US Navy Turning Sea Water into... Jet Fuel?

[marcus134]

Water is such an important resource for all life on Earth. Life could do without oil since it isn't that important for survival, but water no one could live without. Fucking with the balance of such an important resource (even just a little bit) is kinda stupid FYI.

when fuel is burned, it makes water and co2.
from there it's a simple matter of knowing the water cycle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Water_cycle.png
"Nothing is lost, nothing is created, all is transformed" Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743 - 1794)

 

[Gahars]

@Sterling

...And what gave you the impression that I'm not aware of that, nor that I'm ignoring any long-term consequences?

I'm trying to communicate the scale we're dealing with here. You say that the ecosystem is finely tuned, but the displacement of an incredibly tiny amount of ocean water is not going to throw that out of whack here in any way, shape, or form. Really, it's like arguing that removing a single scoop of snow from Everest will cause the mountain to collapse.

As for this being adapted outside of this context... eh, short answer, not very likely. First of all, this process is just for distilling jet fuel; producing regular old gasoline would be something else entirely. That would take even more money and time, both of which companies would likely prefer to spend on existing, proven alternative energies (or good old fashioned crude oil). Not to mention the fact that by the time such a process could be developed (and mass produced, and marketed, etc.), those alternatives might be far more worthwhile and efficient (not to mention more convenient), rendering the whole enterprise moot anyway.

You aren't being far sighted in predicting disaster; you're just crusading against windmills here.

 

[Sterling]

As for this being adapted outside of this context...

Adapting gasoline engines to use JP-5 as the primary fuel source. Not adapting the JP-5 seawater distillation process to produce gasoline.

@[member='marcus134']: I totally forgot about that. I feel stupid now.

 

[Gahars]

As for this being adapted outside of this context...

Adapting gasoline engines to use JP-5 as the primary fuel source. Not adapting the JP-5 seawater distillation process to produce gasoline.

So now car manufacturers would have to produce cars with entirely new engines to accommodate it, and fuel stations would have to straddle the line between servicing cars with these new engines and the traditional ones on the market today (not to mention any other fuels). No matter what, time, money, and effort would still be required, and that would poise a serious burden.

Plus, it's not as if this process is actually cheaper than regularly produced jet fuel. Just look at this website: the price is hovering right around $3.20 a gallon. The seawater-to-conversion process would cost $3-6 a gallon, so it wouldn't necessarily be more cost effective anyway. It's a worthwhile trade off for the Navy because they're looking to eliminate the need for risky fuel transfers, but fuel companies wouldn't be motivated by that same concern.

 

[Sterling]

As for this being adapted outside of this context...

Adapting gasoline engines to use JP-5 as the primary fuel source. Not adapting the JP-5 seawater distillation process to produce gasoline.

So now car manufacturers would have to produce cars with entirely new engines to accommodate it, and fuel stations would have to straddle the line between servicing cars with these new engines and the traditional ones on the market today (not to mention any other fuels). No matter what, time, money, and effort would still be required, and that would poise a serious burden.

Plus, it's not as if this process is actually cheaper than regularly produced jet fuel. Just look at this website: the price is hovering right around $3.20 a gallon. The seawater-to-conversion process would cost $3-6 a gallon, so it wouldn't necessarily be more cost effective anyway. It's a worthwhile trade off for the Navy because they're looking to eliminate the need for risky fuel transfers, but fuel companies wouldn't be motivated by that same concern.

I know, but as a process is exploited it will get cheaper. At the moment, the Middle East has most of the oil market under its thumb (since it has the largest reserves of oil). Since most of us will agree that we need to find an alternate source of fuel, or we need to find a way to cheaply synthesis an already existing fuel (like this). Sure it will take time and money, but give it 5 or so years and the process could go lower than regular jet fuel and perhaps gasoline. Then maybe in 10 years this will be the primary fuel source. C'mon, I'm trying to be an optimist for once.

 

[FAST6191]

I would consider adapting this but it seems like an even more roundabout method to make fuel than this whole thing is in the first place. Personally I would look back at biodiesel* more as it has major problems but not insurmountable ones.

*as I noticed it when I was stateside- in much of Europe at least having a petrol/gas/fuel station not do diesel is very odd and it is mainly the small countryside ones that might lack it.

As for sea water- where do you think a fair bit of salt comes from? There are some rather large evaporation places in hotter parts of the world that do little else other than take seawater to produce salt for various things.

Now if you want something to look oddly at the military for as far environmental issues go see some of what they do with refrigerants.

 

[fgghjjkll]

If creating fuel from water is the next step in transport technology, this will be a very bad idea.
We won't get any more water on earth unless another comet or something comes crashing into earth with a massive supply of water.
That said, turning water into hydrogen fuel is an irreversible process, and because our supply is limited, water as fuel is just using fossil fuels all over again.
It won't last.

Really, renewable energy sources should be where the research money go to.

 

[Veho]

We won't get any more water on earth unless another comet or something comes crashing into earth with a massive supply of water.
That said, turning water into hydrogen fuel is an irreversible process, and because our supply is limited, water as fuel is just using fossil fuels all over again.

What do you think happens to hydrogen once it's used as fuel?

 

[Gahars]

As for this being adapted outside of this context...

Adapting gasoline engines to use JP-5 as the primary fuel source. Not adapting the JP-5 seawater distillation process to produce gasoline.

So now car manufacturers would have to produce cars with entirely new engines to accommodate it, and fuel stations would have to straddle the line between servicing cars with these new engines and the traditional ones on the market today (not to mention any other fuels). No matter what, time, money, and effort would still be required, and that would poise a serious burden.

Plus, it's not as if this process is actually cheaper than regularly produced jet fuel. Just look at this website: the price is hovering right around $3.20 a gallon. The seawater-to-conversion process would cost $3-6 a gallon, so it wouldn't necessarily be more cost effective anyway. It's a worthwhile trade off for the Navy because they're looking to eliminate the need for risky fuel transfers, but fuel companies wouldn't be motivated by that same concern.

I know, but as a process is exploited it will get cheaper. At the moment, the Middle East has most of the oil market under its thumb (since it has the largest reserves of oil). Since most of us will agree that we need to find an alternate source of fuel, or we need to find a way to cheaply synthesis an already existing fuel (like this). Sure it will take time and money, but give it 5 or so years and the process could go lower than regular jet fuel and perhaps gasoline. Then maybe in 10 years this will be the primary fuel source. C'mon, I'm trying to be an optimist for once.

And all of that is based on the hope that the conversion process will become cheap enough (let alone profitable enough) to justify the serious investments and expenses necessary. Most companies just aren't going to see it as worthwhile; even if they're desperate for alternative energy sources, there's more proven ones already available.

Plus, it seems like you're being optimistic to justify pessimism, so... doesn't that cancel out?

 

[Sterling]

As for this being adapted outside of this context...

Adapting gasoline engines to use JP-5 as the primary fuel source. Not adapting the JP-5 seawater distillation process to produce gasoline.

So now car manufacturers would have to produce cars with entirely new engines to accommodate it, and fuel stations would have to straddle the line between servicing cars with these new engines and the traditional ones on the market today (not to mention any other fuels). No matter what, time, money, and effort would still be required, and that would poise a serious burden.

Plus, it's not as if this process is actually cheaper than regularly produced jet fuel. Just look at this website: the price is hovering right around $3.20 a gallon. The seawater-to-conversion process would cost $3-6 a gallon, so it wouldn't necessarily be more cost effective anyway. It's a worthwhile trade off for the Navy because they're looking to eliminate the need for risky fuel transfers, but fuel companies wouldn't be motivated by that same concern.

I know, but as a process is exploited it will get cheaper. At the moment, the Middle East has most of the oil market under its thumb (since it has the largest reserves of oil). Since most of us will agree that we need to find an alternate source of fuel, or we need to find a way to cheaply synthesis an already existing fuel (like this). Sure it will take time and money, but give it 5 or so years and the process could go lower than regular jet fuel and perhaps gasoline. Then maybe in 10 years this will be the primary fuel source. C'mon, I'm trying to be an optimist for once.

And all of that is based on the hope that the conversion process will become cheap enough (let alone profitable enough) to justify the serious investments and expenses necessary. Most companies just aren't going to see it as worthwhile; even if they're desperate for alternative energy sources, there's more proven ones already available.

Plus, it seems like you're being optimistic to justify pessimism, so... doesn't that cancel out?

Haha. I just have two different glasses. Regardless of whether or not it's worth it, I guess only time will tell. Personally, I pin my hopes on electric cars powered with carbon nano tube batteries, and compressed air power.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

The US gov have enough money to spend with useful stuff like green-guys search (SETI), so I guess that they have too many that don't need fuel saving.

 

[Veho]

On a related note: oil from air. Pretty much the same principle.

 

[Sterling]

On a related note: oil from air. Pretty much the same principle.

Now that's a cool story bro. I can't wait for this tech to spread.

 

[The Pi]

The process will take (at 100% efficiency) just as much energy to make as it produces (Hess's Law), although in reality it'll use more. For the Navy it will have a number of benefits (in that article) and they can simply have solar panels and be more or less self sufficient (of course excluding food and medication)

As for using it in your car, jet fuel is highly volatile so it either needs blended with normal fuel (which still needs produced), adding antiknock agents (they all have disadvantages AFAIK) or reforming which is the most feasible. However the biggest problem is not how to use it, it's that it'll take more energy to make that it gives off when burnt. Sure it's a good alternative to hydrogen fueled cars as the engines don't need to be changed but it still produces CO2 and another energy source will be needed i.e solar.

 

[Bladexdsl]

but what happens when they start sucking up ALL the sea water there won't be an ocean