[Grizzly]

since it get rids of loads of dependencies.

[Klaustrophobia]

i just read about this at work tonight.  pretty cool if it ends up working.  unfortunately proof of concept is often the easy part. 

i just hope we don't try to get rid of nuclear propulsion because of it.  i feel ever so slightly threatened in my job security

[Luis Dias]

I don't get this. So they catalyze Hydrogen out of seawater. Great. How exactly are they producing more energy than consuming in that process altogether?

[666maslo666]

doublepost

[666maslo666]

I don't get this. So they catalyze Hydrogen out of seawater. Great. How exactly are they producing more energy than consuming in that process altogether?

They are not. The idea is to produce carbon neutral fuel, not energy. You cannot use electricity to power jet fighters. Fuels are far more energy dense than even the best batteries.

This is great news. The problem with our energy generation is not the amount of energy we can produce, its energy storage. If this can be adapted to grid storage and transportation, intermittent energy sources and synthetic carbon neutral fuels could finally become viable.

The problem with synthetic fuels is not obtaining hydrogen, its obtaining carbon from other sources than fossils. If they can do it efficiently from seawater, it would be a gamechanger.

[swashmebuckle]

Maybe our surface ships could use those tethered blimp windmill things from the other thread to provide the power for the fuel conversion process.  Or they could cut out the middle man and use sails.  I would like to see the Navy take it one step further and abandon the F-35 boondoggle for an all-kite air group.  Better yet, just sit on the dock and have a beer; boats are too much work.

[Luis Dias]

I think I get it now thanks.

[Black Wolf]

So the plan is to extract CO2 out of the oceans, combine it with hydrogen, and then burn it again, putting it back into the atmosphere. Given that the ocean is the world's primary first stage carbon sink, does anyone else think that this is a bad idea? It's definitely not carbon neutral - perhaps not as bad as fossil fuels, since not all of the CO2 stored in the oceans would have been sequestered long term, but it's still going to add to atmospheric carbon.

[Ghostavo]

So the plan is to extract CO2 out of the oceans, combine it with hydrogen, and then burn it again, putting it back into the atmosphere. Given that the ocean is the world's primary first stage carbon sink, does anyone else think that this is a bad idea? It's definitely not carbon neutral - perhaps not as bad as fossil fuels, since not all of the CO2 stored in the oceans would have been sequestered long term, but it's still going to add to atmospheric carbon.

Hydrogen as a fuel generates water.

[karajorma]

So the plan is to extract CO2 out of the oceans, combine it with hydrogen, and then burn it again, putting it back into the atmosphere. Given that the ocean is the world's primary first stage carbon sink, does anyone else think that this is a bad idea? It's definitely not carbon neutral - perhaps not as bad as fossil fuels, since not all of the CO2 stored in the oceans would have been sequestered long term, but it's still going to add to atmospheric carbon.

Possibly. But if the concentration of CO2 in the oceans goes down, the oceans will absorb more. The question is will it be enough to remain carbon neutral.


That said, I can't imagine they're going to be removing enough CO2 to make a difference. I'm sure they use a lot of oil but it can't be more than a drop in the ocean compared to everything else that does.

I think I get it now thanks.

I don't. You still need some power source to convert the seawater into hydrocarbons. The article talks about getting rid of the need to use tankers but as far as I can see, that's not true. They're still going to have to use something as a tanker, even if it's a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

[The Dagger]

They can use nuclear power to make fuel. But they sure need some power source and I don't think they'll go envirommentally-friendly on that. However, since nuclear fuel does not need to be changed for years, they wouldn't need tankers.
And since you are taking CO2 to make fuel, burning it would simply released the captured CO2 and the process is CO2 neutral. It's exactly the same as biofuel.

[Dragon]

Nice idea, but I wonder how exactly does this work. Making anything from CO2 is a power-hungry process. Nuclear-powered ships should be able handle that, but then, why not just use LH2 as fuel? Though this might be better in that it could be adopted for the existing hydrocarbon engines. Also, they seem to imply that every ship will be able to produce it's own fuel, not that the nuke-powered carrier will also serve as the tanker...

[666maslo666]

Nuclear-powered ships should be able handle that, but then, why not just use LH2 as fuel? Though this might be better in that it could be adopted for the existing hydrocarbon engines.

Indeed, existing engines can use this, that is a huge advantage. And hydrocarbons are easier to work with than hydrogen.

[karajorma]

They can use nuclear power to make fuel. But they sure need some power source and I don't think they'll go envirommentally-friendly on that. However, since nuclear fuel does not need to be changed for years, they wouldn't need tankers.

But you do. You still need a vessel capable of carrying enough fuel to supply your entire carrier group and all the planes, etc on the carrier. While you've eliminated the need for such a vessel to travel to and from an oil depot to bring the fuel to the carrier, you've now made it so that the carrier itself must carry that fuel, come alongside the other ships of its group and tank fuel to them. The article makes it sound like this change allows you to avoid that, but for the life of me I can't imagine how.

And since you are taking CO2 to make fuel, burning it would simply released the captured CO2 and the process is CO2 neutral. It's exactly the same as biofuel.

With biofuel you take the CO2 from the air, make plants, make fuel, burn fuel and return the CO2 to the air. With this you take CO2 from the ocean, make fuel, burn the fuel, dump CO2 in the air and really hope it all goes back into the sea. The question is, will it?

[Nuke]

i just read about this at work tonight.  pretty cool if it ends up working.  unfortunately proof of concept is often the easy part. 

i just hope we don't try to get rid of nuclear propulsion because of it.  i feel ever so slightly threatened in my job security

go apply at emcc. work on polywells.

[Klaustrophobia]

They can use nuclear power to make fuel. But they sure need some power source and I don't think they'll go envirommentally-friendly on that. However, since nuclear fuel does not need to be changed for years, they wouldn't need tankers.

But you do. You still need a vessel capable of carrying enough fuel to supply your entire carrier group and all the planes, etc on the carrier. While you've eliminated the need for such a vessel to travel to and from an oil depot to bring the fuel to the carrier, you've now made it so that the carrier itself must carry that fuel, come alongside the other ships of its group and tank fuel to them. The article makes it sound like this change allows you to avoid that, but for the life of me I can't imagine how.

for the first stage of this tech, fueling the air wings, it's just a matter of filling the fuel tanks with this thing onboard rather than with a tanker.  like how the water tanks are filled with the distilling units instead of a supply ship.  as for fueling the ships themselves... i guess that's part of what they'll be working on over the next decade+.

[Trivial Psychic]

Perhaps these distillery ships could be solar-powered.

[Colonol Dekker]

Once they get this mothership /anteus working, I can see reverse harvesters / mini tug tankers ferrying fuel blocks around the task force...

[Klaustrophobia]

the easiest/most "drop in" way to do this would be to install one on the tanker and have it go with the battle group.

[MP-Ryan]

I envision a massive scaling problem arising from this little exercise.  It's going to take a crazy amount of power, and an even crazier number or size of vessels to make this work on any kind of useable scale.  Neat idea, and a good stopgap measure to reduce dependency on land-based oil refineries, but there are some potentially major technical issues.