And the gas and oil companies will crush this over night.. LOL.
How was the convertor powered and at what efficiency? What can be done and what is practical are two very different things.
i don't understand. If i do electrolysis on water i can get hydrogen and run something off of that. of course the energy input is greater than the output. what is different about this? terrible reporting to not clarify this obvious question.
Did they really make all the fuel including the lubricant as it was a two stroke ?
This does have uses even if it is not efficient energy wise. The example given is for an aircraft carrier with some of these being nuclear powered and this would mean they do not need to visit a port or tanker for aircraft fuel. Would also be useful when providing fuel after a disaster in remote locations.
Fascinating, but how does the value of the inputs compare to the value of the outputs ?
It's a starting point, boys.
Noel K Frothingham
This story is not about a new source of energy - it's about producing jet fuel at a price cheap enough for the US Navy to seriously consider this method. Projected costs are up to 6 US dollars per gallon I believe. It works out cheaper and more convenient than relying on fuel resupply via tankers when out at sea.
Also, there is no electrolysis involved - it is a series of chemical reactions designed to produce various hydrocarbons, using as a starting point CO2 and H2.
As mentioned by nearly all the above, the projected EROEI figures for the final system are key. If we could build these plants near old mine workings, we might be able to use carbon capture and storage to keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere and thus stop it adding to global warming and ocean acidification. In fact, widespread deployment of this technology could assist in combating both.
Seems this could be an effective way to use wind, solar or wave energy obtained in remote locations where their is no local consumption. For example, a floating (or stationary like an oil rig) offshore windmill could produce fuel, and passing ships could refuel from there. The military could use this to keep their ships fueled without the need to stop at harbors, where they might be vulnerable to attack (think USS Cole). Island nations or states (like Hawaii) could use it for some of their fuel needs.
This is a good tech for the Nuclear Navy. It would allow them to operate with fewer tenders and vastly lower logistics exepnses.
As to the expense question: I've never seen a figure for jet fuel, but in a generator story they quoted $400/gallon of diesel delivered to theater. If jet fuel on a carrier is anywhere near that price this thing could be inefficient and expensive and still cost less.
Reading the comapny website they state:
"The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years."
So there is the answer on cost. If this can produce fuel on board the carrier then it will without a doubt save millions and improve logistics.
what does this have to do with anything that flies?
it takes a whole chemistry lab to make this fuel
plus who knows how much water it took to get these 18 drops of gas
how much energy does it take to get the carbon separated from the dioxide?
i mean co2 is a waste product from burning stuff
you can;t exactly burn it again
something like this only works if you have a cheap/free source of energy
(just like separating hydrogen from water, then burning it, the separating process is energy-expensive)
but if you have that, then why not put it on the grid.?
Step sideways to another hydrocarbon fuel source. Bad. Bad. Bad.
I think there 2 very important questions no one seems to be asking:
1) what are the emissions from burning the fuel produced? I seriously doubt it recombines back into equal amounts of water.
2) what quantity of water does it take to produce what quantity of fuel?
I understand our oceans are large, but water is the one resource we can't just burn away. talk about ecological disaster.
Nuclear power required to pump the CO2 -> CO + O2 conversion along with the NaCl + H20 => H2 + NaOH + Cl2 conversion.
BIG energy loser. Probably save billions putting nukes on all ships with 'fuel' for aircraft only
Improvement over the Fisher-Tropsch US Navy idea of extracting CO2 from the sea and combining with H2 produced by electrolysis.
My money is still on salinity gradient energy (SGE) more specifically the reverse electrodialysis (RED) method of using cation & anion membranes to produce energy. This would be great for offshore rigs & ocean going vessels.
So this has potential. Batteries still suck. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels are still our best and most potent method of storing energy for later use in mechanical application.
If, for example, you rigged a solar farm on the coast of Texas to churn ocean water into hydrocarbon fuel using sunlight, that'd be spiffy. Of course, you'd need to wait for it to be cost effective to want to do it for real, but it is an otherwise cheap renewable energy source.
Follow up question: what is the catalyst, how expensive is it, and how long do they last?
SWIFT fuels all ready makes 100 plus octane fuel from sugar.
...we grow sugar.
Oil companies control the politicians.
...we elect politicians.
I keep remembering the second law of thermodynamics; You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game. entropy always wins. How many watts input is required to produce a watt's worth of liquid hydrocarbon.
Still teamed with a nuclear powered ships they might be able to keep the aircraft flying without benefit of a fleet oiler. (tanker ship)
@ Jackie Ferrucci
Yes ethanol is a high obtain fuel but using farmland to produce motor fuel is just stupid.
As others have pointed out, this press release neglects (purposely?) to mention that you need more energy to produce the fuel than what is produced by burning the fuel, giving you a net loss of energy. The good news is that nuclear power can easily provide the energy needed to do this. At 3$ per gallon, this would be quite cost competitive to gas (kerosene?) from crude oil. For a nuclear powered navy, this is great. Maybe there are even civilian applications for this. I can see people with solar panels convert excess solar energy into gasoline for powering a generator during times when the solar energy is insufficient (at night, in winter, etc). It sure opens up a lot of possibilities. The real issue remains though, where you get the energy from that drives the technology to produce the fuel. I would say nuclear power...
Oil companies Vs. The US Navy.
How ironic is it that the Navy (the force most often deployed to go to places where we're having issues with our Oil suppliers) to solve the world's energy needs by solving it's own energy need. You can't make this stuff up.
Geesh, all the nay-sayers.
You could build these things into a fuel tender, and then collect the solar energy to run the process with floating solar cells.
The ocean is big and relatively flat; two useful aspects for solar energy.
Imagine solar cells stitched into large inflatable rafts. You’d need a waterproof, transparent top layer.
None of that is very difficult.
Transporting fuel to a war theater is expensive; ask the Nazis.
Oh, wait, you can’t, we shot them.
BTW, “wle”, hydrocarbons are chains of carbon molecules with hydrogen atoms attached.
The CO2 can be broken up for parts. And for the hydrogen part, one of the Stimulus projects found that Cobalt in a tea bag makes a very effective electrolysis catalyst.