- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
The article was misleading, the true objective is to use energy available from a ships reactor to produce jet fuel for planes eliminating the need to carry large stores of jet fuel on carriers.
Hydrogen is a energy carrier, not a energy source just like a battery. The amount of energy required to break down the molecular bonds in seawater will always be greater than the energy produced by this process, the laws of physics are still in place as will our gas pumps in 20 years.
Better article
LINK
"But to make a jet fuel that is properly "green", the energy-intensive electrolysis that produces the hydrogen will need to use a carbon-neutral energy source; and the complex multi-step process will always consume significantly more energy than the fuel it produces could yield. In addition, each step in the process is likely to add cost and problems."
Hydrogen is a energy carrier, not a energy source just like a battery. The amount of energy required to break down the molecular bonds in seawater will always be greater than the energy produced by this process, the laws of physics are still in place as will our gas pumps in 20 years.
Better article
LINK
"But to make a jet fuel that is properly "green", the energy-intensive electrolysis that produces the hydrogen will need to use a carbon-neutral energy source; and the complex multi-step process will always consume significantly more energy than the fuel it produces could yield. In addition, each step in the process is likely to add cost and problems."
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 6:58 pm
2
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:06 pm to EA6B
Learn to respond to the right person.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 7:18 pm to EA6B
Back in the 60's, aboard a nuclear powered submarine, we changed sea water to potable water, separated the oxygen from the hydorgen through electrolisis. We used the oxygen for breathing and dumped the hydrogen overboard.
Back then a nuclear reactor on a submarine had to be refuled about every four-five years.
Back then a nuclear reactor on a submarine had to be refuled about every four-five years.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News