A colorful twist to mostly dry experiments on turning to alternate sources for fuel, the Navy used a radio controlled (RC) airplane to test a fuel that essentially came from seawater. Curious they choose an Army plane (P-51 Mustang) and not a Navy plane like the Hellcat or Wildcat fighter.
Essentially, on a very basic level, what the Navy is doing is extracting CO2 and Hydrogen from the seawater, and then recombining it into hydrocarbon chains, and then liquefying that (via a metal catalyst) into synthetic fuel. The type of synthetic fuel that can be made can vary, but jet fuel (similar to diesel) and petroleum-type fuels, like what was run in that little model plane, and, yes, that same sort of fuel could potentially be run in your normal old gasoline car with minimal or no modifications.
While there is a cost, it takes over 23,000 gallons of sea water to make one gallon of fuel, the Navy feels it could be a viable product within 7-10 years.
The Navy is saying they feel that the system could be commercially viable in 7-10 years or so, and resulting fuel would cost between $3-$6/gallon, which is not bad at all, really - that's essentially on par with current costs for fuels we pull out of the ground.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by skullz on Friday April 18 2014, @07:12PM
At first I was confused because I read it as converting 23k gallons of sea water into one gallon of fuel. Filtered 23k gallons. Filtered. Reading comprehension escaped me there.
I didn't see anywhere where they mentioned how much energy it took to do this magical filtering and extraction though. How many (equivalent) gallons of fuel would it take to make a gallon of fuel?
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 18 2014, @07:37PM
TFA estimates production cost at $3-$6 per gallon, so that does not sound an exorbitant amount of energy input. In fact it sounds like so little energy that I have to wonder a little about how they arrived at that estimate: for example, did they consider only the operating cost of the nuclear reactor and not its construction cost as well?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by emg on Friday April 18 2014, @07:55PM
The reactor already exists on the ship, so I'd guess they only take account of the operating cost. They can run it to create fuel when the power isn't needed for other uses.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Friday April 18 2014, @08:15PM
Right, it only makes sense if you are already running a reactor and one that has excess power.
They never get around to indicating exactly how much energy is required, so we still don't know if it is within the capabilities on the on-board reactors on Aircraft carriers (Not all of which are nuclear powered even in this day and age). Also not mentioned is the amount of time this process takes.
23,000 gallons of sea water isn't really all that much. A Standard sized Olympic Swimming Pool holds 660,000 US gallons, and would yield 28 gallons of fuel (if it were seawater).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 18 2014, @08:47PM
And those 28 gallons would power a Navy fighter jet for how long, about three seconds? ;-)
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 18 2014, @09:19PM
Ah, But how many Olympic swimming pools worth of sea water does the Carrier steam past every day?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Zinho on Friday April 18 2014, @09:36PM
Standard configuration for Nimitz class carriers is redundant reactors, each of which can supply the full ship's energy needs. By definition, that means that except in emergency situations they all have 100% excess power available, so this should be within reach of the current U.S. fleet.
I seriously hope that non-nuclear reactors don't get this system installed - it seems like a waste of space and weight on a Diesel-powered ship. This is a moot point; according to wikipedia there are no commissioned non-nuclear submarines or carriers [wikipedia.org] in the U.S. fleet anymore. The last one (U.S.S. Kitty Hawk) was decommissioned in 2009.
Agreed, and I also wish they'd have mentioned it. That's the sort of detail that would make doing our own economic analysis possible. I'm sure there are a few Admirals out there asking themselves how many aircraft they can run simultaneously and keep them continuously refueled with this process. Independence from refueling vessels would be a huge advantage in a long-term engagement.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by BananaPhone on Tuesday April 22 2014, @05:07PM
It's keep secret because they don't want the enemy to know how fast they can make the fuel.
I'm guessing if you keep the jets busy for a week straight, the fuel maker would probably need a month to replenish the fuel tanks.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday April 19 2014, @05:54AM
Well the reactor for all intents and purposes is "free" so there really isn't any point in counting it. Its free because 1.- All modern carriers are gonna use a reactor (or four) because it costs too much gas to run a supercarrier on diesel, 2.- they build a carrier with the reactor being WAAAAY overpowered for what they actually need because hey, never know how much extra power you are gonna need in heavy combat and you don't want to risk a multibillion dollar carrier by being stingy during build phase, 3.- Since they have all this extra capacity they might as well use it, its not like its gonna run out of fuel since they refuel those waaay ahead of running out because, again combat.
So even if it costs $10 a gallon they would most likely be coming out ahead because of how much it costs to refuel at sea. Don't know if they were accurate but I read a post from an engineer about one of the carriers state that it costs something like $16 to deliver $1 worth of fuel simply because all of the work and energy required to resupply something THAT huge out in the middle of the ocean. Considering how much down time they have going from one place to the next I could see them using this to stay out there longer and cut down on resupllies.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 18 2014, @07:23PM
Wow. Bad news for the oil industry (and the Saudi royal family) if this works, but kind of awesome for the rest of the planet.
I've heard of algae farms that do essentially the same thing, but they require sunlight, space, and fresh water. This probably requires more energy input. It would be interesting to see whether this catalysis process or the biofuels are the first to become cost-competitive with drilling and refining oil.
At $6 a gallon, I think a lot of people in the US would buy carbon-neutral synthetic or biofuel today. I sure would. Doesn't motor fuel already cost more than that in Europe?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 18 2014, @07:37PM
The House of Sa'ud and the rest of the petrol industry aren't shitting their pants just yet.
The big issue with alternative fuels, especially from the U.S. military's perspective, is that they're still prohibitively expensive [nationalde...gazine.org] compared to the bubblin' crude.
This [nationalde...gazine.org] article from the same publication states that existing "drop-in replacement" biofuels cost the navy 26.6 USD per gallon, as opposed to the 2.50 USD it paid for petroleum. Figures for other alternative fuels (such as the algae) fuels referenced in the above linked article are even worse.
Both articles refer to a "chicken-and-egg" scenario, where you need demand to increase supply while simultaneously needing supply to increase demand, both to drive costs down to a reasonable amount.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @08:13PM
For a force that is bound to massive amounts of bubblin crude it makes sense to have the ability to make your own. For the normal day to day usage stick with the crude. For when your fuel is cut off because of enemy action. Because a perfectly acceptable action in war is to cut off fuel trucks/trains/boats. Now it makes a lot more sense to make your own.
Is this a replacement for crude? No. Good supplement in times of war though.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 18 2014, @10:44PM
We could only dream that a larger share of our notoriously bloated defense budget be devoted to alternative energy, if we can have enough demand to seriously increase supply then we can solve the chicken-and-egg problem with alternate energies and move as a nation over to them for good. But of course you're going to have your bitchers and moaners:
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 18 2014, @08:27PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 18 2014, @08:45PM
Since the CO2 in the ocean got there by natural absorption, releasing it into the atmosphere just causes it to get absorbed back into the ocean. If you consider the atmosphere plus hydrosphere as a single carbon sink, which makes sense since both are negatively impacted by CO2 pollution, then the process is carbon-neutral. This is absolutely not the same effect as taking carbon from fossil fuels and releasing it into the air, because burning fossil fuels causes a net increase in carbon in the combined atmosphere-hydrosphere system.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday April 18 2014, @09:11PM
Yep, that would be where we part ways. The ocean can effectively absorb all the carbon we shove at it with little to no ill effect; it's just that big. The atmosphere? Well, that's still an ongoing debate until someone finishes a long enough future prediction period with results close enough to call science.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by theluggage on Saturday April 19 2014, @11:10AM
Yup, and all the fossil fuels we burn will be absorbed back in the ground if we just wait 100 million years and hope the conditions are right.
The sea has been slowly accumulating CO2 and sequestering it in Davy Jones' locker for aeons. Start releasing that in large enough quantities and it could be just as bad as burning fossil fuel.
Now, I can easily believe that the dissolved CO2 gas in surface seawater will rapidly be replenished from the atmosphere. However, from TFA:
Now, I Am Not An Oceanologist, but that last one (the main source of CO2 for this fuel) sounds more like '100 million-year-old eroded riverbeds', than 'CO2 absorbed from the air last week' to me. That didn't come out of the atmosphere - at least, not in this geological era. Even if it is from 'atmospheric' CO2, the question is how long the replacement cycle will be.
In the case of Biofuels, we know that the replacement cycle is ~ 1 year for fast-growing crops.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @09:27PM
part of the problem is that the oceans are already acidified from excess CO2. pulling carbon out of the water allows it to absorb that same amount back to get back to where it already is now, and then burning that new fuel basically just replaces what was absorbed from the atmosphere. when you think of it like that, it is carbon-neutral. at any rate, this is far preferable to removing more carbon from the ground since that does nothing but add more to the atmosphere and oceans.
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday April 18 2014, @07:27PM
I believe you missed out the part where you also need a nuclear reactor...
(Score: 2) by skullz on Friday April 18 2014, @07:34PM
I figured that's what they would need. Plopping this thing onto a carrier makes a lot of sense. Except then they could stay out longer and make everyone go even crazier than normal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Friday April 18 2014, @09:30PM
so we get to replace coal and oil burning power plants with nuclear power and get to generate vehicle fuel at the same time? talk about win-win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 18 2014, @11:04PM
The P-51 is a handsome aircraft.
F6F and F4F? Not so much.
It also strikes me that all of those are *piston-driven*.
Does this juice not work for jets?
--y'know, what most military aircraft are.
If I was going to pick a demonstrator aircraft, I'm thinking nothing earlier than an FJ-2; [deviantart.net] something that at least looks slightly modern (swept wing).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday April 18 2014, @11:14PM
A matter of refinement, likely.
jets run on diesel fuel. Very highly filtered and purified, but the same hydrocarbon. It is denser than gasoline, and I imagine tougher to make from this process.
(Score: 1) by mrchew1982 on Friday April 18 2014, @11:49PM
actually, JP5 is a lot closer to kerosene than it is to diesel fuel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19 2014, @08:14AM
yeah and it tends to be called "jet fuel" in the business.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Tuesday April 29 2014, @12:33AM
Possibly, I dealt with JP4 mostly when I had to deal with it. the diesel tugs and generators loved JP4.
Anectdote- I was hazmat, and had to deal with hundreds of gallons of "waste" fuel from testing. Pull a gallon from Bird1, test, send gallon to hazmat. Repeat for Bird2 through Bird250.
Major pain in the butt to process. So i got the idea of simply re-purposing the waste to fuel in the tugs. A simple checkoff on a waste re-utilization sheet and I have reduces the diesel demands of the base by a significant fraction as well as reduced my workload by half.
As a result, my boss was awarded a medal.