• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US Navy successfully demos jet fuel made from seawater

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yeah, the rest of the fleet. The carrier still ought to be able to supply jet fuel for the jets. The rest of the fleet would still require logistics ships, either in the form of transports or dedicated fuel production ships.
 
DrPizza said:
It would be rather silly to use fossil fuels to create electricity to create fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Yes, but using nuclear power to do it could make a lot of sense. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have desirable characteristics that electric power does not have, namely energy density, ease and efficiency of transportation and storage, and the flexibility to be transported to any location and converted to work without requiring additional fixed infrastructure. I've always maintained that electricity is not a replacement for liquid fuels at our current level of production and storage technology. It may well be some day, but for now if you had a cycle that began with nuclear-generated electricity and ended with artificial liquid hydrocarbon fuel, that could very well be worthwhile, imo.
 
During war, imagine not having to spend resources to guard fuel tankers, bringing fuel to carriers for planes. Or not having to turn the fleet around to get fuel at a port.

This is a huge strategic advantage. That it sounds 'green' is a just a bonus to the Navy.
 
Its interesting how so many here are scientifically illiterate. I would go on a stretch to say that the battle group still needs logistic support to refuel the ships in it. Jet fuel would pale in comparison to the amount needed by the ships so I doubt this would change a lot.
Unless they start floating carriers just by itself.
 
Juncar said:
Its interesting how so many here are scientifically illiterate. I would go on a stretch to say that the battle group still needs logistic support to refuel the ships in it. Jet fuel would pale in comparison to the amount needed by the ships so I doubt this would change a lot.
Unless they start floating carriers just by itself.
Click to expand...

It's also interesting that you completely lack the vision of thinking ahead to when the technology can be compacted to be used on every ships that's seaworthy which would not require the logistical support structure of today's ships, even when the very idea has been discussed before you posted. Illiterate you say?
 
There's no shortage of people on tall white stallions, that's for sure.

Putting the conversion equipment on every destroyer may be feasible soon-ish, but the power requirements are still immense, to the point that it makes no sense to do that unless a nuclear reactor can be put on board as well.
 
Scarpozzi said:
If we start using seawater for fuel, what does this mean for all of the petroleum stores and pipelines? Will they just tank?


And.... :
Maybe she was just trying to refuel.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ly-assaulted-week-murder-suicide-attempt.html
Click to expand...

It takes a shitton of energy to convert the water; it's not an energy source, it's a method of energy transport, and it is only useful because you can't fly a jet on nuclear/electric power. That has already been covered a few times in this thread.
 
Ruptga said:
There's no shortage of people on tall white stallions, that's for sure.

Putting the conversion equipment on every destroyer may be feasible soon-ish, but the power requirements are still immense, to the point that it makes no sense to do that unless a nuclear reactor can be put on board as well.
Click to expand...
It's amazing how posts like Dr. Pizza's are so misunderstood or ignored.

There's 0 point in putting this in any given ship that doesn't fuel something else. It's being looked at on carriers because they are nuclear and fuel planes. It's energy STORAGE. The reactor converts the seawater into a usable fuel, that something without a reactor would use.

If you have a reactor in a destroyer powerful enough to produce the fuel needed for diesel engines you would have enough power on the reactor to simply run the ship off of that (and have power to spare). Strip the diesel engines out at that point and just run nuclear, but that's not what they are talking about.
 
Phoenix86 said:
It's amazing how posts like Dr. Pizza's are so misunderstood or ignored.

There's 0 point in putting this in any given ship that doesn't fuel something else. It's being looked at on carriers because they are nuclear and fuel planes. It's energy STORAGE. The reactor converts the seawater into a usable fuel, that something without a reactor would use.

If you have a reactor in a destroyer powerful enough to produce the fuel needed for diesel engines you would have enough power on the reactor to simply run the ship off of that (and have power to spare). Strip the diesel engines out at that point and just run nuclear, but that's not what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, speaking of ignored posts...
Ruptga said:
It takes a shitton of energy to convert the water; it's not an energy source, it's a method of energy transport, and it is only useful because you can't fly a jet on nuclear/electric power. That has already been covered a few times in this thread.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I get it.
 
SSSnail said:
It's also interesting that you completely lack the vision of thinking ahead to when the technology can be compacted to be used on every ships that's seaworthy which would not require the logistical support structure of today's ships, even when the very idea has been discussed before you posted. Illiterate you say?
Click to expand...

Yea ok... If you can miniaturize nuclear reactors that produce enough energy to convert enough sea water to power diesel engines, why not just power it directly from the nuclear reactor. Not to mention I doubt the nuclear reactors would be cheap to build, maintain, and whether there is the political willpower to do so. Nuclear is still a big no-no for a lot of people in the world.
 
Juncar said:
Yea ok... If you can miniaturize nuclear reactors that produce enough energy to convert enough sea water to power diesel engines, why not just power it directly from the nuclear reactor. Not to mention I doubt the nuclear reactors would be cheap to build, maintain, and whether there is the political willpower to do so. Nuclear is still a big no-no for a lot of people in the world.
Click to expand...
You're not thinking, again. They may not be able to fit a nuclear reactor on a plane, but they may get it down to fit on a slightly larger platform, like a seaworthy Navy boat... Oh wait, they're already doing that.

All other points are superfluous to the discussion, they don't even warrant a response given the ridiculous argument.
 
Juncar said:
Yea ok... If you can miniaturize nuclear reactors that produce enough energy to convert enough sea water to power diesel engines, why not just power it directly from the nuclear reactor. Not to mention I doubt the nuclear reactors would be cheap to build, maintain, and whether there is the political willpower to do so. Nuclear is still a big no-no for a lot of people in the world.
Click to expand...

This is purely hypothetical, but if they needed a destroyer sized ship that could operate with minimal logistical support and that wouldn't be constantly steaming they could equip it with a reactor and fuel converter. The reactor would have to be small, so it wouldn't be able to power the engines directly at a level acceptable for a military ship. But if the reactor and converter could operate continuously it might be able to supply a quarter of their fuel needs while underway, and then make up the difference while the ship is at rest.

Realistically, that will never happen because such a ship would only be ideal in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it isn't technically impossible. Nuclear power has come a very long way in the last few decades, and political willpower is really only an issue when it runs into NIMBY, and nobody's back yard is in the ocean.
 
I wonder what the hell they're powering those nuclear subs with... :hmm:

Can they put like, two of those on a fishing boat? :awe:
 
Markbnj said:
Yes, but using nuclear power to do it could make a lot of sense. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels have desirable characteristics that electric power does not have, namely energy density, ease and efficiency of transportation and storage, and the flexibility to be transported to any location and converted to work without requiring additional fixed infrastructure. I've always maintained that electricity is not a replacement for liquid fuels at our current level of production and storage technology. It may well be some day, but for now if you had a cycle that began with nuclear-generated electricity and ended with artificial liquid hydrocarbon fuel, that could very well be worthwhile, imo.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.

Ruptga said:
This is purely hypothetical, but if they needed a destroyer sized ship that could operate with minimal logistical support and that wouldn't be constantly steaming they could equip it with a reactor and fuel converter. The reactor would have to be small, so it wouldn't be able to power the engines directly at a level acceptable for a military ship. But if the reactor and converter could operate continuously it might be able to supply a quarter of their fuel needs while underway, and then make up the difference while the ship is at rest.

Realistically, that will never happen because such a ship would only be ideal in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it isn't technically impossible. Nuclear power has come a very long way in the last few decades, and political willpower is really only an issue when it runs into NIMBY, and nobody's back yard is in the ocean.
Click to expand...

I was considering that yesterday. I didn't want to take the time to work out exactly how much water is needed, but went with a "gut feeling" going backwards. If you take the fuel requirements for a destroyer for one day, burn all that fuel, and capture the CO2 - what volume of water would it take to dissolve all of that CO2, keeping in mind that the final concentration of the water should be around the concentration of CO2 in the oceans. I was thinking that it's a huge volume of water - a large enough volume that if you were in port, or moving with the current, you would deplete the water surrounding your ship of CO2 before you had enough fuel. You'd have to be anchored in an area where there's a bit of a current, else be moving. (Or so it seems by my estimation.)
 
I hadn't thought of that, but fortunately ocean CO2 concentrations are on the rise so maybe it won't be much of an issue. :biggrin:

Also I have no idea how quickly CO2 diffuses from atmosphere to ocean or from one point in the ocean to another, it's possible that they may not be able to convert quickly enough to deplete local CO2. I'd guess it will be a long time before the details are declassified or the work is replicated in the civilian sector, but who knows?
 
SSSnail said:
You're not thinking, again. They may not be able to fit a nuclear reactor on a plane, but they may get it down to fit on a slightly larger platform, like a seaworthy Navy boat... Oh wait, they're already doing that.

All other points are superfluous to the discussion, they don't even warrant a response given the ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

Ok...I'd be interested in where you are getting that info from about the Navy boat. The rest is just ...

Ruptga said:
This is purely hypothetical, but if they needed a destroyer sized ship that could operate with minimal logistical support and that wouldn't be constantly steaming they could equip it with a reactor and fuel converter. The reactor would have to be small, so it wouldn't be able to power the engines directly at a level acceptable for a military ship. But if the reactor and converter could operate continuously it might be able to supply a quarter of their fuel needs while underway, and then make up the difference while the ship is at rest.

Realistically, that will never happen because such a ship would only be ideal in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it isn't technically impossible. Nuclear power has come a very long way in the last few decades, and political willpower is really only an issue when it runs into NIMBY, and nobody's back yard is in the ocean.
Click to expand...

While that's technically feasible, it sounds like it'll cost a lot for very little gain. I would say this is more for producing fuels for vehicles on the ships from nuclear power rather than powering any sizable ships.
 
Edit: You should just read the Navy press release

Not sure if you realize the cost, but especially the politics against putting nuclear reactors on all kinds of ships.
 
Last edited:
I think you should excuse yourself from the conversation, since it's obvious you haven't a clue about what's being discussed. Even a simple google search will show that nuclear has been powering naval vessels for decades, large and small. Just stop it.
 
I guess you missed my point, I'm not arguing against nuclear powered vessels. Most of those vessels are military ships with a handful of civilian ships. They are very tightly controlled and cost a lot to run. You think we'll just start slapping nuclear reactors on ships willy nilly without over sights? The extra safety systems and certified crew to run the reactors are not cheap (they are the reasons why nuclear power have such safety records for naval vessels). It doesn't make it attractive for non-military applications except in few circumstances.

And you entirely missed the point of the Navy press release which is to produce fuels for the air crafts. Fueling ships would require many more nuclear powered vessels and I don't think the Navy has the budget. There is no technical reason why, its just economics and politics.
 
I guess I did miss a small portion of it, but I kinda stopped reading after you said something about no miniaturized nuclear reactors...

Yeah, it'll cost plenty, and yes there will be lots and lots of hippy tears, but those has never stopped the US government from doing whatever it pleases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top