The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed

[Katashi_itto]

Surf’s up! The Navy appears to have achieved the Holy Grail of energy independence – turning seawater into fuel:

After decades of experiments, U.S. Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.

The new fuel is initially expected to cost around $3 to $6 per gallon, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, which has already flown a model aircraft on it.

Curiously, this doesn’t seem to be making much of a splash (no pun intended) on the evening news. Let’s repeat this: The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline.

This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.”

I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.

There are two other aspects to this story that have not been brought up yet:

1. The process pulls carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas driving Climate Change) out of the ocean. One of the less well-publicized aspects of Climate Change is that the ocean acts like a sponge for CO2 and it’s just about reached its safe limit. The ocean is steadily becoming more acidic from all of the increased carbon dioxide. This in turn poisons delicate ecosystems like coral reefs that keep the ocean healthy.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/navy-ends-big-oil/

[riversedge]

1. story is from April 12, 2014 10:59 am . Something sems

amiss. If this story is true.


Author: Left Wing Nation April 12, 2014 10:59 am

[riversedge]

2. Some answers I found myself:

Looks like it IS real--just years to implementation.


http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:NRL_Seawater_to_Fuel_Program


... The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years.

Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution, the Navy says.

They hope the fuel will not only be able to power ships, but also planes.

[TexasProgresive]

3. You do know "there ain't no free lunch"?

From the article:

Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2. The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system.

What's missing in the explanation is the energy sources to carry out the process. You cannot breakdown stable compounds like H2O and CO2 without lots of energy.

[DetlefK]

10. Nuclear, solar, wind, tide...

As long as the ship has a nuclear reactor and access to seawater, it has hydrocarbon-fuel.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. If it has a reactor, what the fuck does it need hydrocarbon fuel for?

Potentially valuable for a carrier, but fueling the aircraft aboard is fairly paltry, as naval energy expenditures go.

[jeff47]

40. Hrm...

I wonder if the Navy has some sort of very large ship with a very long-lasting, non-CO2 producing power source that needs lots of jet fuel....

[TexasProgresive]

43. That's not the point

People are posting to this thread like this is some kind of panacea for energy production. They are not seeing it as a way an aircraft carrier can manufacture its own jet fuel. This process is very limited in its scope.

[jeff47]

47. It's for energy storage, not production

In both the Navy use and on-land use, it's an energy storage mechanism.

The chemicals it produces contain a much higher energy density than can be achieved by batteries. As a result, you can use the fuel this produces to power systems via non-CO2-producing electricity generation when batteries aren't practical.

In the Navy's case, that's aircraft and possibly non-nuclear ships.

In the everyone-else case, that's cars, trucks, trains, and so on.

Just because the Navy wants to make jet fuel doesn't mean that's all it can do. Just like you cook food using a device the military developed to detect aircraft.

[TexasProgresive]

53. I get that, but

some posters do not. This not the answer to energy or global climate change.

[jeff47]

61. There is not a single answer. But generating fossil fuels from electricity

would be extremely helpful in minimizing the difficulties in the transition.

[Blanks]

49. That's right...

And 92% efficiency sounds like an energy input of 8%.

If that's from nuclear power then it explains why the navy would be the entity able to make this happen.

Converting nuclear energy to hydrocarbon fuel doesn't sound like too bad an exchange, but they didn't say that's what's happening.

[TexasProgresive]

51. I don't believe the 92% efficiency- I'd have to see some real facts

That there is only an 8% loss from sea water to jet fuel. If it is that efficient then why the high cost per gallon?

[Blanks]

55. I don't believe it either...

The article just kind of glossed over it like its a good thing, but the process still requires an energy input even it is that efficient.

[TransitJohn]

4. Pulling CO2 out of the ocean isn't wise

How will it be locked into carbonate rocks? People should know more about the carbon cycle than they do.

[DetlefK]

11. This is only relevant if this technology goes global.

Why do we have climate-change? Because the whole world burned hydrocarbons for decades. This technology will be used on a much smaller scale because electromotors are efficient. (I guess, liquid fuel will be relegated to planes and non-civilian vehicles, because it simply weighs less than batteries.)

[NeoGreen]

17. As I understand it, you can't have carbonate rocks with...

...an acidic ocean.

The irony is that the higher the CO2 the more difficult it is for sea life to create their shells, which are the basis for limestone, due to decreased oceanic pH.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. We're already putting far more CO2 into the oceans than this could pull out

and the CO2 is re-emitted when the synthetic oil is burnt, so it goes back into the atmosphere and then about half of that into the oceans anyway. It's a way of using nuclear fuel to lessen the Navy's impact on CO2 in the ocean, but it won't reverse the overall impact.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. That actually won't be a problem due to the rising concentration of CO2 worldwide, due to human

activity.

[TransitJohn]

73. I don't follow you

So you're saying that since anthropogenic CO2 will increase, we should just add to it by another human activity?

[AtheistCrusader]

74. It went from 360 to 390 PPM in 10 years last decade. And this doesn't add to it.

The energy source being considered in this case, is nuclear, which in the case of naval reactors, doesn't add much CO2 at all. (Land-based reactors require grid power to ensure cooling availability, which is invariably coal, so not really CO2 free, but naval reactors are standalone.)

So, CO2 is already higher than it should be. It's available for this process.
The process, as proposed, doesn't add much if any to the environment.

[TransitJohn]

78. Oy vey.

Okay. Taking CO2 out of the ocean and putting it in the atmosphere doesn't add to atmospheric CO2.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. It puts it in a cycle, like the hydrological cycle.

That's about a billion times better than continuing to decapitate mountains for coal, or pump tar sands for oil.

Yes, it puts it back into the atmo, but it will dissolve back into the oceans as well.


Much better to put anthropogenic use of CO2 on a treadmill, that to add net new.

Edit: The coal comparison I just made is technically invalid. This represents a paltry fraction of our carbon activity, only mobile uses. Basically, the things we use refined petroleum or diesel in mobile applications. This won't replace coal.

[TransitJohn]

80. Look, I'm a geologist

who has also studied atmospheric science. It's a mass balance equation. Either the CO2 is in the oceans, or it's in the atmosphere increasing the greenhouse effect. To argue that taking CO2 out of the carbon sink that is the ocean and putting it in the atmosphere doesn't add to CO2 in the atmosphere is nonsensical.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. You say that as if over-saturating the oceans with CO2 doesn't have any consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/fish-failing-to-adapt-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-ocean

We raised the CO2 in the atmosphere. Which has increased the rate of sequestration in the ocean. Taking a SMALL amount out of the ocean water to power some mobile engines, rather than drilling for oil/other carbon sources that have been sequestered in the ground for millions of years, is massively preferable. It's a temporary bump in atmospheric CO2, rather than net new by pumping up the tar sands or other carbon sources, and burning them for the first time.

[TransitJohn]

82. Have fun!

You are the smart one here, so I'm bowing out.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Ok!

[Hoppy]

5. Then Exxon and the other bastards are gonna charge you to truck sea water to your car.

Also, how large a sea water tank do you need to go 500 miles?

[AllyCat]

18. Not reasonable in Nebraska.

But lots of countries and states on the coasts. There is more than one solution to our energy problems. And we are going to need all of them.

[newfie11]

24. Sea water pipelines

I could agree with that. Clean out all the oil lines and pump sea water.

[Android3.14]

6. More energy in than out

TANSTAAFL
Can you say nuclear reactor?

[Quackers]

7. Found the video!

[Fumesucker]

20. That type of model engine runs on alcohol and possibly added nitromethane, not jet fuel or gasoline

That's obviously a glow engine because it has a glow starter sticking off the top in the picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel

[RiverLover]

8. This is just too cool. Thanks for posting, I missed it when the news first broke.

From a diff article at discovery.com~

"For the first time we've been able to develop a technology to get CO2 and hydrogen from seawater simultaneously, that's a big breakthrough," she said, adding that the fuel "doesn't look or smell very different."

Now that they have demonstrated it can work, the next step is to produce it in industrial quantities. But before that, in partnership with several universities, the experts want to improve the amount of CO2 and hydrogen they can capture.

"We've demonstrated the feasibility, we want to improve the process efficiency," explained Willauer.

Collum is just as excited. "For us in the military, in the Navy, we have some pretty unusual and different kinds of challenges," he said. "We don't necessarily go to a gas station to get our fuel, our gas station comes to us in terms of an oiler, a replenishment ship.

"Developing a game-changing technology like this, seawater to fuel, really is something that reinvents a lot of the way we can do business when you think about logistics, readiness," he said.

A crucial benefit, says Collum, is that the fuel can be used in the same engines already fitted in ships and aircraft.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/us-navy-game-changer-seawater-turned-into-fuel-1404081.htm

[BlueStreak]

26. Releasing the carbon that is sequestered in the ocean is a very bad idea

If they could use a similar process to convert ATMOSPHERIC carbon into liquid hydrocarbons, that could be a good thing. That would make the cycle carbon neutral as far as the atmosphere is concerned.

[jeff47]

41. Where do you think the CO2 in the ocean comes from?

The CO2 in the ocean comes from the atmosphere.

[BlueStreak]

45. What do you think the word "sequestered" means.

Carbon in the atmosphere causes the greenhouse effect. When sequestered in the ocean, it does not cause the greenhouse effect. If take the sequestered carbon, turn it into hydrocarbons, then burn it, that has exactly the same effect as pumping more oil out of the ground.

[jeff47]

48. Apparently, you don't know what sequestered means.

Sequestered CO2 is caught in another material and can't get back into the atmosphere. For example, buried in fossil fuel deposits. Or your body.

CO2 in the ocean isn't sequestered. It's just dissolved in the ocean. If you wave a magic wand and remove a ton of CO2 from the air, a ton of CO2 will come out of the ocean. Because the CO2 in the ocean comes from the atmosphere (plus a small amount from sea creatures breathing).

When sequestered in the ocean, it does not cause the greenhouse effect.

No, it implements the "greenhouse effect". One of the effects caused by climate change is ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid.

So no, burning CO2 produced by this won't contribute to climate change. Just like burning a biofuel won't contribute to climate change.

[BlueStreak]

65. You have no idea what you are talking about

The carbon that is in the ocean is not contributing to the greenhouse effect.

If you pull carbon out of the ocean, turn it into hydrocarbons, and burn it in gas engines, much of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere, where it does act as a greenhouse gas.

It isn't complicated. You really should not dig your hole any deeper.

[jeff47]

66. Actually, I do. That's why I provided a link for you to read.

It explains the equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean.

Because it's an equilibrium, the CO2 is not sequestered. Remove the CO2 from the ocean, and that CO2 is replaced with CO2 from the atmosphere. The same atmosphere where you just dumped the CO2 from the fuel you burned.

The result of this process is no net release of CO2. The amount released by burning is offset by the amount dissolved into the ocean.

This is exactly the same as burning a biofuel. Grow some algae, then burn it. The CO2 released from burning is the same amount that was absorbed by the algae as it grows.

Btw, "the greenhouse effect", is not an accurate term. Some parts of the Earth will actually get colder due to more cloud cover and fewer sunny days. Hence "climate change" is the preferred term.

[BlueStreak]

76. You don't understand the time scales

The absorption of carbon into the ocean is a relatively slow process -- decades or hundreds of years.

You talk like as soon as we would take carbon out of the ocean and pump it into the atmosphere, it would immediately go right back into the ocean. That's simply not true.

See http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
"The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years"

"tmospheric concentrations have increased by 80 ppm (parts per million) over the past 150 years. However, only about half of the carbon released through fossil fuel combustion in this time has remained in the atmosphere, the rest being sequestered the ocean"

In other words, if you synthesize hydrocarbons from ocean water and burn it, half of that carbon will still be in the atmosphere 150 years from now.

Re the terminology "greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse effect", these are perfectly accurate terms used widely in climate science. The term that is discouraged is "global warming".

[jeff47]

77. :facepalm:

If your claim of 150 years was true, climate change could not yet cause significant ocean acidification. Because 150 years ago we weren't burning nearly as much fossil fuels, and thus not releasing nearly as much CO2.

And yet, we've measured ocean acidification consistent with the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, not the concentration from 1864.

"The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years"

They're talking about something different. They're talking about the CO2->O2 process caused by photosynthesis. The time scale is much slower because you have to convert the carbon into a sea creature, and that takes energy. You aren't simply dissolving it in the water. You're dissolving it into the water, and then a sea creature is removing it from the water and releasing the O2.

If you put CO2 into the air over 100% pure saltwater, some of that CO2 dissolves in the water. And rather quickly.

If you next put some algae into that water, it will slowly fix the CO2 into new algae. That takes time to remove the CO2 from the water.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. 'Sequestered' carbon in the ocean water causes other mayhem.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/06/fish-failing-to-adapt-to-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-ocean

Carbonic acid is a problem too, so 'sequestered' CO2 in the ocean water isn't a final-state solution anyway.

The effect is not the same as digging up oil that has been sequestered for millions of years and adding it to the atmosphere. Taking it out of the ocean at least leaves the deduction from the ocean as a next-step destination for it after you burn it. Drilling for oil is a net increase. Pulling it out of the ocean puts it on a treadmill with no net increase.

[BlueStreak]

85. Yes and no

Of course the acidification of the ocean is a problem. But we were talking about the greenhouse effect, and this cycle is absolutely not "greenhouse neutral".

Carbon left alone in the ocean eventually is consumed by algae and settles to the silt on the ocean floor where it is strongly sequestered. The acidification problem results from our ADDITION of carbon into the atmosphere at a rate much, much higher than the hard sequestration processes. It is a time scale issue.

And likewise, releasing carbon from seawater via synthesized hydrocarbons, might be an equilibrium thing over the scale of hundreds of thousands of years, but in human scale it is definitely not greenhouse neutral. The issue is that burning synthesized hydrocarbons puts the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere immediately and the ocean can't absorb that for hundreds of years.

The answer is to move aggressively to non-polluting, non-carbon energy. That is solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric. There is plenty of energy available just from those 4 sources. Regarding energy distribution, the electric grid is dandy, and H2 will be a good solution for transportation -related applications, but only H2 created in a non-carbon way.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. That's true, and I think the earlier objections didn't mean 'greenhouse', specifically but some

posters did, and you are correct, it's not a greenhouse problem once it's in the water. I consider it a valid, or worthwhile 'cycle' to run (much preferable to fresh drilling for untapped hydrocarbons) because I consider the CO2 dissolved into the oceans to still be 'in flight' as a human impact on our environment.

I disagree with the timeline you've specified, however, or we're in deep shit, because the CO2 concentration in the oceans has risen considerably since the start of the industrial revolution. And that's only 300 some years. If there's hundreds of years of lag, our oceans are dead already, they just don't know it yet. (Equilibrium takes somewhere around a year, actually)
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake



Battery technology is advancing at a rate that, honestly, if I were an investor, I wouldn't throw any money at this. 10 years to bring it to market? Tesla is going to slam out a commuter version of the 'S' next year. For many mobile applications, this is already dead tech.

It will be useful pretty much to the military only.

[BlueStreak]

87. Equilibrium in a year -- not a chance.

See http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/

" atmospheric concentrations have increased by 80 ppm (parts per million) over the past 150 years. However, only about half of the carbon released through fossil fuel combustion in this time has remained in the atmosphere, the rest being sequestered the ocean. "

Try a century, not a year. If greenhouse gases got sequestered into the ocean within a year then there wouldn't be a greenhouse gas problem, plain and dimple.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. It can't sequester it all.

Water, modified by salinity and temperature, only has so much carrying capacity for materials like Calcium Carbonate. (Saturation State) That puts limiting factors other than time on equilibrium.

Already some background material up on the wiki for you.

"Carbonic acid can be extracted from seawater as carbon dioxide for use in making synthetic fuel.[104][105] If the resulting flue exhaust gas was subject to carbon capture, then the process would be carbon negative over time, resulting in permanent extraction of inorganic carbon from seawater and the atmosphere with which seawater is in equilibrium. Based on the energy requirements, this process was estimated to cost about $50 per tonne of CO
2."

[BlueStreak]

89. Yes, of course if we capture the carbon as it is burned

but that isn't the proposition of this "fuel from sea water" project.

The Navy is interested in that, not because it has any green benefit (it doesn't) but because it allows them to continue using the ships and planes that need kerosene, without the need to have an oiler in each battle group. Basically a nuclear-powered carrier could synthesize the fuel its planes need.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Precisely.

So, we're talking about a small percentage of total human hydrocarbon activity, and the original premise re-appears:

Do you want them burning CO2 that was dissolved into the water, or hydrocarbons that are currently sequestered deep underground?

One option removes some acidity (less base) from the oceans, and puts it back into the atmosphere for a while.
The other option is a net increase for BOTH the atmosphere, and later on, the ocean.


I'd go with recapturing dissolved CO2 from the ocean, before drilling new supplies.

(Fair point, nobody's doing carbon capture off a warplane, that was sort of silly for me to reference, my apologies.)

[BlueStreak]

91. You're asking what I would prefer the Navy do?

Don't get me started.

I'd prefer we not tax the American people, with a huge part of those taxes going to promote multinational profits that don't benefit the average American one bit, through the projection of US military power. But that doesn't have much to do with synthesized fuel.

[cali]

9. Addictinginfo is a crap website.

I suggest reading a better piece on this:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-navy-lab-turns-seawater-into-fuel/1919512.html

[Bonx]

50. It's a good website if you enjoy interesting news

that is made up.

[magical thyme]

12. it uses more energy than it produces. nt

[Recursion]

14. but it converts generic electricity to hydrocarbons

Which is a huge thing

[brush]

16. The article says it's economical if . . .

the power used to do the conversion is a muclear power plant, such as on an aircraft carrier.

That way more energy is produced than is used to produce it.

[BlueStreak]

28. No, the process uses more energy than it produces in hydrocarbon form

It doesn't matter what the energy source is. It uses more energy input than the energy content of the resulting hydrocarbons.

[TexasProgresive]

33. Nuclear energy is not free

If you crank up the output you use up the nuclear fuel faster. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[hunter]

46. Nuclear power is almost like solar in that the $$$ cost of the fuel isn't what makes it expensive.

It's the cost of the equipment.

For a solar power plant the "fuel" is free, but the solar power plant is expensive. For a nuclear power plant the cost of the fuel is a small fraction of the plant's construction and operating costs.

In thermodynamics the expression "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" doesn't have the same meaning as the vernacular expression.

In the power budget of a nuclear aircraft carrier, the dollar cost of making hydrocarbon fuels for it's aircraft and support ships isn't going to be in the cost of nuclear fuel, it will be in building and maintaining the systems.

[truedelphi]

56. The "solar plant" is not necessarily expensive at all.

A bunch of us were at friend's garage, batting away ideas on how to maximze solar panels in order to have "free solar" energy operating our AC/heating units and washers and dryers.

It seemed very daunting.

But I was able to come up with a five dollar idea, that lasts at least 18 months, takes ten minutes to install, and that about 90% of the time, (here in Calif.) takes the place of the 2nd largest motor in my house - the clothes dryer.

Of course, I swiped the idea from my grandparents. It is called a clothes line and clothes pins.

However in some communities it is illegal. Housing Associations in Southern California have all but banned the use of this - saying the clothesline is unsightly. I guess they have never seen (and therefore prefer) the unsightliness of the cities in Iraq that have been pulverized by our need to get at our traditional energy source.

[Scootaloo]

52. It's meant to be a fuel source, not a power source

These are different things. Basically it's intended to fuel engines that rely on hydrocarbon input, since it would be amazingly expensive to retrofit the navy fleet with, say, solar electric engines.

It's a stopgap measure for a specific purpose, not a general-use panacea.

[jeff47]

63. You're right, it doesn't violate the fundamental laws of physics in any way.

There are exactly zero systems that produce more energy than they use.

[madokie]

13. Another one of those things

that government is good for. The funding for the research in this case that allowed this discovery

I've read little snippets on this research for a while now and I'm happy that they've finally got to the point to where they feel confident enough to put this out there.

Proud old dry land Navy man here

[GliderGuider]

15. Here's a sensible analysis of the claim

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/navy-process-to-make-fuel-from-seawater/

The reason the navy is talking about jet fuel and testing the fuel on model planes, rather than talking about fuel for their ships, is that converting seawater into hydrocarbon fuel requires more energy than you get back. This is not a method for creating fuel, but rather for storing energy as fuel.

If you have a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, you still need jet fuel for all the jets. If, however, you can use that nuclear power to manufacture jet fuel, then you will be more self-sufficient.

If, however, your ship is fueled by oil, there is no utility to this process except to waste energy. Theoretically you could have solar or wind-power on board that you can then use to make fuel from seawater, but such a source of energy is unlikely to produce a significant amount of fuel at sea.

It's just another limited utility process that requires enormous amounts of input energy to work. In an environment where electricity from low-carbon sources can be used directly (like using wind power on land) this process is pointless. The Navy is simply exploiting the unique set of circumstances and requirements presented by nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

[brush]

19. Well wouldn't land-based nuclear power plants near the shore . . .

be able to use the process to create fuel economically?

[GliderGuider]

22. Economical compared to what?

Oil at $300 a barrel (or whatever it turns out to be) is a good deal out in the middle of an ocean when you have fighters to fly. On shore to run cars? Not so much. Nuclear power isn't exactly a cheap source of energy once the externalities and risks are factored in.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. It would be cheaper for land transportation to use electricity from the nuclear plants

It might be worth using to fuel land-based aircraft, since electric power for them is not getting very far.

[happyslug]

31. What do you mean by "economically"??

This process uses electricity produced by a Nuclear power source to produce fuel that is usable for aircraft (and other engines). The first presumption is that the Nuclear Plant is already in existence and the cost to building one has already been paid. i.e. this is electrical power NOT being used by is being produced. This is often called "Base Load" electricity, that is what is in constant demand, as oppose to "Peak Load" Electrical demand, which is electricity needed to meet demand during periods of high demand for electricity,

Now, "Base Load" is often above the true base point for electrical demand. This excess power is produced for it is hard to turn off nuclear plans (and coal, natural gas and oil plants also take time to be taken out and put back into service, Hydro is the quickest electrical power source that can be turn on and off).

The problem is everyone has "plans" for that excess power. Advocates of Electric calls see it as the electricity to charge their cars during the night when demand for power is less. Steel companies, and other manufacturers, do a lot of night work so they can get discounts from their high use of electrical power. Power companies are known to use the excess electrical power to pump water uphill so the electrical company can open up hydro power plants during peak time periods.

Thus there is NOT that much excess electrical power that is NOT being used at the present time. Nuclear Carriers may be the ONLY such source of such excess electrical power. Which means more power plants (Nuclear PLUS coal and Natural Gas) would have to be built to provide the power needed for this process.

Given that, would it NOT be more economical to have people live in more dense population cities and use public transportation? Yes, that is NOT the US of today (it was the US of period 1900-1950) but may it NOT be a better and more economical solution to reduced access to oil?

Sorry, (and I am ignoring Global Warming, another reason to avoid this "solution" to the high price of oil) but is this a "good" solution to the problem of high oil prices? Would not a drop in demand caused by people using less oil be better?

Sorry, every time I research the details, the best solution is abandoning suburbia, something no one really want to talk about for that is where the switch voters between the parties live and where much of the money NOT tied in with the .1% live. Thus it is a taboo subject for most people do NOT want to make so radical an adjustment to where they want to live. Thus you get these "Pie in the Sky" solutions to saving suburbia for such gimmicks on their face preserve what these swing voters want which is suburbia. We will hear these pie in the sky plans over and over again over the next 20-50 years as the price of oil goes up, for as the price of oil goes up, the ability of people living, working and shopping in suburbia goes down. No one likes radical changes and whatever we do given the long term increase in the price of oil (Price of oil is expected to decline till 2017 then increase afterward) will lead to radical changes in how people live.

[jeff47]

42. It solves the energy transport problem.

We can create lots of "carbon free"* power, as long as the energy producer and energy consumer never move.

Once they start moving, we have a major energy transport problem.

What about batteries? Battery technology simply sucks. Even the latest theories on how to improve lithium-ion batteries still don't come anywhere close to the energy density of a carbon-based fuel. And if you look at peak density over the last few decades, it's been climbing quite slowly.

Yes, the Navy wants this so it's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers can make their own jet fuel. But this benefits everyone else in that all of our mobile systems (cars, planes, laptops, cell phones, etc) could operate on fuel cells using carbon-based fuels that were produced using energy from "carbon free" sources.

*quotes around "carbon free" because while the electricity production doesn't release CO2, the production of the generation systems does.

[ellennelle]

21. the ocean is a finite resource!

it's dangerous to get excited about a technology that has an actual end point.

we're far better off focusing on solar and wind, for this very reason.

foresight, people.

[liberal N proud]

23. And coal is not?

About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. And water used in this process doesn't cease to exist. It goes right back into the hydrologic cycle

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Wonder about by-products in this method.

What, if anything, will be dumped back into the ocean?

[Android3.14]

27. We. Are. Saved!

At least, based on the comments I've seen on this thread.

Observing the lack of basic science knowledge demonstrated here, now we see an actual symptom of our failed education system.

[srican69]

32. I expect folks at DU to be a little more discerning in the news they consume

I know the politics of some in the main stream media is suspect .. But a fundamental discovery/invention that can change the world would have gotten reported. On the front page.

Give our editors some respect.

Shame on the OP and the rest for beleiving this drivel. Energy from sea water is most likely through dissociation Hydrogen and Oxygen ..this requires massive amounts of electricity. There is no way around it.

Give basic science some respect.

[RiverLover]

35. Will these reports on it be "discerning" enough for you?

Defense News~
US Navy: Converting Seawater Into Fuel a 'Game-Changer'
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140407/DEFREG02/304070027/US-Navy-Converting-Seawater-Into-Fuel-Game-Changer-

International Business Times~
Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel, Allowing Ships To Stay At Sea Longer
http://www.ibtimes.com/goodbye-oil-us-navy-cracks-new-renewable-energy-technology-turn-seawater-fuel-allowing-1568455

USA Today~
Navy's new jet fuel: Seawater?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/13/newser-navy-seawater-fuel/7668665/

The Washington Times~
U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/10/game-changer-us-navy-can-now-turn-seawater-jet-fue/


It's a great discovery for Navy ships, if you read the article I posted from Discovery. It may not be economical for the general public at this point, but its a start at seeing what's possible.

Shame on you for disparaging the OP for widening our world.

[Gore1FL]

34. Not really.

This is a good at-sea way of doing something that would otherwise be inefficient.

[HoosierCowboy]

36. Total BS

Just like Cold Fusion. The process requires energy input from a nuclear reactor. There are more efficient ways to make liquid fuel. If the Navy wants to do something useful with sea water, it should try making it rain before we all starve to death.

[nationalize the fed]

58. The US could build desalination plants like much of the rest of the world

How do people think places like Saudi Arabia or Israel get water?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Existing_facilities_and_facilities_under_construction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_desalination_in_Australia

The US is busy with surveillance and trying to figure out which country to bomb next

[eppur_se_muova]

37. Ummm ... no, it didn't. It found an expensive way to convert one form of energy to another.

For civilian applications, this would never be considered -- too crazy expensive.

[nevergiveup]

38. The question now is.........

What kind of price tag do the oceans have and can the Koch brothers come up with the funds to purchase all of them?

[James48]

39. It's a start.

We don't need the XL pipeline. We need more research into this.

http://science.dodlive.mil/2014/04/11/energy-independence-creating-fuel-from-sea-water/

[Dreamer Tatum]

44. I don't think anything makes me more embarrassed for someone

than seeing sheer, unblinking, uninformed and ignorant bravado as exhibited in the article cited.

[Blanks]

54. If they've developed a way of reducing pH in areas where that's a problem...

And I understand there are certain areas in the ocean where that is becoming a problem - then that would be a good use for this technology.

That is, if we set out to restore the ocean back to a healthy state similar to the interventions we used in the 'dust bowl' during the Great Depression. Kind of one spot at a time.

If we want to stop global warming we need to restore abandoned urban areas to 'green spaces' and quit driving so damn much. Once we've accepted that we need to stop driving all the time - the planet can start to heal. Developing a system where we can keep driving isn't going to do shit for the environment.

[nationalize the fed]

57. The new Fuel Cell Cars allow for all the driving anyone wants to do

and if Solar Energy is used to make the hydrogen it's the greenest fuel on the planet

Exhaust=Water

Hydrogen fuel becomes a practical reality

The launch of the UK’s first commercial-scale hydrogen production and refuelling facility powered by solar energy heralds the dawn of an era of true carbon-free fuel.

The gas will be generated at Honda UK's manufacturing plant in Swindon at the rate of 20 tonnes per year using a process called solar hydrolysis... http://www.shdlogistics.com/news/view/hydrogen-fuel-becomes-a-practical-reality

Honda begins operating next generation solar hydrogen station prototype, intended for ultimate use as a home refueling appliance capable of an overnight refill of fuel cell electric vehicles.

...The previous solar hydrogen station system required both an electrolyzer and a separate compressor unit to create high pressure hydrogen. The compressor was the largest and most expensive component and reduced system efficiency. By creating a new high differential pressure electrolyzer, Honda engineers were able to eliminate the compressor entirely - a world's first for a home use system. http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/SolarHydrogenStation/

The end of the Petroleum age is here and hardly anyone noticed

[Blanks]

62. It's a step in the right direction to be certain...

But there's still going to be environmental impacts whether it's the mining of the materials to make the batteries or the manufacturing or disposal process of the vehicles themselves.

We need to start working on micro-economies because it doesn't make sense to have to drive 20 miles to buy food that was grown a thousand miles away, and then processed 2000 miles away and trucked and shipped all around the world.

I believe we can do better than that and we are always going to be looking for jobs in our community that are put there by big business - just so we can feed our family.

We need innovation so that we are all more self reliant. Cars are the opposite of that.

[caraher]

59. Yes, this is mainly a way to make nuclear aircraft carriers more self-sufficient

But what I find intriguing is that a few weeks ago I heard Steven Chu, former Secretary of Energy, speak, and he thinks that what we really need to do for energy storage long-term is use renewables to create carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbons. So this research is a step in exactly that direction.

His reasoning was that the energy density is higher than pumped storage or batteries, we know how to transport it readily and we could use them for all the current applications of fossil fuels.

[Blanks]

64. Good point, and...

It is not uncommon for power plants to have periods of time when they produce more energy than they need.

A power generation plant has to be designed for 'peak load' so if there are periods of time when all the excess electricity generated could be used to convert the CO2 in saltwater into jet fuel (or whatever) then it isn't really going to waste since it is being used to manufacture liquid fuel which has a high energy to volume ratio.

Used properly, it might not be a bad thing.

[Progressive dog]

60. The navy did not announce the end of big oil

Some blogger at addictinginfo.org made it up.

[NickB79]

67. Better title: Navy finds way to turn nuclear power into jet fuel

Because that's what this is.

I come to DU to find a refuge from scientific illiteracy, not another discussion forum riddled with it.

[nikto]

69. Potentialy great ideas like this one...

Must be squashed while still in infancy.

[lonestarnot]

75. Holy crap. Go Navy!

Snort.