The U.S. Navy makes sea water into fuel

[Carl the Llama]

So I was on facebook and just read this, it was shared by none other then my favourite author Raymond E Feist ^^

The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed -

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.

…

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

Really surprised no one has posted about this yet, this could turn out to be the solution to global warming, and its green as well which is just smurfing amazing!

[Shorty]

I wouldn't say it's a solution to global warming, but it's definitely a step in the right direction to shifting our reliance on available resources.

[Bunny]

So in about 20 years, Big Oil might be done for.

[Ayen]

I don't know anything about the topic at hand, but this sounds pretty cool.

[Mirage]

This is great. Now we won't have to worry about sea levels rising anymore, we can just use the surplus water as fuel!

[Jiro]

This is great. Now we won't have to worry about sea levels rising anymore, we can just use the surplus water as fuel!

this is what I was thinking

[Psychotic]

Neat, but I think oil has a lot of fuel still left in the tank.

[Madame Adequate]

It'd be awhile before we can make mass conversions but on the other hand, holy crap, this is cool as hell. Set up coastal nuclear plants to process seawater into fuel and we'll be sitting pretty for a good long time.

[blackmage_nuke]

This sounds like one of those "Cure for cancer totally coming soon" articles but if it's true then it's pretty swish

[Slothy]

It'd be awhile before we can make mass conversions but on the other hand, holy crap, this is cool as hell. Set up coastal nuclear plants to process seawater into fuel and we'll be sitting pretty for a good long time.

Indeed. All the more reason to build more nuclear power plants.

Shame we'll have probably have killed the oceans and all died before we figure out we really need to stop with the fossil fuels.

[Skyblade]

Wow, that's not a hostile or biased article at all.

"Republicans will hate it because it's green." - Actually, Republicans hate most green technologies because they are notoriously expensive, incredibly inefficient, and few of them are actually "green" at all. We rarely have a problem with any of the technology itself.

Also, it's not necessarily that green of a technology. Hydrocarbons produce Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor when burned. If these emissions are not contained, they'll leak back into the atmosphere. And what atmospheric components are most responsible for the greenhouse effect? Water vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Although this is only a problem if you actually think global warming is a problem. Which I don't.

There is also, again, the efficiency question. Everyone who loves green technologies loves ethanol, yet converting corn to ethanol uses more energy than the resulting ethanol nets us. You can convert seawater to fuel. Fantastic, but what is it going to cost? Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of energy. How much oil do you need to burn to burn in order to convert each gallon of seawater into the corresponding fuel amounts, and how much would you get out of it? Then, once you have gotten enough, does the power it supplies produce enough to enable you to extract and convert a greater quantity of water to fuel?

It's certainly an interesting technology, but we'll have to wait to see if it's viable.

[Slothy]

"Republicans will hate it because it's green." - Actually, Republicans hate most green technologies because they are notoriously expensive, incredibly inefficient, and few of them are actually "green" at all. We rarely have a problem with any of the technology itself.

Most republicans in office don't really hate cleaner energy sources because they're expensive and inefficient. I can say this with some degree of certainty since their economic projections of these technologies never factor in the fact that climate change is real and our oceans are slowly dying. Two things which in the long run will either cost us a lot more money and lives than we're saving now, or kill us all. They can't properly evaluate any new form of energy if they reject one of the fundamental and single most damaging negative effects of using what we do now.

Also, it's not necessarily that green of a technology. Hydrocarbons produce Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor when burned. If these emissions are not contained, they'll leak back into the atmosphere. And what atmospheric components are most responsible for the greenhouse effect? Water vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Although this is only a problem if you actually think global warming is a problem. Which I don't.

Water vapour being a contributor to climate change is a red herring. Yes, it is quite a powerful greenhouse gas. But most people seem to forget that it's been evaporating, forming clouds, and falling to the Earth as rain, snow, etc. for pretty much as long as there's been water on Earth. It has no significant net impact on climate change. As for carbon dioxide, the article itself points out that the Ocean soaks up carbon dioxide like a sponge. Which is part of the reason that our oceans are slowly dying. They're saturated with the stuff right now. But at the very least, this form of energy would be fairly carbon neutral, especially compared to using fossil fuels since we're taking carbon dioxide from sea water, most of which will, find it's way back into the ocean once the fuel is burned. And if we could use this method to remove carbon dioxide and store it as fuel, or in some form and place less likely to result in leaks of any greenhouse gasses, then we've also found a way to slowly deal with the level of carbon dioxide in the oceans and in the atmosphere by helping to speed up it's removal while ditching fossil fuels almost entirely.

You can convert seawater to fuel. Fantastic, but what is it going to cost? Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of energy. How much oil do you need to burn to burn in order to convert each gallon of seawater into the corresponding fuel amounts, and how much would you get out of it?

People would have to be idiots to use power generated by fossil fuels to produce this stuff. Luckily we have a pretty simple solution and one which is actually quite safe and a lot less damaging to our environment than coal or oil: nuclear energy. Modern reactor designs have basically eliminated the risk of melt downs and produce almost no waste. In fact, the waste they do produce can readily be stored on site, and quite safely with almost no risk. Too bad there are a lot of ignorant people out there who hear nuclear and think Chernobyl or Fukushima and don't have the first clue that those plants are about as indicative of what modern nuclear power is as a sailing ship is indicative of what the modern day US Navy is capable of.

Then, once you have gotten enough, does the power it supplies produce enough to enable you to extract and convert a greater quantity of water to fuel?

Again, with hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, etc. it doesn't have to produce enough power to convert more water into fuel. This is a fuel source which could potentially be used to continue fueling every day vehicles while we use the centuries worth of nuclear material we have to create it and power our homes. If this stuff is as effective as the story claims, it really is that simple.

[Skyblade]

Yeah, I'm just going to drop that part here. I am sick to death of arguing global warming. It's an off-topic and largely irrelevant discussion, and I don't care to get back into it.

You can convert seawater to fuel. Fantastic, but what is it going to cost? Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of energy. How much oil do you need to burn to burn in order to convert each gallon of seawater into the corresponding fuel amounts, and how much would you get out of it?

People would have to be idiots to use power generated by fossil fuels to produce this stuff. Luckily we have a pretty simple solution and one which is actually quite safe and a lot less damaging to our environment than coal or oil: nuclear energy. Modern reactor designs have basically eliminated the risk of melt downs and produce almost no waste. In fact, the waste they do produce can readily be stored on site, and quite safely with almost no risk. Too bad there are a lot of ignorant people out there who hear nuclear and think Chernobyl or Fukushima and don't have the first clue that those plants are about as indicative of what modern nuclear power is as a sailing ship is indicative of what the modern day US Navy is capable of.

Then, once you have gotten enough, does the power it supplies produce enough to enable you to extract and convert a greater quantity of water to fuel?

Again, with hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, etc. it doesn't have to produce enough power to convert more water into fuel. This is a fuel source which could potentially be used to continue fueling every day vehicles while we use the centuries worth of nuclear material we have to create it and power our homes. If this stuff is as effective as the story claims, it really is that simple.

Hey, I'd be all for making more nuclear power plants. But, sorry, how energy-intensive it is does make for a very important aspect of its feasibility as a fuel source. In order to crush big oil, it will need to be easy to produce and cheaper. Again, corn-based ethanol. Sure, you could use nuclear power to drive the conversion. But how much has ethanol expanded? Not a lot. Because it's not efficient. Oil is incredibly efficient. It's easy to obtain, easy to refine, and results in a lot of energy from a small package.

Easy to obtain, ok it has that. We're in no danger of running out of seawater anytime soon, especially since we can recapture hydrocarbon waste and turn it into more fuel.

Easy to refine. No idea. It's possible, but the scaling and efficiency of it is something we have no data on.

Energy per quantity. If it's producing hydrocarbons, this is a fairly decent return.

So the crux of this new fuel is going to be the refining process. How efficient is it, how easily can it be upscaled, etcetera.

[Leeza]

(did not read the linked article)

I'm for anything that will stop polluting our planet, even if will cost me double. Although in this case, if seawater fuel will be $3 to $6 per gallon that's pretty good considering I'm paying $1.47 per liter as of this morning, so that would be even less expensive or about the same for me where I live. Oil pollutes, and you would have to do a lot of talking to convince me that any nuclear power is safe.

I really don't know what would be involved to make corn-based fuel, but I have a friend who goes around to all of the fast-food joints in his town to pick up their old fry oil and uses only that to drive his truck around. Runs great. I for one would be willing to pay for something corn-based for driving my vehicle around since corn is really not much good for eating anymore in my opinion considering the majority of it GMOed. I try to avoid as much GMOed food as I can.

I really hope that a seawater fuel is something that will/could be a realistic possibility.