quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Really! And the US government owns the patent.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus if you know that this will require so much energy, would you enlighten us on their process of producing cost effective, carbon neutral fuel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus if you know that this will require so much energy, would you enlighten us on their process of producing cost effective, carbon neutral fuel?

Certainly. They aren't.

Read the damn article. $3-$6 dollars a gallon is the government PR. Ten years away from perfecting the process.

The reason this makes sense for the navy (they think) is so they don't need tankers transporting fuel. It shortens supply lines.

It has *long* been possible to make gasoline from water. Go google the Sabatier or Bosch reactions. Once you have methane or methanol google Fischer-Tropsch on how to convert that to gasoline.

The bottom line is that you have to have free hydrogen.

Cost of free hydrogen (not that you'll understand this: 285.8 kj
Produced by Sabatier 168 ish

Net required... 80 Kj.

Triple that, counting the substantial energy requirements for the Fischer-Tropsch process, the costs to circulate the water, the costs to elevate the feed stocks to the required temperatures.

And if I were a betting man, I'd bet they were using ruthenium as catalysts for both processes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Really! And the US government owns the patent.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept

This is the problem for people that don't know science.

Fundamentally, this is taking dissolved co2 from water, and combining it with hydrogen. And ten years out, they "guess" the cost will only be $3-6$ a gallon.

When in fact, it will cost much, much more.

See Ken - this is a case where the second law of thermodynamics actually applies. Not to say you can't make gasoline from water. You can.

But it does say that the energy cost is very very high.

So sure. If you happen to have a nuclear reactor laying around generating gobs of power, AND you have no other need for the power, then yes, you can make gas from water.

Then there's the small question of how fast do you want to make it. Since the amount of co2 dissolved in water is miniscule you'd have to circulate enormous volumes of water.

So yes, its carbon neutral. So long as you have a nuclear reactor to generate power.
But isn't that the case pretty much anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus if you know that this will require so much energy, would you enlighten us on their process of producing cost effective, carbon neutral fuel?

Certainly. They aren't.

Read the damn article. $3-$6 dollars a gallon is the government PR. Ten years away from perfecting the process.

The reason this makes sense for the navy (they think) is so they don't need tankers transporting fuel. It shortens supply lines.

It has *long* been possible to make gasoline from water. Go google the Sabatier or Bosch reactions. Once you have methane or methanol google Fischer-Tropsch on how to convert that to gasoline.

The bottom line is that you have to have free hydrogen.

Cost of free hydrogen (not that you'll understand this: 285.8 kj
Produced by Sabatier 168 ish

Net required... 80 Kj.

Triple that, counting the substantial energy requirements for the Fischer-Tropsch process, the costs to circulate the water, the costs to elevate the feed stocks to the required temperatures.

And if I were a betting man, I'd bet they were using ruthenium as catalysts for both processes.

Not at $3 a gallon they aren't and they specifically said they are using an iron based catalyst. Why don't you read?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus if you know that this will require so much energy, would you enlighten us on their process of producing cost effective, carbon neutral fuel?

Certainly. They aren't.

Read the damn article. $3-$6 dollars a gallon is the government PR. Ten years away from perfecting the process.

The reason this makes sense for the navy (they think) is so they don't need tankers transporting fuel. It shortens supply lines.

It has *long* been possible to make gasoline from water. Go google the Sabatier or Bosch reactions. Once you have methane or methanol google Fischer-Tropsch on how to convert that to gasoline.

The bottom line is that you have to have free hydrogen.

Cost of free hydrogen (not that you'll understand this: 285.8 kj
Produced by Sabatier 168 ish

Net required... 80 Kj.

Triple that, counting the substantial energy requirements for the Fischer-Tropsch process, the costs to circulate the water, the costs to elevate the feed stocks to the required temperatures.

And if I were a betting man, I'd bet they were using ruthenium as catalysts for both processes.

Not at $3 a gallon they aren't and they specifically said they are using an iron based catalyst. Why don't you read?

LOL.

Why can't you read? They are in fact, doing what I guessed they would do. Let me quote you:

The reduction and hydrogenation of CO2 to form hydrocarbons is accomplished using a catalyst that is similar to those used for Fischer-Tropsch reduction and hydrogenation of carbon monoxide," adds Willauer. By modifying the surface composition of iron catalysts in fixed-bed reactors, NRL has successfully improved CO2 conversion efficiencies up to 60 percent. - See more at: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas#sthash.8zjs13Ug.dpuf

Since you have no understanding, I'll simplify it for you. Increasing the conversion efficiency means you get more of the product you want, less of product you don't want. It doesn't change the energy requirement.
The fact that they are reliant on surface composition means that they will be very susceptible to catalyst poisoning.

When (if) you bother to read up on the sabatier process you will find that it uses a variety of catalysts - ruthenium, nickel, iron for example. So sure, I guessed ruthenium. Doesn't change the fact that the process - and the energy costs are as described.

They are using a reverse osmosis process with an electron stripper.


Since you persist in pretending you have a clue, lets do the math for you.

Sea water has 100 mg/Ltr dissolved Co2.
one liter of petrol weighs .737 kg.
The proportion of weight of carbon, as opposed to hydrogen is roughly 76%. So call it .55 kg of carbon per liter of petrol.

Using the efficiencies quoted in the book - they remove 92% of the CO2, and the unwanted by products are 25%. Meaning the useful conversion is 69%.

.55 kg required /.69 = .8 kg Co2.

So how much water does it take to process to make 1 liter of gas?

800g/.1g = 8000 liters of water to make one liter of gasoline.

Ground breaking. Truly.

An Arleigh Class destroyer on routine status burns 1000 gallons of oil an hour. Or 3700 liters an hour.
So to provide fuel for one destroyer, for one hour, you need to process 29.6 million liters of seawater.

Uh huh. Color me amazed. Truly.

So Mr. Mathematician. Why don't you impress me and calculate the energy requirement to make that fuel?
C'mon. Impress me.

Except of course, you can't, can you. Since you don't actually understand chemical reactions, or how the second law of thermodynamics work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Plus if you know that this will require so much energy, would you enlighten us on their process of producing cost effective, carbon neutral fuel?

Certainly. They aren't.

Read the damn article. $3-$6 dollars a gallon is the government PR. Ten years away from perfecting the process.

The reason this makes sense for the navy (they think) is so they don't need tankers transporting fuel. It shortens supply lines.

It has *long* been possible to make gasoline from water. Go google the Sabatier or Bosch reactions. Once you have methane or methanol google Fischer-Tropsch on how to convert that to gasoline.

The bottom line is that you have to have free hydrogen.

Cost of free hydrogen (not that you'll understand this: 285.8 kj
Produced by Sabatier 168 ish

Net required... 80 Kj.

Triple that, counting the substantial energy requirements for the Fischer-Tropsch process, the costs to circulate the water, the costs to elevate the feed stocks to the required temperatures.

And if I were a betting man, I'd bet they were using ruthenium as catalysts for both processes.

Not at $3 a gallon they aren't and they specifically said they are using an iron based catalyst. Why don't you read?

LOL.

Why can't you read? They are in fact, doing what I guessed they would do. Let me quote you:

The reduction and hydrogenation of CO2 to form hydrocarbons is accomplished using a catalyst that is similar to those used for Fischer-Tropsch reduction and hydrogenation of carbon monoxide," adds Willauer. By modifying the surface composition of iron catalysts in fixed-bed reactors, NRL has successfully improved CO2 conversion efficiencies up to 60 percent. - See more at: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas#sthash.8zjs13Ug.dpuf

Since you have no understanding, I'll simplify it for you. Increasing the conversion efficiency means you get more of the product you want, less of product you don't want. It doesn't change the energy requirement.
The fact that they are reliant on surface composition means that they will be very susceptible to catalyst poisoning.

When (if) you bother to read up on the sabatier process you will find that it uses a variety of catalysts - ruthenium, nickel, iron for example. So sure, I guessed ruthenium. Doesn't change the fact that the process - and the energy costs are as described.

They are using a reverse osmosis process with an electron stripper.


Since you persist in pretending you have a clue, lets do the math for you.

Sea water has 100 mg/Ltr dissolved Co2.
one liter of petrol weighs .737 kg.
The proportion of weight of carbon, as opposed to hydrogen is roughly 76%. So call it .55 kg of carbon per liter of petrol.

Using the efficiencies quoted in the book - they remove 92% of the CO2, and the unwanted by products are 25%. Meaning the useful conversion is 69%.

.55 kg required /.69 = .8 kg Co2.

So how much water does it take to process to make 1 liter of gas?

800g/.1g = 8000 liters of water to make one liter of gasoline.

Ground breaking. Truly.

An Arleigh Class destroyer on routine status burns 1000 gallons of oil an hour. Or 3700 liters an hour.
So to provide fuel for one destroyer, for one hour, you need to process 29.6 million liters of seawater.

Uh huh. Color me amazed. Truly.

So Mr. Mathematician. Why don't you impress me and calculate the energy requirement to make that fuel?
C'mon. Impress me.

Except of course, you can't, can you. Since you don't actually understand chemical reactions, or how the second law of thermodynamics work.

Who gives a shit about making fuel for destoyers?
The Navy doesn't and I don't. The Navy intends to use this to make jet fuel for aircraft. They have these big ships called aircraft carriers with nuclear reactors that have a lot of excess power capacity. They would love to be able to use that power to reduce their need to rely on under way replenishment by very vulnerable tankers.

I, personally, would think that further development of the process to get it viable for industrial use would mean the end of petroleum and natural gas extraction. We could store wind or solar as hydrocarbons and get around all the problems with batteries and the other problems people like you have been raising about renewables.

The fact that it is good clean green tech just drives you nuts I know but do try to stop gnashing your teeth and rending your clothes and try to enjoy the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

You do not get it do you?
The article says $3 to $6 based on the USN's requirements. That is a small installation on a carrier using excess power from a nuclear reactor. They don't care about the power requirement because for them the power is free.

I don't care about the power requirement because we're talking about finding a way to use renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. If you cannot figure out why that is important then you are beyond explaining. Will the cost come down in an industrial sized application? You bet. Does the Us government own the patent and therefore control the technology? Yes! Should this not be cause for celebration and not for you to be whining and moaning? Yes!

quote:

And if you want to use nuclear power - why not just use it to power homes directly - with zero emissions, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

You do not get it do you?
The article says $3 to $6 based on the USN's requirements. That is a small installation on a carrier using excess power from a nuclear reactor. They don't care about the power requirement because for them the power is free.

I don't care about the power requirement because we're talking about finding a way to use renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. If you cannot figure out why that is important then you are beyond explaining. Will the cost come down in an industrial sized application? You bet. Does the Us government own the patent and therefore control the technology? Yes! Should this not be cause for celebration and not for you to be whining and moaning? Yes!

Oh yes. 8000 liters of water to make one liter of gasoline. And you think this would be a "small" installation on a carrier.

Sure. Once you start with a nuclear reactor (cost 1 billion dollars) you can make tiny quantities of fuel at rates that are 2-3 times more expensive than current methods.

That has zero to do with using renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. And if you want to use nuclear power - why not just use it to power homes directly - with zero emissions, eh?

The fact that it might be interesting to the navy is because they don't have to transport the fuel to combat locations, don't have to provide security for tanker convoys. Don't have to worry about fuel as a restricting factor in time on station.

Sadly, for the rest of us, cost actually matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

You do not get it do you?
The article says $3 to $6 based on the USN's requirements. That is a small installation on a carrier using excess power from a nuclear reactor. They don't care about the power requirement because for them the power is free.

I don't care about the power requirement because we're talking about finding a way to use renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. If you cannot figure out why that is important then you are beyond explaining. Will the cost come down in an industrial sized application? You bet. Does the Us government own the patent and therefore control the technology? Yes! Should this not be cause for celebration and not for you to be whining and moaning? Yes!

Oh yes. 8000 liters of water to make one liter of gasoline. And you think this would be a "small" installation on a carrier.

Sure. Once you start with a nuclear reactor (cost 1 billion dollars) you can make tiny quantities of fuel at rates that are 2-3 times more expensive than current methods.

That has zero to do with using renewables to make hydrocarbon fuel. And if you want to use nuclear power - why not just use it to power homes directly - with zero emissions, eh?

The fact that it might be interesting to the navy is because they don't have to transport the fuel to combat locations, don't have to provide security for tanker convoys. Don't have to worry about fuel as a restricting factor in time on station.

Sadly, for the rest of us, cost actually matters.

Sadly you have no vision. And apparently no concept that techniques can be improved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

From the OP link -

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.

It's cool technology, just not economically feasable at the moment for use by general population; i.e. automobiles, home, etc. As Phydeaux says, need lots of energy to produce it. Not feasible unless using Nuke and the whole poiunt about it is carbon neutral.

On a nuclear carrier it makes some sense, especially where the carrier can be longer on station with less fuel support needs for operations. It's not a panacea though. Not yet.

Enjoyed the RC film.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux



Oh thats fine, factless ken. Show me the energy requirements then to produce jet fuel for one jet fighter.

But again you can't. No science. No knowledge. And so you have no credibility to judge the feasibility of a PR piece.

So you have no way of judging whether the $3-$6 is feasible.

Since the op is all we have to go on the inability of anyone, who read the article, to judge it's feasibility has the same limitations.