Seawater into Fuel

[cwolff]

There have been some high profile problems with military technology lately. The Osprey and the F-35 are a couple of examples that come to mind. While there has been a lot of outrage and chatter about these programs the U.S. Navy has quietly been doing some incredible innovation. Not only are they launching ships that fire lasers and a rail gun they've also created fuel from Seawater.

To say that this could be game-changing is the understatement of the century.


Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, demonstrate proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

Fueled by a liquid hydrocarbon—a component of NRL's novel gas-to-liquid (GTL) process that uses CO2 and H2 as feedstock—the research team demonstrated sustained flight of a radio-controlled (RC) P-51 replica of the legendary Red Tail Squadron, powered by an off-the-shelf (OTS) and unmodified two-stroke internal combustion engine.

- See more at: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept#sthash.UE8vKtkA.dpuf

[Tgo01]

Isn't it kind of defeating the purpose of initialisms if you spell out all of the words right before using said initialism?

[cwolff]

Isn't it kind of defeating the purpose of initialisms if you spell out all of the words right before using said initialism?

When you first introduce them in a piece you often spell out what they initials stand for. Then later just use the initials.

[Tgo01]

Fueled by a liquid hydrocarbon—a component of NRL's novel gas-to-liquid (GTL) process that uses CO2 and H2 as feedstock—the research team demonstrated sustained flight of a radio-controlled (RC) P-51 replica of the legendary Red Tail Squadron, powered by an off-the-shelf (OTS) and unmodified two-stroke internal combustion engine.


NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules.

I call shenanigans!

[cwolff]

I call shenanigans!

So that's the only thing you've gotten from this article? :banghead:

[Tgo01]

So that's the only thing you've gotten from this article? :banghead:

Yes. It bugs me (IBM.)

[cwolff]

Yes. It bugs me (IBM.)

I understand. (Iu)

[Jarvan]

So.. they are taking CO2 out of the water, and then making it into a fuel with H2, then burning it, releasing the CO2 into the air.. (I didn't read anything in there that said it burns cleanly)

Seems like a really good idea for a Global Warming person like you... lets take the worlds best CO2 sink.. and take the CO2 out and put it in the air.

Altho it is a really neat concept.

As for the Navy's rail gun... Hopefully they can get it up to a reasonable RoF. (they are hoping for 6-12 per minute) Currently not even close.

[Back]

You know Exxon, BP, Ford, and GM are all going to lobby against it by finding someone with some scientific credentials to denounce it as dangerous or otherwise bad for the United States.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

You know Exxon, BP, Ford, and GM are all going to lobby against it by finding someone with some scientific credentials to denounce it as dangerous or otherwise bad for the United States.

Just like the assholes that claim desalination plants are bad for local ocean life while there are constant droughts. This is why we need to be billionaires. So we can not only afford to finance this kind of thing, but also so we can hire assassins for the naysayers and bribe politicians.

[Tisket]

WTFIGOITTNVMIDC

[Tisket]

CMTHOP

[Tgo01]

IKR?

[cwolff]

So.. they are taking CO2 out of the water, and then making it into a fuel with H2, then burning it, releasing the CO2 into the air.. (I didn't read anything in there that said it burns cleanly)

Seems like a really good idea for a Global Warming person like you... lets take the worlds best CO2 sink.. and take the CO2 out and put it in the air.

Altho it is a really neat concept.

As for the Navy's rail gun... Hopefully they can get it up to a reasonable RoF. (they are hoping for 6-12 per minute) Currently not even close.

They're removing CO2 from the ocean. Some will go back but it's a net reduction so ya it's pretty cool for people who are worried about excess CO2.

[Tisket]

IKR?

R!

[Jarvan]

They're removing CO2 from the ocean. Some will go back but it's a net reduction so ya it's pretty cool for people who are worried about excess CO2.

I don't think you understand what you just said.

The ocean takes hundreds to thousands of years to process CO2, adding to that burden will not help. They are removing CO2 from a Carbon Sink. They are then combining it with H2, and making a Hydrocarbon, which they burn, which burns the Hydrocarbon, and releases CO2. This CO2 goes into the atmosphere, which is not the ocean, therefor it is an increase in CO2. Far as I know, we have yet to invent a combustion reaction that burns the carbon out of a hydrocarbon. Would be pretty neat if we did.

[Mahlrem]

I call shenanigans!
Since you're being picky, to be completely fair, some of the abbreviations are acronyms and not initialisms. Specifically, OTS... more commonly called COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) in federal acquisitions lingo.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't think you understand what you just said.

The ocean takes hundreds to thousands of years to process CO2, adding to that burden will not help. They are removing CO2 from a Carbon Sink. They are then combining it with H2, and making a Hydrocarbon, which they burn, which burns the Hydrocarbon, and releases CO2. This CO2 goes into the atmosphere, which is not the ocean, therefor it is an increase in CO2. Far as I know, we have yet to invent a combustion reaction that burns the carbon out of a hydrocarbon. Would be pretty neat if we did.It's an increase in the atmosphere, which necessarily means it's a decrease in the oceans. In the same way that you can't get less carbon than you started with, you can't get more.

[Jarvan]

It's an increase in the atmosphere, which necessarily means it's a decrease in the oceans. In the same way that you can't get less carbon than you started with, you can't get more.

Yes, but more in the atmosphere would be a bad thing, would it not? At least for those that worship at the alter of "Climate Change".

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, but more in the atmosphere would be a bad thing, would it not? At least for those that worship at the alter of "Climate Change".It is a bad thing, but taking CO2 out of the ocean is a good thing. Compare with fossil fuels, which put CO2 into the atmosphere but don't take it out of the ocean.

Analogy: right now your house is burning down. The Navy is going to burn your house down too, and that is a direct written threat, but you get a lollipop. Your house is ashes either way, wouldn't you like some candy?

[Nahkaev]

Yes, but more in the atmosphere would be a bad thing, would it not? At least for those that worship at the alter of "Climate Change".

It would be bad if it worked like that, alas it does not. You cannot decrease the amount of CO2 in ocean water, no matter how much you take out, as it just dissolves back in.

For a particular place, at a particular time, yes you can pull CO2 out of water (or put it in)- but for something as large as the ocean it just gets reabsorbed. The only feasible thing that can permenantly change the amount of CO2 the ocean holds is the temperature of the ocean (and I guess it's salinity too, though to less a degree).

[cwolff]

If you really want to bitch about this (and it sounds like you do) you should bitch that it takes more energy to create the fuel than you get back. That's ok for the Navy's war-fighting plans but it's not free energy. It's also young technology. So far they only flown a model airplane with the fuel created.

[Jarvan]

It would be bad if it worked like that, alas it does not. You cannot decrease the amount of CO2 in ocean water, no matter how much you take out, as it just dissolves back in.

For a particular place, at a particular time, yes you can pull CO2 out of water (or put it in)- but for something as large as the ocean it just gets reabsorbed. The only feasible thing that can permenantly change the amount of CO2 the ocean holds is the temperature of the ocean (and I guess it's salinity too, though to less a degree).

You do realize it doesn't just magically appear back in the ocean, right? It takes an insane amount of time to go from the air to the ocean, and the fact that the ocean isn't able to keep up with what we are apparently putting out now, it's going to just increase the CO2 in the atmosphere the same as fossil fuels. It's just the difference that this is a nearly limitless supply of fuel.


If you really want to bitch about this (and it sounds like you do) you should bitch that it takes more energy to create the fuel than you get back. That's ok for the Navy's war-fighting plans but it's not free energy. It's also young technology. So far they only flown a model airplane with the fuel created.


I don't really want to bitch about it, I like the idea.. I am Surprised YOU are not bitching about it. Since it does nothing to address the burning of hydrocarbons (aka BAD).

Really Cwolff.. you surprise me.

[Latrinsorm]

I take it that's a no on the lollipop, then.

[Tgo01]

I take it that's a no on the lollipop, then.

No one wants your lollipop, Latrin....

[Latrinsorm]

The Navy's lollipop. Don't ask.

[RagingThrak]

There have been some high profile problems with military technology lately. The Osprey and the F-35 are a couple of examples that come to mind. While there has been a lot of outrage and chatter about these programs the U.S. Navy has quietly been doing some incredible innovation. Not only are they launching ships that fire lasers and a rail gun they've also created fuel from Seawater.

To say that this could be game-changing is the understatement of the century.

Reminds me of that entrepreneur that wanted to turn seawater into gold.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

It's an increase in the atmosphere, which necessarily means it's a decrease in the oceans. In the same way that you can't get less carbon than you started with, you can't get more.

The atmospheric shelf life of Co2 is approximately 5 years.

[Latrinsorm]

The atmospheric shelf life of Co2 is approximately 5 years.It's still good, just shoo away the top molecules. They get stuck to the exosphere and spoil faster, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is spoiled. I thought you were a tough guy.

[Back]

You do realize it doesn't just magically appear back in the ocean, right? It takes an insane amount of time to go from the air to the ocean, and the fact that the ocean isn't able to keep up with what we are apparently putting out now, it's going to just increase the CO2 in the atmosphere the same as fossil fuels. It's just the difference that this is a nearly limitless supply of fuel.

I don't really want to bitch about it, I like the idea.. I am Surprised YOU are not bitching about it. Since it does nothing to address the burning of hydrocarbons (aka BAD).

Really Cwolff.. you surprise me.

I think you missed Latrin's point. But thats forgivable because sometimes he gets a little wordy with his explanations. The carbon in the water and the atmosphere are already there as part of a natural cycle. You aren't introducing more into the cycle like you would if you dug up some coal and lit up a barbeque.

[Jarvan]

I think you missed Latrin's point. But thats forgivable because sometimes he gets a little wordy with his explanations. The carbon in the water and the atmosphere are already there as part of a natural cycle. You aren't introducing more into the cycle like you would if you dug up some coal and lit up a barbeque.

LOL.

Whatever Back. If you take carbon from the ocean and put it into the atmosphere, the net impact on the ecology for the next 100-500 years is more carbon in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter WHERE to came from as far as the atmosphere is concerned. It's not like the ocean goes.. shit.. 58 tons of Carbon left us.. quick, suck in 58 tons from the air. It takes TIME for that to happen.

Now, I personally don't care myself. But I figured Cwolff, who worships the "climate change" god, would care that people are all happen that they have a nearly unlimited ability to pump CO2 into the air, yay!.

Altho it is understandable that you wouldn't grasp the concept that it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, the carbon is still getting into the air.

[Parkbandit]

I started questioning Jarvan and his thought process.. but it seems he is correct:

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science.


Besides the slow pace of ocean turnover, two more factors determine the rate at which the seas take up carbon dioxide. One is the availability of carbonate, which comes from huge deposits of calcite (shells) in the upper levels of the ocean. These shells must dissolve in ocean water in order to be available to aid in the uptake of CO2, but the rate at which they dissolve is controlled by the ocean’s acidity. The ocean’s acidity does rise with increased CO2, but the slow pace of ocean circulation prevents this process from developing useful momentum. It takes a long time for the increased acidity to reach the vulnerable calcite deposits, to dissolve them, and then to bring the carbonate cations to the surface where they can combine with CO2 in the surface waters of the ocean. There is no hope, says McElroy, that this process will take place fast enough to help control the build-up of CO2.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2002/11/the-ocean-carbon-cycle.html

[Back]

Well, I'm no scientist and can admit when I am wrong. Burning fossil fuels is taking carbon from a trapped form outside the air/water system and adding to it. The real question is how much C02 would be produced using seawater as compared to something like gasoline.

[Latrinsorm]

LOL.

Whatever Back. If you take carbon from the ocean and put it into the atmosphere, the net impact on the ecology for the next 100-500 years is more carbon in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter WHERE to came from as far as the atmosphere is concerned. It's not like the ocean goes.. shit.. 58 tons of Carbon left us.. quick, suck in 58 tons from the air. It takes TIME for that to happen.No one has claimed that carbon isn't going into the atmosphere.
Now, I personally don't care myself. But I figured Cwolff, who worships the "climate change" god, would care that people are all happen that they have a nearly unlimited ability to pump CO2 into the air, yay!.

Altho it is understandable that you wouldn't grasp the concept that it doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, the carbon is still getting into the air.Part of the climate change problem is too much CO2 in the oceans.

Bottom line...

Burn coal: add CO2 to atmosphere.
Burn seawater: add CO2 to atmosphere, remove CO2 from ocean.

You're smart enough to understand how the second scenario is more appealing than the first. The only way you won't understand is if you choose not to.

[cwolff]

No one has claimed that carbon isn't going into the atmosphere.Part of the climate change problem is too much CO2 in the oceans.

Bottom line...

Burn coal: add CO2 to atmosphere.
Burn seawater: add CO2 to atmosphere, remove CO2 from ocean.

You're smart enough to understand how the second scenario is more appealing than the first. The only way you won't understand is if you choose not to.

One article I read, which I can't find now, did discuss that it's not a 1:1 swap with CO2 in the ocean that gets pumped into the air as exhaust. It's a net CO2 loss since some of it is destroyed.

Currently it takes 2x as much energy to create it as you get back.

[Latrinsorm]

Even better! Fuckin' carbon-based lifeforms think they're sooooo great, about time we fixed their little red wagon.

[Jarvan]

One article I read, which I can't find now, did discuss that it's not a 1:1 swap with CO2 in the ocean that gets pumped into the air as exhaust. It's a net CO2 loss since some of it is destroyed.

Currently it takes 2x as much energy to create it as you get back.

Carbon is never destroyed when Hydrocarbons are burned. Some may become water vapor, but carbon itself is never lost. It's only the hydrogen that gets burned.

According to the studies... both forms are bad, the atmosphere being the worst, since it's what is trapping heat. The oceans gaining more CO2 causes the acidity to go up, which causes other problems, but since it takes LONGER THEN WE HAVE BEEN BURNING hydrocarbons for the ocean to sequester it... guess which one is the real harmful part?

Now.. if they would take the CO2 from the air... but the machines to do that are much bigger and most costly. They CAN do it, it's just even less economically feasible at this time.

[cwolff]

Carbon is never destroyed when Hydrocarbons are burned. Some may become water vapor, but carbon itself is never lost. It's only the hydrogen that gets burned.

According to the studies... both forms are bad, the atmosphere being the worst, since it's what is trapping heat. The oceans gaining more CO2 causes the acidity to go up, which causes other problems, but since it takes LONGER THEN WE HAVE BEEN BURNING hydrocarbons for the ocean to sequester it... guess which one is the real harmful part?

Now.. if they would take the CO2 from the air... but the machines to do that are much bigger and most costly. They CAN do it, it's just even less economically feasible at this time.

You're completely missing the point Latrin's been trying to make. This tech may move a molecule of CO2 from the ocean to the air. The alternative tech moves it from beneath the ground to the air while doing nothing for Ocean CO2 levels.

[Parkbandit]

You're completely missing the point Latrin's been trying to make. This tech may move a molecule of CO2 from the ocean to the air. The alternative tech moves it from beneath the ground to the air while doing nothing for Ocean CO2 levels.

If it takes so long for the ocean to re-absorb the CO2, there is very little difference at all. If you believe in the global warming theory that man is causing the Earth to heat up due to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, this new technology only adds to the problem and doesn't address the concerns of the global warming crowd.

Just because it's not oil doesn't mean it's automatically good for the environment... if you are a believer.

[waywardgs]

Just depends on the rate at which this happens. If it's less than oil, it's a good thing. And co2 isn't the only thing oil releases when burned. Lots of other nasties head out into the air as well.

[cwolff]

If it takes so long for the ocean to re-absorb the CO2, there is very little difference at all. If you believe in the global warming theory that man is causing the Earth to heat up due to CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, this new technology only adds to the problem and doesn't address the concerns of the global warming crowd.

Just because it's not oil doesn't mean it's automatically good for the environment... if you are a believer.

No of course this isn't green tech. Aren't you in the camp that ACC isn't that big a deal and we'll figure out technology to fix it all before there's a disaster? This is the kind of thing that you should use to support your argument.

[Jarvan]

You're completely missing the point Latrin's been trying to make. This tech may move a molecule of CO2 from the ocean to the air. The alternative tech moves it from beneath the ground to the air while doing nothing for Ocean CO2 levels.

Taking the CO2 out of the ocean may possibly slightly lower the rate at which the ocean is becoming acidic, tho since it's regional, not sure how that will work. Will the navy only take CO2 from acidic parts of the ocean? BUT pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere (according to your religion) WILL increase the surface temp of the Earth. Which will melt the polar icecaps, and actually reduce the acidic nature of the oceans as well.

So yes.. it could possibly maybe sorta help the oceans.. but it WILL damage the atmosphere just as much, or nearly so, as burning fossil fuels.

The good thing of all this... we could one day tell the Middle East to go suck a dick.

[cwolff]

Taking the CO2 out of the ocean may possibly slightly lower the rate at which the ocean is becoming acidic, tho since it's regional, not sure how that will work. Will the navy only take CO2 from acidic parts of the ocean? BUT pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere (according to your religion) WILL increase the surface temp of the Earth. Which will melt the polar icecaps, and actually reduce the acidic nature of the oceans as well.

So yes.. it could possibly maybe sorta help the oceans.. but it WILL damage the atmosphere just as much, or nearly so, as burning fossil fuels.

The good thing of all this... we could one day tell the Middle East to go suck a dick.

bitch and moan bitch and moan and you've got nothing to say. Fuck dude, it's like a sickness. Anything that can be construed as good in respect to climate change and you attack it. What's up with that?

[Johnny Five]

bitch and moan bitch and moan and you've got nothing to say. Fuck dude, it's like a sickness. Anything that can be construed as good in respect to climate change and you attack it. What's up with that?

This made me LOL.

[Jarvan]

bitch and moan bitch and moan and you've got nothing to say. Fuck dude, it's like a sickness. Anything that can be construed as good in respect to climate change and you attack it. What's up with that?

LOL. Pumping more CO2 into the air is "Good"?

Maybe for you yes, that way you can keep worshiping at your altar.

Now if the NRL was looking at fuels that DIDN'T release CO2, I would say you were onto something. There has been a number of alternatives for cars, jet planes may be another issue for awhile yet. (I don't think anyone wants to fly in a plane powered by Hydrogen, liquid or otherwise)

My whole point with this is while it is awesome tech, I m surprised you seemed so enthused, since not only doesn't it do diddle to reduce your "Climate Change", it keeps it up.

[Parkbandit]

No of course this isn't green tech. Aren't you in the camp that ACC isn't that big a deal and we'll figure out technology to fix it all before there's a disaster? This is the kind of thing that you should use to support your argument.

Where did I say I was against it?

I'm just not sure you know what you are talking about, since this isn't the answer you think it is.

Watching Cosmos last night, I'm really interested in man made photosynthesis. There's the answer, right there.

[Parkbandit]

This made me LOL.

Seriously.

[Latrinsorm]

So yes.. it could possibly maybe sorta help the oceans.. but it WILL damage the atmosphere just as much, or nearly so, as burning fossil fuels.It's a miracle!!!!! A grudging, backhanded miracle, but I'll take what I can get.

[Jarvan]

It's a miracle!!!!! A grudging, backhanded miracle, but I'll take what I can get.

I think you over looked the part where I said...

(According to your religion) earlier.

[cwolff]

Where did I say I was against it?

I'm just not sure you know what you are talking about, since this isn't the answer you think it is.

Watching Cosmos last night, I'm really interested in man made photosynthesis. There's the answer, right there.

This article actually made me think of you. I believe that you think we'll figure out technology to avert climate change disaster and something like this IMO supports that. Right now this isn't the answer but it's going in the right direction.

[Jarvan]

This article actually made me think of you. I believe that you think we'll figure out technology to avert climate change disaster and something like this IMO supports that. Right now this isn't the answer but it's going in the right direction.

Best technology to avert climate change would be the obliteration of 90% of the worlds population. AKA Nukes. We have the technology, so we should just use it already. Not only would it curtail almost all of the CO2 output, but it would also cool down the planet, and let the Earth Heal itself for awhile as well.

Problem Solved, Give me my Nobel Prize.

[cwolff]

Best technology to avert climate change would be the obliteration of 90% of the worlds population. AKA Nukes. We have the technology, so we should just use it already. Not only would it curtail almost all of the CO2 output, but it would also cool down the planet, and let the Earth Heal itself for awhile as well.

Problem Solved, Give me my Nobel Prize.

That is a solution. Which Nobel Prize category would you be in?

[Back]

Best technology to avert climate change would be the obliteration of 90% of the worlds population. AKA Nukes. We have the technology, so we should just use it already. Not only would it curtail almost all of the CO2 output, but it would also cool down the planet, and let the Earth Heal itself for awhile as well.

Problem Solved, Give me my Nobel Prize.

You get the sociopath prize.

[waywardgs]

That is a solution. Which Nobel Prize category would you be in?

It would probably be the same one Nobel was in!

[Jarvan]

That is a solution. Which Nobel Prize category would you be in?

Peace Prize, just like Obama. Sure, I may kill some people, but there could maybe be peace after.


You get the sociopath prize.

Mother Earth is the sociopath. I may jokingly say nukes. but SHE will sooner or later kill us all off. Or nearly so.