Navy is looking to use seawater as fuel...

[redpoint5]

So... what the article is leaving out is that if you already have a ton of energy, you can convert it to other forms of energy? It is incredibly misleading to let the reader have the impression that seawater is the source of energy.

Just reading the title of this thread, I imagined ships running on plankton or krill.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by darcane

I get that. But that's not how the article is written.


Sorry, energy is not created.



No ship will be producing fuel for itself. It will produce fuel by using its nuclear power plant for aircraft taking off from it or for other ships but not for itself.

As I read it, the rest of the article implies that ships will produce the fuel needed to power themselves. And I'm sorry, that is not going to happen.

The science is solid and useful even if the reporters and admirals cannot communicate clearly.

[CapriRacer]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The science is solid and useful even if the reporters and admirals cannot communicate clearly.

That may be, but even a creative reading of the article doesn't yield a self sufficient ship without the addition of some sort of major electricity generator such as a nuclear reactor. And if that is the case, why not go there to begin with?

[niky]

I think the fact that they put a price per gallon on it is clue enough the energy isn't free, and that they would be using an external source. But yeah, the fact that everyone is touting it as free fuel isn't helping...

This would be a fantastic technology to have on a carrier. Frees up a lot of storage space for other stuff. Also, not having to carry around as much fuel should make it safer, too.

But $3 sounds incredibly optimistic. If that factors in start-up cost, also, then that's something that could go straight to commercial sale.

[Fat Charlie]

It's a government project. $3 a gallon inclides the "savings" of having X fewer troops to escort fuel convoys in theater, Y fewer KBR contractors actually hauling the fuel and selling it to the Pentagon at no-bid contract prices and Z fewer warships required to rotate off mission for refueling and escorting replenishment ships.

Once you factor all of that in, it's only $3 a gallon! But really, the operational flexibility this could give the military is amazing and would reduce many of the hidden costs of getting fuel at sea or in theater.

[sarguy01]

I think it's great that the Navy is researching it. It is far from a perfect system, but does show the Navy is doing something to get away from using oil.

The carriers are already nuclear. If the carrier could produce this fuel to give to jets and ships within the carrier battle group, the Navy would save a lot of money by not having to have the resupply ships going back and forth every week from a port to the battle group.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by CapriRacer

That may be, but even a creative reading of the article doesn't yield a self sufficient ship without the addition of some sort of major electricity generator such as a nuclear reactor. And if that is the case, why not go there to begin with?

I can look out my office window and see across the San Diego bay at nuclear carriers and submarines. The rest of the escort and supply ships are steam and gas turbine powered. The rotorcraft and jets are JP-8 fueled. It is not the simple desire to power the capital ships that the navy has put time and money into this.

The first application ( ~10 years ) will be the drop in replacement fuel for the aircraft that operate off the ships and the ground vehicles that deploy on land. They mention land based refueling centers.

The next step will be to fuel the steam and gas turbine powered craft. More than likely, processing centers on the nuclear carriers will be augmented by in theater "fueling ships" that are nuclear powered and have fuel production as their main function.

Because of minimum regulatory restrictions and due to their modular design requirements, nuclear power units produced by the navy come in well under 1,500 dollars per Kilowatt in capital expenditures.

Can you imagine a commercial application where a modular Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor powers the grid and then produces liquid hydrocarbon fuels during off peak hours? I can. And this tech can be integrated into that scheme with less input of electricity than previous technology and with little to no side pollution. All you need is a plentiful supply of sea water.

[darcane]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Can you imagine a commercial application where a modular Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor powers the grid and then produces liquid hydrocarbon fuels during off peak hours? I can. And this tech can be integrated into that scheme with less input of electricity than previous technology and with little to no side pollution. All you need is a plentiful supply of sea water.

I can, and would be thrilled to see it.

Unfortunately we seem to be heading the wrong direction when it comes to LFTR power plants, even though we had the first one functioning. As far as I know, China is the only country looking into them seriously and plans to have one running in less than a decade.

Chinese going for broke on thorium nuclear power, and good luck to them – Telegraph Blogs

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by darcane

I can, and would be thrilled to see it.

Unfortunately we seem to be heading the wrong direction when it comes to LFTR power plants, even though we had the first one functioning. As far as I know, China is the only country looking into them seriously and plans to have one running in less than a decade.

Chinese going for broke on thorium nuclear power, and good luck to them – Telegraph Blogs

The free world would need an extremely high cost of energy to come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is the answer. With politics and regulation, it will be decades before we see LFTR ("lifter") power plants. But, we can seed the idea into the mainstream thought so that when the time comes, we can buy cheap Chinese made units at our local Home Depot.

[Xist]

My Global Energy professor has offered six extra credit assignments thus far, ten points each, with the semester point total at four hundred points. For some reason I did not do the first one, I must have had a conflict, although it was only worth five points. However, he required us to attend an Amory Lovins presentation, although we did not receive any credit for it. Lovins talked about China's aggressive energy program and that last year, China added more solar panels than the United States has total. I believe that it was my professor that said China was trying to expand in every direction, as fast as possible.

Isn't the heavy part of water oxygen? How much water could an aircraft carrier electrolyze?