If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   The Navy has created a vehicle that runs on water. No really   (csmonitor.com) divider line 72
    More: Interesting, naval ship, jet fuel, seawaters, opinion pieces, energy sectors, NRL, hydrogen, Christian Science Monitor  
•       •       •

7459 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Oct 2012 at 5:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 11:39:33 PM
The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?
 
2012-10-02 11:43:46 PM
They've had those for years. They're called boats.
 
2012-10-02 11:44:14 PM
There's this car man, and it runs on water man!
 
2012-10-03 12:19:00 AM

fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?


Because boats don't currently use it, but jets do?
 
2012-10-03 12:19:25 AM

fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?


It could be meant for carriers. Hard to know from the article.
 
2012-10-03 12:27:43 AM
I vaguely remember a man creating a hydrogen fueled engine that separated water into fuel-viable components and he swore it was bought out by the Navy, anyone else remember this?
 
2012-10-03 12:48:19 AM
So possibly 3$ a gallon jet fuel from water. Frikken c'mon, let's do this on the grand scale. Put some additives in it to give it close to an 87 octane rating.

That's probably more threatening than using military action in the Middle East.
 
2012-10-03 01:03:56 AM

fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?


Turbine engines run on jet fuel, and they can and are used in ships
 
2012-10-03 01:10:50 AM
This is just to make fuel for the planes. Of course, it also requires a large input of energy, which presumably comes from the boat's fuel.
 
2012-10-03 01:20:04 AM
I presume this is via some type of electrolysis. Wouldn't that yield H and O, not H and CO2?
 
2012-10-03 01:28:57 AM

fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?


Many modern naval vessels use gas turbine engines.
 
2012-10-03 01:51:55 AM

unyon: I presume this is via some type of electrolysis. Wouldn't that yield H and O, not H and CO2?


If seawater were pure distilled H20, then yeah. But that is NOT the case. There's CO2 dissolved in there, as well as organic things and minerals and some other stuffs. .
 
2012-10-03 02:50:30 AM
 
2012-10-03 02:53:59 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?

Turbine engines run on jet fuel, and they can and are used in ships


Kinda what I thought. Thanks, though.

/33rd green, yay!
//subby
 
2012-10-03 04:17:09 AM
Ships have a very long history with turbines, part of the revolution that the HMS Dreadnought represented in 1906 was it being the first capital ship with steam turbine engines, and nuclear boats all use steam turbines. Gas turbines are less common but have seen increasing use in destroyers and frigates in the last 30 year's or so.
 
2012-10-03 05:56:03 AM
Jesusbot?
 
2012-10-03 06:01:30 AM
I wonder if pulling out CO2 will help reduce green house gases. What's the energy cost of the extraction and refinement vs. the energy in the 'jet' fuel?
 
2012-10-03 06:04:08 AM

Makh: So possibly 3$ a gallon jet fuel from water. Frikken c'mon, let's do this on the grand scale. Put some additives in it to give it close to an 87 octane rating.


Jet fuel does not work that way!

Jet fuel is basically kerosene with some additives to improve its low temperature performance and flash point. With some modifications you could run it in a Diesel engine but it wouldn't work in your car.

Also, this is the kind of thing you can do easily when you already have a nuclear power station on tap and convenient access to seawater (ie, you're on a supercarrier in the middle of the ocean). The energy required to extract the hydrogen from the seawater alone is equal to about a gallon of gas burned per litre of fuel produced. It's not an energy-efficient process by any means.
 
2012-10-03 06:12:38 AM

Doctor Jan Itor: I wonder if pulling out CO2 will help reduce green house gases. What's the energy cost of the extraction and refinement vs. the energy in the 'jet' fuel?


The process would ultimately be carbon-neutral, unless you were burning carbon-based fuels to power it. You're taking oxidized carbon from the environment (seawater), turning it into fuel by de-oxidizing it, and then re-oxidizing it (burning it in a jet engine). Eventually that CO2 would be consumed by the ocean again. Using nuclear (or solar/tidal/wind) power to drive the process would see no long-term change in greenhouse gas levels.
 
2012-10-03 06:20:15 AM
So extracting components of jet fuel from sea water = a vehicle that runs on water?

got it.
 
2012-10-03 06:25:23 AM

Donnchadha: They've had those for years. They're called boats.


my thoughts exactly
 
2012-10-03 06:25:51 AM
img6.joyreactor.com
 
2012-10-03 06:38:42 AM
So the question is if, say, a waterfront community could start making fuel from the ocean.
...Or is this one of those "turn energy into oil for later" things?

Cause the articles not too clear on that.
 
2012-10-03 07:06:41 AM
25.media.tumblr.com

Nailed it.
 
2012-10-03 07:15:35 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Also, this is the kind of thing you can do easily when you already have a nuclear power station on tap and convenient access to seawater (ie, you're on a supercarrier in the middle of the ocean). The energy required to extract the hydrogen from the seawater alone is equal to about a gallon of gas burned per litre of fuel produced. It's not an energy-efficient process by any means.


Correct.

This would be a boon to nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which don't need to refuel to power themselves, but they do need to refuel to power their aircraft. If you could make jet fuel instead of having to have a vulnerable tanker haul it around for replenishment, you would save a bunch of money (don't need to man and operate the tanker), reduce potential vulnerability (the tanker itself, and the carrier during replenishment), reduce the carbon footprint (the tankers are generally oil-fired), and reduce the signature of the carrier group.

It's a win-win all around, provided you can cram it into a carrier relatively safely.
 
2012-10-03 07:25:00 AM

dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Also, this is the kind of thing you can do easily when you already have a nuclear power station on tap and convenient access to seawater (ie, you're on a supercarrier in the middle of the ocean). The energy required to extract the hydrogen from the seawater alone is equal to about a gallon of gas burned per litre of fuel produced. It's not an energy-efficient process by any means.

Correct.

This would be a boon to nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which don't need to refuel to power themselves, but they do need to refuel to power their aircraft. If you could make jet fuel instead of having to have a vulnerable tanker haul it around for replenishment, you would save a bunch of money (don't need to man and operate the tanker), reduce potential vulnerability (the tanker itself, and the carrier during replenishment), reduce the carbon footprint (the tankers are generally oil-fired), and reduce the signature of the carrier group.

It's a win-win all around, provided you can cram it into a carrier relatively safely.


Next they'll figure out a way to make smart bombs from bull kelp.
 
2012-10-03 07:46:11 AM

fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?


IIRC, some on-board systems require JP5 (especially non-nuclear powered ships).

Charlie Freak: fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?

Many modern naval vessels use gas turbine engines.


Yeah, that.
 
2012-10-03 07:48:41 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: dittybopper: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Also, this is the kind of thing you can do easily when you already have a nuclear power station on tap and convenient access to seawater (ie, you're on a supercarrier in the middle of the ocean). The energy required to extract the hydrogen from the seawater alone is equal to about a gallon of gas burned per litre of fuel produced. It's not an energy-efficient process by any means.

Correct.

This would be a boon to nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which don't need to refuel to power themselves, but they do need to refuel to power their aircraft. If you could make jet fuel instead of having to have a vulnerable tanker haul it around for replenishment, you would save a bunch of money (don't need to man and operate the tanker), reduce potential vulnerability (the tanker itself, and the carrier during replenishment), reduce the carbon footprint (the tankers are generally oil-fired), and reduce the signature of the carrier group.

It's a win-win all around, provided you can cram it into a carrier relatively safely.

Next they'll figure out a way to make smart bombs from bull kelp.


Until we have robots fully fight our wars it won't feel like the 21st century.
 
2012-10-03 07:52:38 AM

xanadian: fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?

IIRC, some on-board systems require JP5 (especially non-nuclear powered ships).

Charlie Freak: fusillade762: The impression I get is that the fuel is for the ships, so why are they calling it "jet" fuel?

Many modern naval vessels use gas turbine engines.

Yeah, that.


This is true, but what would be the point? The conversion of sea water to jet fuel takes as much energy as you get out of it, so there really isn't a point for a non-nuclear ship.

Although, you could have a nuclear powered tanker/refinery ship that can make fuel for other ships. Without the "free energy" of a nuclear power plant, though, it's a losing proposition. The Navy might be especially interested in something like that, a ship that can produce fuel for other ships, that can be moved out of harms way, unlike an drilling platform and/or oil refinery.
 
2012-10-03 08:02:24 AM

dittybopper: Although, you could have a nuclear powered tanker/refinery ship that can make fuel for other ships. Without the "free energy" of a nuclear power plant, though, it's a losing proposition. The Navy might be especially interested in something like that, a ship that can produce fuel for other ships, that can be moved out of harms way, unlike an drilling platform and/or oil refinery.


Except that would get back to the issue of having 2 ship meet and link up to refuel.

Wonder if they are thinking to use a small nuclear reactor to generate fuel 24/7. The small reactor would not have enough power to run the ship but if it could generate enough fuel to keep the ship running under normal conditions there would be less need for other refueling operations.
A small reactor would probably be a lot safer and cheaper than a full sized reactor that would be needed to run the ship otherwise.
 
2012-10-03 08:03:31 AM
Seems like another example of article stacking where this one refers to another who has "developed" in the headline, but "developing" in the body. I've read this in 2 other locations the past month that said concept only.

Now a network news channel will get this from Fark and add that not only is it real, but the Chinese already have it, and Obama didn't care for it.
 
2012-10-03 08:19:38 AM

Your_Midnight_Man: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]

Nailed it.


YES!
 
2012-10-03 08:20:44 AM
I thought the Army did this.

/Harry Harrison
 
2012-10-03 08:32:59 AM
This was documented in Robert Zubin's book "the case for mars" where he suggests that a very small tank of hydrogen, if sent on a 'return craft' to mars could create enough rocket fuel in the intervening year and a half while people headed there to being them home.

If you have sunlight and seawater, you don't need the tank of hydrogen
 
2012-10-03 08:34:45 AM

Slives: dittybopper: Although, you could have a nuclear powered tanker/refinery ship that can make fuel for other ships. Without the "free energy" of a nuclear power plant, though, it's a losing proposition. The Navy might be especially interested in something like that, a ship that can produce fuel for other ships, that can be moved out of harms way, unlike an drilling platform and/or oil refinery.

Except that would get back to the issue of having 2 ship meet and link up to refuel.


Yes, but it also makes fixed assets like fuel depots, refineries, and drilling platforms, which can't be moved and thus are very vulnerable to long-range attack by missiles and aircraft, and in the case of drilling platforms, submarines, less necessary.

A mobile fuel producing platform is much harder to locate and target, and fuel production and storage is a major target in any conflict: If a navy doesn't have fuel, it can't fight.

Wonder if they are thinking to use a small nuclear reactor to generate fuel 24/7. The small reactor would not have enough power to run the ship but if it could generate enough fuel to keep the ship running under normal conditions there would be less need for other refueling operations.
A small reactor would probably be a lot safer and cheaper than a full sized reactor that would be needed to run the ship otherwise.


That's an option, but then you've got all the problems with installing that in current ships, most of which don't have a whole lot of excess space for even a small reactor and the shielding necessary.

I see this as a possibility for carriers, so they don't have to suck up jet fuel from a tanker while underway to feed their birds (though they would still need to replenish food and ordnance). That's probably the biggest advantage something like this would have, provided you can shoe-horn it into a carrier, and provided the carrier produces enough excess electricity to make the process useful.

The other possibility is mobile fuel-producing tankers that can replenish non-nuclear ships. I just can't see putting something like this in a frigate or a destroyer. Not enough room for even a small reactor and the appropriate auxiliary equipment, along with the extra crew to run it.
 
2012-10-03 09:00:56 AM
Not a Big Deal. It must operate on an energy deficit. You can't build hydrocarbons from scratch without putting an assload of energy into the process. More, in fact, than you will get out of the fuel you produce.

So unless you have a nuke not busy, you know, powering a ship and all, this could be feasible and maybe even a good back up come some apocalypse that doesn't involve nuclear pwered shiops from being zapped by laser or railguns or cruise missles or something.
 
2012-10-03 09:04:25 AM

dittybopper: I see this as a possibility for carriers, so they don't have to suck up jet fuel from a tanker while underway to feed their birds (though they would still need to replenish food and ordnance). That's probably the biggest advantage something like this would have, provided you can shoe-horn it into a carrier, and provided the carrier produces enough excess electricity to make the process useful.


This is the most likely option, I think. I'm fairly certain they've got enough excess capacity; whether or not it's cost effective to burn the EFPH (taking into account the savings from not having to purchase fuel and use tankers) will be the ultimate question.
 
2012-10-03 09:07:26 AM
GM to file a patent infringement lawsuit and spike the technology in 3..2..1
 
2012-10-03 09:27:55 AM
 
2012-10-03 09:35:03 AM
www.sublime.ag

They made a Jesus Lizard boat?
 
2012-10-03 09:40:12 AM

bhcompy: [www.sublime.ag image 850x637]

They made a Jesus Lizard boat?


Yep

www.boeing.com
 
2012-10-03 09:52:20 AM

incendi: dittybopper: I see this as a possibility for carriers, so they don't have to suck up jet fuel from a tanker while underway to feed their birds (though they would still need to replenish food and ordnance). That's probably the biggest advantage something like this would have, provided you can shoe-horn it into a carrier, and provided the carrier produces enough excess electricity to make the process useful.

This is the most likely option, I think. I'm fairly certain they've got enough excess capacity; whether or not it's cost effective to burn the EFPH (taking into account the savings from not having to purchase fuel and use tankers) will be the ultimate question.


It's not just the fiscal savings, it's also the tactical and strategic advantages. Look at nuclear power itself: It's *WAY* more expensive for naval propulsion than more conventional means, but the tactical advantages outweigh the bare accounting of which is more expensive to run. We could save a considerable amount of money by using conventionally powered submarines, but the advantages of having a very powerful and completely air independent propulsion method outweigh the added cost.

I do find it hard to believe, though, that a process that requires you to refuel a reactor a bit sooner than normal would be more expensive than operating a tanker dedicated to schlepping Jet-A for a decade or two across the oceans of the World.
 
2012-10-03 09:53:45 AM
So besides a nuclear powered aircraft carrier producing jet fuel for it's planes you could have a nuclear powered refueling ship to deliver fuel to nonnuclear ships. Since the refueling ships would not need to return to port to get more fuel there would be a definite improvement. However I have to wonder if the $6 a gallon price includes the cost of decomissioning the nuclear reactors or if that just someone else's budget (in which case the electricity used is practically free).
 
2012-10-03 10:12:13 AM
You know, if you had a bigass tidal-driven power plant to provide the juice necessary for producing the fuel, this could actually be a halfway decent means of storing and transporting renewable energy. The energy density of kerosene/diesel fuel is really high on a per-volume basis, much better than anything we can do with rechargeable batteries right now, so this could make an effective bridge between today's fossil-fuel economy and the all-electric vehicles we'll likely have in the future.

The key is you need cheap electricity to make it work, and I'm not really up to speed on the installation costs of tidal marine power plants.
 
2012-10-03 10:18:15 AM

dittybopper: It's not just the fiscal savings, it's also the tactical and strategic advantages. Look at nuclear power itself: It's *WAY* more expensive for naval propulsion than more conventional means, but the tactical advantages outweigh the bare accounting of which is more expensive to run. We could save a considerable amount of money by using conventionally powered submarines, but the advantages of having a very powerful and completely air independent propulsion method outweigh the added cost.

I do find it hard to believe, though, that a process that requires you to refuel a reactor a bit sooner than normal would be more expensive than operating a tanker dedicated to schlepping Jet-A for a decade or two across the oceans of the World.


Paragraph A: I think under normal circumstances this would be true; however, the current atmosphere in Congress would probably junk a new awesomesauce program like this in favor of continuing current programs with large sunk costs already (because they're stupid politicians).

Paragraph B: Yeah, I think the math will come out in favor of this.
 
2012-10-03 10:20:08 AM
Sounds like a way to chemically transfer nuclear energy to non-nuke vessels and aircraft. The next class of carriers is slated to be a bit larger than the Nimitz class yet will not require as large a crew and have more free space due to magnetic cats and such, not needing as many steam lines. Could the extra space be used for something like this? Let the carrier refuel her escorts and generate her own aviation fuel.
 
2012-10-03 10:22:35 AM

dittybopper:
It's not just the fiscal savings, it's also the tactical and strategic advantages. Look at nuclear power itself: It's *WAY* more expensive for naval propulsion than more conventional means, but the tactical advantages outweigh the bare accounting of which is more expensive to run. We could save a considerable amount of money by using conventionally powered submarines, but the advantages of having a very powerful and completely air independent propulsion method outweigh the added cost.


Hmmm, got any citations for that *WAY* more expensive? And by *WAY*, what do you mean? What's the factor?
 
2012-10-03 10:36:30 AM

rwfan: However I have to wonder if the $6 a gallon price includes the cost of decomissioning the nuclear reactors or if that just someone else's budget (in which case the electricity used is practically free).


If there's a war, there might not be any decommissioning expense.
 
2012-10-03 10:41:14 AM

rwfan: dittybopper:
It's not just the fiscal savings, it's also the tactical and strategic advantages. Look at nuclear power itself: It's *WAY* more expensive for naval propulsion than more conventional means, but the tactical advantages outweigh the bare accounting of which is more expensive to run. We could save a considerable amount of money by using conventionally powered submarines, but the advantages of having a very powerful and completely air independent propulsion method outweigh the added cost.


Hmmm, got any citations for that *WAY* more expensive? And by *WAY*, what do you mean? What's the factor?


Well, I don't have hard numbers, and I actually have to leave in a few minutes so I can't take the time to dig them up, but consider this: Only a handful of nations have produced nuclear submarines (the US, UK, France, Russia, and China). Only *ONE* has gone with a completely nuclear submarine force: The US. Many other nations *COULD* have nuke boats, if they wanted to, but they've been researching (cheaper) non-nuclear AIP options like fuel cells.
 
2012-10-03 11:15:11 AM

Donnchadha: They've had those for years. They're called boats.


Came here to say this.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report