- 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 4:30 pm to Bard
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:30 pm to Bard
quote:
The real game-changer is when that hits the civilian market. Within 50 years the Middle East will be fairly irrelevant.
Do you think this is the first alternative fuel?
The first Model T was built to run on an easily renewable resource.
3
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:36 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I suspect there are some devils in the details though.
If I had a dollar for every "game-changing" technology that would revolutionize fuel production by getting gas from water, I could afford to fill up my destroyer.
Remember that guy that burned water?
Or that guy that got fuel from sea water using radio waves?
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:46 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:Thanks!
LINK
Looks similar to this
So
Anode:
H2O + NaCl (in presence of current) --> NaOH + HCl
Cathode:
H2O + Na+ ---> NaOH + 1/2H2
Byproduct:
????? ---> CO2
Neutralization:
NaOH + HCl(aq) ---> NaOH + H2O
Hydrocarbon Production:
H2 + CO2 ---> Rn
Chain Expansion:
Rn + Rn ---> Rnn
Jet fuel Production:
Rnn (catalyst) ---> Jetfuel!
GAME-CHANGER!
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:47 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The Model T was built to run on easily renewable resources
Like what?Ethynol?You have to be kidding to call it
a renewable source when it actually cost more fuel than it produces.
Good lord the reason gasoline works is because it's the most efficiant way to power an automobile.Don't ya think for one second if there was a better alternative someone would've
marketed or produced it?
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:50 pm to RD Dawg
quote:Original diesel engine ran on peanut oil. No real processing necessary. Problem is that it was too viscous. So, they modified the fuel source rather than making a more robust engine.
Good lord the reason gasoline works is because it's the most efficiant way to power an automobile.Don't ya think for one second if there was a better alternative someone would've
marketed or produced it?
vegetable oil is on par with gasoline as far as BTU/lb is concerned.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 4:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The first Model T was built to run on an easily renewable resource
Man, you can fck up a thread on any subject around here.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 5:12 pm to Spirit of Dunson
quote:
so they modified the fuel source instead of creating a more robust engine
Who's "they"? Do you how many automobile companies there were in early stages of the industry? And NO ONE could come up with a more robust engine that ran on vegtable oil that was cost efficient?
I imagine it was cheaper at the time to produce gasoline than vegtable oil OR gasoline was still a more powerful fuel.
Sorry,not buying it especialliy in the days before the EPA exsisted and they weren't blending and regulating the industries to death (both oil and automobile)
Posted on 4/8/14 at 5:35 pm to RD Dawg
quote:Rudolph Diesel. Otto engine company. You know, the early developers of the compression ignition engine.
Who's "they"?
quote:in the days of the first diesel engine? about 2 that had standardized manufacturing processes.
Do you how many automobile companies there were in early stages of the industry?
quote:You think it was cheaper to produce gasoline than to crush peanuts?
I imagine it was cheaper at the time to produce gasoline than vegtable oil
quote:oh. Now I see what is happening here. You're an idiot.
Sorry,not buying it especialliy in the days before the EPA exsisted and they weren't blending and regulating the industries to death (both oil and automobile)
I wasn't commenting on the merits of one or the other, just saying that other liquid hydrocarbons have similar energy value. It was a strategic choice by early manufacturers to focus on petro-based hydrocarbons. That was what they chose, and we have all benefited from it. You had to go and make this all dumb and political.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 5:58 pm to Spirit of Dunson
You responded to my post about the Model T with a post about the original diesel engine.WTF does one have to do with the other?
;
Looks like you have the market cornered
;
quote:
You're an idoit
Looks like you have the market cornered
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:05 pm to RD Dawg
As witty as that was, the specific post I responded to doesn't negate the fact that your comments inn this thread show your ignorance (acceptable) and your unwillingness to engage in intelligent conversation (unacceptable).
Also, I responded to your statement that there was no fuel as efficient as gasoline.
Also, I responded to your statement that there was no fuel as efficient as gasoline.
This post was edited on 4/8/14 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:12 pm to Jimbeaux28
quote:Wanna bet?
Governments cannot tax water like they can oil and gas.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:13 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
How do you people even get out of bed in the morning?
Because I don't do much worrying about things that I cannot control. If big oil companies want to prevent technology like this from reaching the civilian market then they very well may succeed. There isn't much I can do about it. O well, life goes on.
Posted on 4/8/14 at 6:22 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Like what?Ethynol?You have to be kidding to call it
a renewable source when it actually cost more fuel than it produces.
Actually it ran on Hemp Oil.
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
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.
Posted on 4/10/14 at 7:33 am to RD Dawg
quote:
Well,the USN now has 280 ships and only about 1/3 can be deployed at one time...we had around 600 in the height of the Reagan military buildup...
No other countries navy can touch ours anyway. Less ships is not an issue.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News