Posted on 04/07/2014 10:30:58 PM PDT by kingattax
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.
Vice Admiral Philip Cullom declared: "It's a huge milestone for us."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
> The main problem with extracting fuel from seawater is, suppose you screw up and catch the oceans on fire?
Cause an imbalance in the ecosystem that migh really have very bad consequences once they get rolling and use the technology on a worldwide scale. You can’t get energy from a source without expending some of it (layman’s terms).
Reduction...$&@# small keys...
Still, I’m much more worried about catching the oceans on fire. That would really suck for my upcoming vacation.
I *like* ‘reducyoon’.
That would be a perfect rebuttal from the “Guam is gonna tip over” guy.
> I *like* ‘reducyoon’.
French version...
Bottom line: everthing men put their hands on when it comes down to using resources is that they are like a siphon that keeps getting larger and larger. Would you have ever thought the world would be covered by as much concrete as it is now back in the 19th century? Probably not even close to what it is today.
That's hysterical.
Ah, jeez I didn't think of that.
> Bottom line: everthing men put their hands on when it comes down to using resources is that they are like a siphon that keeps getting larger and larger.
That’s hysterical.
I’m not a tree hugger if that’s wht you’re driving at but I do like a forest and some mountains to retreat to when I need it.
What I am driving at is your statement is hysterical.
I guess you’re not getting the bigger picture.
Either that or I am.
What do you want to bet it takes more energy to create this fuel than a ship will get out of it by burning it? Even if you use a nuke power plant to drive the process, you will hit the rule of diminishing returns.
You never violate the Laws of Thermodynamics but they can violate you if you try to ignore them.
There would be tremendous savings in cost due to travel and valuable tactical advantages.
Not totally, the surface escort ships are all non-nuke and will need a fuel supply. Like someone else posted, you still need food too.
The reactor would have to be upscaled at least a factor of 10 to make enough fuel for the aircraft and escorts, with the increased cost and if the size of the ship is kept constant, a loss in carrying capacity.
Bottom line, I bet it will not be worthwhile.
Just the aircraft.
Fuel tankers could be replaced by nuclear powered, fuel producing tankers WHICH DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY FROM THE CARRIER GROUP TO RELOAD.
Food can be procured in many more locations than the quantity of fuel required of large naval ships, can be transported on any cargo ship, and can be airlifted.
You still run into two major problems here with that idea.
First, the tankers will still have to have a massively oversized reactors to produce the electricity to make the synfuel, while still producing enough power to keep up with the task force, and you still have to have fuel for the escort vessels which are non nuclear powered.
Second, the Navy would have to ramp up training to supply more nuke qualified sailors and reactor production would have to be ramped up to start producing bigger reactors for ship use, and here you will run into the problem of diminishing returns, as bigger reactors require more shielding, which means less power available for auxiliary uses. Also the industrial infrastructure for building naval reactors will have to be enlarged to build the bigger vessels. This ain’t cheap, and I’ll bet the EPA will make life miserable for Bettis or Knolls as they try to expand the heavy forging facilities.
Plus, it seems to me you still don’t get thermodynamics. I’ll bet it still will be cheaper to run those tankers back and forth than it will be to try to make fuel in-situ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.