DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel

Thought this was extremely interesting...(not the formatting. Not sure why Yahoo has to make every sentence it's own paragraph.)

web page


Washington (AFP) - The US Navy believes it has finally worked out the solution to a problem that has intrigued scientists for decades: how to take seawater and use it as fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is being hailed as "a game-changer" because it would signficantly shorten the supply chain, a weak link that makes any force easier to attack.

The US has a fleet of 15 military oil tankers, and only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.

All other vessels must frequently abandon their mission for a few hours to navigate in parallel with the tanker, a delicate operation, especially in bad weather.

The ultimate goal is to eventually get away from the dependence on oil altogether, which would also mean the navy is no longer hostage to potential shortages of oil or fluctuations in its cost.

"We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it.

"We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel," added Cullom.

"Basically, we've treated energy like air, something that's always there and that we don't worry about too much. But the reality is that we do have to worry about it."

US experts have found out how to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas from seawater.

Then, using a catalytic converter, they transformed them into a fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.


That means instead of relying on tankers, ships will be able to produce fuel at sea.

- 'Game-changing' technology -

The predicted cost of jet fuel using the technology is in the range of three to six dollars per gallon, say experts at the US Naval Research Laboratory, who have already flown a model airplane with fuel produced from seawater.

Dr Heather Willauer, an research chemist who has spent nearly a decade on the project, can hardly hide her enthusiasm.

"For the first time we've been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that's a big breakthrough," she said, adding that the fuel "doesn't look or smell very different."

Now that they have demonstrated it can work, the next step is to produce it in industrial quantities. But before that, in partnership with several universities, the experts want to improve the amount of CO2 and hydrogen they can capture.

"We've demonstrated the feasibility, we want to improve the process efficiency," explained Willauer.

Collum is just as excited.

"For us in the military, in the Navy, we have some pretty unusual and different kinds of challenges," he said.

"We don't necessarily go to a gas station to get our fuel, our gas station comes to us in terms of an oiler, a replenishment ship.

"Developing a game-changing technology like this, seawater to fuel, really is something that reinvents a lot of the way we can do business when you think about logistics, readiness."

A crucial benefit, says Collum, is that the fuel can be used in the same engines already fitted in ships and aircraft.

"If you don't want to re-engineer every ship, every type of engine, every aircraft, that's why we need what we call drop-in replacement fuels that look, smell and essentially are the same as any kind of petroleum-based fuels."

Drawbacks? Only one, it seems: researchers warn it will be at least a decade before US ships are able to produce their own fuel on board.

The real key is: How much will it cost to produce the fuel?

Assuming this is legit, I'd assume using this new fuel state side wouldn't be too far behind.

Once it's done, can we sell the technolgy to China in exchange for erasing our debt to them?

What happens when we run out of seawater?

is that even possible?

I'm sure you would have lunatic environmentalists protesting at the beaches.

jc

I assume that the by products of producing and burning this fuel would be oxygen and water. WHO IS GOING TO CLEAN THAT UP?

But seriously, the water would make it's way back to the sea, so no I would not see us running out of sea water. I also imagine that the fuel could be produced from any water source since since the "salt" portion of seawater would not end up in the fuel.

A stable, plentiful. reusable, renewable, environmentally friendly fuel source... Can you say game changer.

As for the oil companies, they just become the companies that produce and supply this fuel. Nobody is going to make an auto that produces it's own fuel, the conversion and storage of these fuels would be too hazardous (fires/explosions). So the oil companies have a role and are already prepared for these changes.

Feasibility to produce this fuel affordably has always been the issue. Once that is solved, the technology should go the way of the computer microchip; becoming cheaper with each new generation of conversion systems.

IF this is true and they have unlocked the secret, our children and grandchildren should benefit greatly.

Doesnt a story like this come along every couple years? I swear Ive heard this before.

luckily for the US Navy and our government, money is no object.

Here is a real gamechanger, low cost and a missile destroyer.

WASHINGTON -- The phrase "faster than a speeding bullet" just took on a whole new meaning.

"An electromagnetic rail gun is a gun that uses just electricity -- no gun powder -- and, oh, by the way, can shoot a projectile like this, well over 100 miles at Mach 7," said Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, the Chief of Naval Research, which developed the rail gun. "Seven times the speed of sound."

Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder shows the projectile./ CBS News
An electromagnetic pulse propels a projectile down the barrel, creating a fireball of molten steel. The projectile sheds its steel cladding, and, in video released for the first time Monday, it smashes into a dummy warhead that represents an incoming missile. An explosion is caused by the sheer force of the impact.

"This is a lab gun, and it shoots a slug about this big," Klunder said, holding up a slug. "So think about that. A slug that big -- a slug that big going Mach 7 puts a hole through six half-inch steel plates this big. Just this little slug."

"There's not a thing in the sky that's going to survive against that," Klunder added.

The hyper velocity projectile, can also be seen going through three reinforced concrete walls. The Navy already has missiles that perform the same feats, but they cost millions of dollars each.
The projectile put a hole through six half-inch steel plates./ CBS News
"This costs right here about $25,000," Klunder said.

Both the cost and size -- it weighs 23 pounds -- mean they can be bought and stored aboard ships by the hundreds.

"Someone may be sending a multimillion-dollar missile at us, and I'm going to take it out with a $25,000 projectile round," Klunder said. "I'll take that trade every single day."

But not so fast. The first rail gun won't go to sea until 2016, and then only aboard a cargo vessel for testing. It will be the end of the decade before the rail gun appears on warships.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navys-newest-weapon-kills-at-seven-times-the-speed-of-sound/

That is also something I know Ive seen a couple times in the past.

I see where Exxon and BP are creating a joint venture and approaching the UN about how much it would cost to buy the oceans.

I just watched a movie called Eraser with Arnold Schwartzinager (sp)..

In that movie, the "Bad" Company was selling a Rail Gun to some paramilitary group.

It emitted some kinda electron beam or something along those lines. Funny, Life imitating art LOL

Yeah, Rail guns have been around forever as well. The first one probably converted seawater into hydrogen fuel.

Eh, the electromagnetic rail gun has been theorized since the early 1900's. I think Tesla even had a theory about it.

It seems to me that art and life imitate one another in quite a spectacular dance over the past 50 or so years.

Science has been inspired by fiction, which in turn has been inspired by science.

It's almost become a race to see who can push the bounds of possible further. It really is amazing how important imagination is to human achievement, and to science in particular.