot of things, especially if they are only doing basic research.


This is the GOP argument, because anyone intelligent is wrong according to them.. So the PhD's are wrong, the journalists and researchers and scientists are all wrong... This consequently is the same reason the Taliban shot that little girl. Anyone educated may have a different opinion than you, so stop education at all cost....



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


This is a good thing. I hope they just keep in mind some form of cycling process so the salt water is not eliminated totally and just steamed somehow and then recaptured and placed back into the oceans. Dont want to see the oceans disappear due to new fuel, otherwise great idea.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Source


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.


Awesome am i right? I mean this could revolutionize the world.

Not so fast. Republicans, probably with oil industry money and friends, wanna put a block to it.



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.

...Of course, : AAHEM!....uhhh no we cant have that! .....We'll just have to block that one, um kaaaay



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


Taking carbon dioxide from the sea to turn it into fuel?... Are the leftwingers so blind that they can't see the consequences of this?... Sorry, but this claim that "there is too much CO2" bs has been debunked many times... The oceans and the atmosphere have held MORE CO2 than now and there were no "massive deaths"... The real problem comes from REAL toxic chemicals being released EVERY DAY, yet the environlunatics want to "sequester CO2", when it is known that much of marine life live off CO2, and need CO2...

The environlunatics instead of trying to get rid of the REAL toxic chemicals being released eveyday into the oceans they want to make it worse by starving sea life of the CO2 they need...


Oh and btw, you all think the NAVY researchers do everything for the good of marine life?... What about using dolphins as "suicide bombers" to launch themselves into enemy submarines with bombs attached to them?...

What about the explosions undersea done by the NAVY which is known to have killed, maimed and injured dolphins, and whales?...

I was a sailor in the U.S. NAVY, and even I know that they don't, and didn't do everything "that is good for us, or for life in the sea"...

edit on 16-10-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

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?


Yea, well that's California. Gas is 3.43 here and dropping.
Oh, and I really dislike democrates.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
I am really close to turning lead into gold. It'll save the world economy!

Just give me a larger research grant and I know I can do it.



Here's reality: Don't believe everything a PhD says. Especially when it comes to money. Most aren't out to defraud the government, but "close" could mean a lot of things, especially if they are only doing basic research.


Hey, give me a boron ion generator and I can go the other way and turn platinum into gold. But if you want to see a real alchemist's trick, look at the federal reserve (or any central bank), they turn nothing into paper or electronic bits and then into gold.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
if free energy was found today that every human could benefit from, no one excluded in every corner of the globe to provide free power for living ..... they would simply start charging for the air we breath ! and the way the forests are being torn down the price of that would start going up from day 1 !



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Where is all the water that used to be in the Great Lakes when I was a kid?



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


why is gas 5 dollars in california because nobody forces the oil companies to make newer better refineries and also because of price gouging oil is not that scarce a commodity .andwhy is nobody asking why gas prices so high when we export so much oil?



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join