Posted on 04/23/2014 7:08:44 AM PDT by thackney
Navy researchers say they have turned seawater into fuel that could power military vehicles for less than $6 per gallon.
The researchers announced this month that the seawater-based fuel successfully powered a remote-controlled model jet with a standard two-stroke internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas extracted from Gulf of Mexico water were converted into liquid hydrocarbon fuel using gas-to-liquid technology. The renewable fuel mirrors its petroleum-based counterpart and could be used in standard military engines.
“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 Naval Research Laboratory chemist Heather Willauer in a written statement. ”This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition from the laboratory to full-scale commercial implementation.”
The fuel would cost $3 to $6 per gallon and would be commercially viable within 10 years, with sufficient research funding, according to the Naval Research Laboratory.
The scientists now are working to scale up the technology to increase fuel output. The ability to power military ships and aircraft with seawater-based fuel would be revolutionary. In fiscal year 2011, the primary fuel supplier to the Navy delivered nearly 600 million gallons to power the vessels.
$6 per gallon manufactured onboard an aircraft carrier is probably cheaper than the delivered cost from a sea replenishment tanker.
This will be fun to see.. If they think they can “generate” fuel faster than they consume it...just sayin’!
Please remind me 10 years from now after this idiotic scheme is forgotten.
As long as the American taxpayer is footing the bill, no cost is too large to do novel but probably unreasonable stuff like this.
Recently, I worked on an Army Research Lab funded project that made bio-diesel from pond water. A university was the lead. The end state was that to make enough fuel for the Missouri DOT, the entire state would need to be under 3 acre-feet of water, treated to grow blue-green algae and warmed to an optimal 88 F.
End cost estimate: over $200 per gallon, with a decrease estimated at $50 or so after 20 years....
My assessment was not well received by either the university PhD nor the Army Lab rep.
I no longer work with either. Go figure.
Sounds as if they’re planning on using nuclear carriers to power the process to create fuel for the aircraft on the carrier.
In flight refueling of aircraft was once perceived as an idiotic scheme.
Particularly the not-friendly port to refuel.
The Cole was refueling in the Aden Port.
Even consuming the fuel faster than they can produce it would make sense if it allows the generation of 25-50% more sorties before having to shut down to go conduct an unrep with a tanker.
A Nuclear Carrier has a lot of power available. Moving fuel from one side of the world to the other isn't exactly a fast operation, more like a never ending operation.
1. As already noted, $6/gallon isn't really more expensive in situations where conventional fuel has to be delivered to a remote station.
2. Even if the process isn't yet competitive with conventional fuels, it establishes a ceiling on the price of the latter -- if they go over $6/gallon they'll be replaced. That adds to economic stability, if nothing else.
3. Getting a proof-of-concept is an obvious first step toward an improved version with might turn out to be cheaper than conventional fuels.
Works almost identically to coal gasification, where coal is raised to near white heat, and steam is then passed through it. You end up with producer gas, which is a mix of hydrogen, CO, and some CH4. The navy process is a neat twist on this, and could really work out for them, especially since they have their own nuclear powerplants onboard for electricity and process heat.
Why, yes, the Office of Naval Research has a working perpetual motion machine working, too. (And I can sell you the keys to the Brooklyn Bridge for cheap.)
The technology is not the problem, it is the economics.
When you see statements like that, you doubt everything else in the article.
No doubt. This is total fuel costs which includes the logistical costs of delivery vs the cost of producing the fuel a sea. I wonder if the estimated cost includes an entirely new Military specialty, training, command structure, etc.
“Using renewable energy to convert the water would be great.”
But they’re not using renewable energy. And I think all they’re doing is generating electricity from steam turbines powered by the heat of the sub’s atomic reactors, using that electricity to power the hydrolysis of water into oxygen and hydrogen, somehow extracting dissolved carbon dioxide from the seawater, and then synthesizing hydrocarbons from the resulting molecular materials.
Quite frankly if they can do all of that for six bucks a gallon, I consider it a near miracle. Not to mention I’m skeptical that there’s that much dissolved CO2 in seawater. But, hey, what do I know?
cue the greenies...we will run out of seawater, its finite, peak sea water in 5.4.3.2....
So you are proposing that we use aircraft carriers as fuel-tenders?
Fuel tenders could launched from the aircraft carrier.
bfl8r
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.