Navy close to turning Sea water into jet fuel, Republicans try to block it. Go Figure!!!

Source

Navy scientists and researchers say they are close to a breakthrough toward turning seawater into jet fuel.

The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory is working to extract the carbon dioxide and produce hydrogen gas from the seawater. The key is then converting the carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons that can then be used to develop JP-5 fuel stock.

Awesome am i right? I mean this could revolutionize the world.

Not so fast. Republicans, probably with oil industry money and friends, wanna put a block to it.

Text Of course, this supposed breakthrough comes as the Republicans in Congress have fought against the efforts by the Navy to develop alternative fuels. Republicans claim the Navy can’t afford to attempt to create fuel out of seawater or cooking oil when the defense budget is getting slashed.

Navy and Marine Corps leaders have said they can’t afford not to considering the advances the Marine Corps has made in operational energy in Afghanistan.

That sounds like an energy intensive process which would have a negative energy return on investment unless I'm missing something.

I wonder how much spare energy a CVN generates? If there was enough unused energy I could see such a process being used to create fuel independent of a long supply chain to keep the planes flying.

I am really close to turning lead into gold. It'll save the world economy!

Just give me a larger research grant and I know I can do it.


Here's reality: Don't believe everything a PhD says. Especially when it comes to money. Most aren't out to defraud the government, but "close" could mean a lot of things, especially if they are only doing basic research.

reply to post by dominicus


Wow. How could that not be a good investment for the paltry amount of money the US war machine burns through every year?

reply to post by dominicus


This has been around for a while. The plan would be to use a decommissioned carrier [Enterprise comes to mind] to travel with the carrier group and produce distillate fuel using nuclear power.

Sounds do-able. Go Navy!

All chemistry comes down to electrical forces. CVNs have alot of electricity, so it probably works.

They could also lay a film of solar pannels on all navy ships and make hydrogen to burn directly.

Of course running the reactor at maximum all of the time will use more fuel and require more maintnance.

If the technology isn't cost effective yet I can see why the "evil" Republicans would be trying to block it. Dems are all about taking taxpayers money to spend this or that on pet projects labeled environmentally friendly. But in this economy? You're going to have to come up with something green and cost effective. I know we like to throw billions away toward companies like Solyndra, but we (the USA) are broke, yo!

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by dominicus

 

This has been around for a while. The plan would be to use a decommissioned carrier [Enterprise comes to mind] to travel with the carrier group and produce distillate fuel using nuclear power.

Sounds like I was pretty close to the mark then. Yay!

I could see why they think it is unnecessary for the cost though

Maybe if we end up dropping wet fleets on to contest undeveloped planets in the far in the future this technology would have a place. Currently though I think tankers fill the job with less wasted energy.

reply to post by Mkoll

That sounds like an energy intensive process which would have a negative energy return on investment unless I'm missing something.

You gotta start somewhere, then refine, refine, refine, update, renew, and eventually you get to a really nice place.

Gas is $5 a gallon in southern Ca,w no signs of going down in the future.

Somethings got to give eventually.

By the way did i mention i really dislike republicans?

reply to post by dominicus


You can't refine the laws of thermodynamics any further. It's people like you who swallow this kind of nonsense without any critical thinking that scare me

Also, I hate the Republicans as much as I hate the Democrats. Its a one party system, really.

reply to post by dominicus


as do most californians, hence $5 a gallon gas.

Once again a libtard twists the facts to promote a lie. What Rep. Forbes and other republicans are objecting to is Navy Secretary Ray Mabus' plan to Navy fuel being supplied by 50% alternative fuels by 2020.

A study, commissioned by the Department of Defense stated the Navy will need to buy 336 million gallons of renewable fuel per year in order to meet its aim. Each gallon will cost between $1.43 and $5.24 more than petroleum. Which means the Navy could wind up spending an extra $1.76 billion annually on biofuels. In comparison, a new destroyer costs about $1.6 billion, at a time when the shipbuilding budget is getting cut.

The question is simple, Should the Navy have an open-ended budget to buy fuels whatever the price? It's not only Republicans who are opposed. The Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee went even further, blocking the Defense Department from helping build biofuel refineries unless “specifically authorized by law. This is nothing more than an attempt by a political appointee to ram a political agenda down the throats of the Navy. If the obama administration is concerned about relying on foreign energy sources perhaps it should look to push for expansion of US based oil sources such as shale and coal gasification instead of pushing an agenda that calls for buying fuels that add at least 1.7 billion dollars to the Navy's operating budget per annum.

It's hypocritical for the left to criticize oil company subsidies when Mabus' push is nothing more than a government bailout and funding of an industry that can't make it on its own. Once again the WH is pushing for another Solyndra.

Not much of surprise...I mean the UFO's use the water for their fuel source.

reply to post by pacific_waters


I think you are right, I couldn't find a good source for the Republicans actually being against the Navy making fuel from Seawater. I think they are referring to Bio-Fuels which are considerably more expensive $26 vs $3.60 per gal (in July).

Insight: "Green Fleet" sails, meets stiff headwinds in Congress

Unless the "emissions" of using water as a fuel creates or is a catalyst for creating more (and clean) rainfall then I think cost effectiveness is the least of the problems with this idea. Especially with a growing global population consuming and using more and more. The US war machine would gobble up the oceans faster than a fat kid eating cake when they think no one is watching.

reply to post by Mkoll

You can't refine the laws of thermodynamics any further

Did i said that? Cause i dont see it anywhere when i reread my post. I was actually talking about refining and updating the tech that goes into energy and refining. For example solar panels supplying batteries with enough juice to then power electrolysis for hydrogen conversion, storage, and use is already being done by a few diy'ers. Solar is constantly being refined to greater efficiency.....

It's people like you who swallow this kind of nonsense without any critical thinking that scare me

Its people like you who jump to biased conclusions by taking content out of context which result in false assumptions. Somebody who does this shouldn't hold positions of power such as work in gov't or be a pistol wielding cop with a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.

Obviously an energy source is required to turn water and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into fuel. And obviously in the case of the US Navy this will be a nuclear reactor.

Now let's forget about the military use for this. What about the civilian use? One question - does this use electricity or just mere heat? We could use the electricity from relatively clean sources of energy, the heat from nuclear reactors, or the waste heat from power stations to generate carbon neutral fuel, cheaply, without having to import it.

Originally posted by pacific_waters
Once again a libtard twists the facts to promote a lie. What Rep. Forbes and other republicans are objecting to is Navy Secretary Ray Mabus' plan to Navy fuel being supplied by 50% alternative fuels by 2020.

A study, commissioned by the Department of Defense stated the Navy will need to buy 336 million gallons of renewable fuel per year in order to meet its aim. Each gallon will cost between $1.43 and $5.24 more than petroleum. Which means the Navy could wind up spending an extra $1.76 billion annually on biofuels. In comparison, a new destroyer costs about $1.6 billion, at a time when the shipbuilding budget is getting cut.

The question is simple, Should the Navy have an open-ended budget to buy fuels whatever the price? It's not only Republicans who are opposed. The Democratic-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee went even further, blocking the Defense Department from helping build biofuel refineries unless “specifically authorized by law. This is nothing more than an attempt by a political appointee to ram a political agenda down the throats of the Navy. If the obama administration is concerned about relying on foreign energy sources perhaps it should look to push for expansion of US based oil sources such as shale and coal gasification instead of pushing an agenda that calls for buying fuels that add at least 1.7 billion dollars to the Navy's operating budget per annum.

It's hypocritical for the left to criticize oil company subsidies when Mabus' push is nothing more than a government bailout and funding of an industry that can't make it on its own. Once again the WH is pushing for another Solyndra.

Oh my god you are right!!

In 588 years this would add a trillion dollars to the deficit...

That could make it 17 trillion instead of 16 trillion...

Whoa... And to think that's just a little under 6 centuries away.

Meanwhile the knowledge gained would be worthless I know.

People no understand.. Oil go bye bye.. Army trying to get off the power grid, Navy trying to make fuel.. And people think paper money is worth the alternative oil production costs, so let them have their paper by all means..

So let's sit around and just use up all the easy energy. Once it's all gone, THEN, we can start using costly alternatives, because by that time production costs will be cheap right? Solar panels are easy as heck to make without cheap oil, I am sure you know this.

I have a hint for you guys. There are plants and there is a sun. The earth is NOT a closed system. We are gaining energy. The most promising thing I could see involving hydrogen is to get a plant to synthesize it using the sun's rays. Plants would work non stop, and not need electricity to produce their energy.

Originally posted by randomname
reply to post by dominicus

 

as do most californians, hence $5 a gallon gas.

Oh so funny, and so true. Wish I could give more stars. I got a a great laugh to start my morning with. Thank you.

reply to post by dominicus


The evil republicans pulled the plug because someone has to be the adult here. It isn't cost effective! Thank God someone in DC has enough sense to take the credit card away from these children.