RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
recycledhumans
DFWTX
Post #16
Tuesday April 15, 2014 5:15pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,467
Original post from navi8132

It's incredible that a casual note of a scientific finding devolved into catty fighting.


Sounds like America these days, doesn't it?

platter
Jacksonville, FL
Post #17
Tuesday April 15, 2014 5:33pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 97
I'm going to throw some water on the excitement over this discovery. It's not necessarily designed as a petroleum replacement, rather it's more of a jet fuel supplement. Nor is the product, particularly "green", as it is a hydrocarbon. Meaning the process will be releasing carbon from the sea, into the atmosphere.

the actual Naval press release provides a more realistic take on the technology, the the subsequent media account.......

2tone
Ten-Towns
Post #18
Tuesday April 15, 2014 5:58pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 10,597
Original post from platter

I'm going to throw some water on the excitement over this discovery. It's not necessarily designed as a petroleum replacement, rather it's more of a jet fuel supplement. Nor is the product, particularly "green", as it is a hydrocarbon. Meaning the process will be releasing carbon from the sea, into the atmosphere.

the actual Naval press release provides a more realistic take on the technology, the the subsequent media account.......


Doesn't make it any less exciting. There are various hydrocarbons that burn very clean i.e. propane etc.... This is not crude oil.

2tone
Ten-Towns
Post #19
Tuesday April 15, 2014 6:10pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 10,597
Here is what the chemist Dr. Wilhauer said about the carbon footprint: " It's a net-zero carbon footprint. You're taking the carbon, you put it into a fuel, you burn it, it goes back into the atmosphere, but you're not creating anymore. I'm not getting fossil fuel out of the ground and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, I'm using CO2 from the atmosphere." Boom! The fuel is CO2 and Hydrogen.

It is already pre-existing CO2 coming from the atmosphere hence net-zero carbon footprint.

joey11
Post #20
Tuesday April 15, 2014 6:47pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 284
Original post from 2tone

Here is what the chemist Dr. Wilhauer said about the carbon footprint: " It's a net-zero carbon footprint. You're taking the carbon, you put it into a fuel, you burn it, it goes back into the atmosphere, but you're not creating anymore. I'm not getting fossil fuel out of the ground and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, I'm using CO2 from the atmosphere." Boom! The fuel is CO2 and Hydrogen.

It is already pre-existing CO2 coming from the atmosphere hence net-zero carbon footprint.
That's not quite right. it doesn't take CO2 from the atmosphere. The Ocean is a "sponge" as they described it, soaking up CO2 which at high levels is bad for the ocean life. It takes that CO2 from the water and then when burned releases a reduced level of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't know if that still equates to a net-zero carbon footprint or not.

2tone
Ten-Towns
Post #21
Tuesday April 15, 2014 9:13pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 10,597
Original post from joey11

That's not quite right. it doesn't take CO2 from the atmosphere. The Ocean is a "sponge" as they described it, soaking up CO2 which at high levels is bad for the ocean life. It takes that CO2 from the water and then when burned releases a reduced level of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't know if that still equates to a net-zero carbon footprint or not.


The CO2 is coming from the atmosphere or surrounding air. Algae uses CO2 for photosynthesis. Granted yes fossil fuels add to the preexisting CO2 in the atmosphere, but taking CO2 from the ocean does not add CO2 to the atmosphere. CO2 is already a naturally occurring green house gas. Without CO2 there would be no photosynthesis thus no O2 being released into the atmosphere.

This could have a big impact on reducing fossil fuel emitted CO2.

krdonnel
Post #22
Tuesday April 15, 2014 9:14pm

Joined Sep 2013
Total Posts: 41
What it means for the U.S. short term is a distinct strategic advantage for the military. This eliminates the pressure of keeping up supply lines, especially for the Navy where refuling is slow, dangerous and makes the fleet vulnerable during the process. It will still require LOADS of energy as the catalyst which will probably be supplied by small reactors on each ship or by having new supply ships that are smaller, faster, and powered by a reactor that can make fuel when needed and easily pump it into other ships.
Long term: this would be a huge boon for everyday life once perfected. The majority of the worlds population lives within a few hours of the ocean. This would be a huge breakthrough in energy production.

FYI- look at most of the major breakthroughs in science and technology since WWI and youll find that almost all of them were discovered by DOD (Department of Defense) or the research was funded by DOD. this includes major medical advances..

recycledhumans
DFWTX
Post #23
Tuesday April 15, 2014 11:00pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,467
Original post from joey11

That's not quite right. it doesn't take CO2 from the atmosphere. The Ocean is a "sponge" as they described it, soaking up CO2 which at high levels is bad for the ocean life. It takes that CO2 from the water and then when burned releases a reduced level of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't know if that still equates to a net-zero carbon footprint or not.


It does if you consider ALL carbon dioxide anywhere and in any form. That means that you'd have to also account for the CO2 trapped in sea ice, or in volcanic systems, etc. Strictly speaking, he's just taken CO2 from the sea and putting it in the air, so it's more like shifting it from one medium to another, rather than "creating" CO2 emissions like we do when we burn fossil fuels.

The problem is, when we're looking at CO2 in general, we don't factor in those esoteric forms, just the atmospheric or "free" level. Either way, whatever CO2 this method produces will surely be much less than the huge amount of fuel that ships are currently expending.

mmee
Culver City, CA
Post #24
Wednesday April 16, 2014 4:11am

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 2,147
Original post from navi8132

It's incredible that a casual note of a scientific finding devolved into catty fighting.


on a chat board, on the internet, no less...

admsghs27
Post #25
Wednesday April 16, 2014 4:51am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 6,060
I don't actually believe the navy can use 100% saltwater for fuel source. Maybe a small percentage mixed with a variety of other chemicals.

_Dw_
Post #26
Wednesday April 16, 2014 7:26am

Joined Sep 2012
Total Posts: 69
Original post from admsghs27

I don't actually believe the navy can use 100% saltwater for fuel source. Maybe a small percentage mixed with a variety of other chemicals.


Well you better believe it mister.

Kamphgruppe
Michigan
Post #27
Wednesday April 16, 2014 3:22pm

Joined Jul 2012
Total Posts: 1,062
They are making Jet Fuel out of Saltwater. Currently it takes about 3X the energy to make as opposed to what you get out of it. However on ships with nuclear reactors that is not a problem. You can fuel your jets without having to ship Jet fuel around the world. They are hoping to refine the process and someday get more energy out than they put in.

Page 2 of 2
« Previous 1 2

Pellegrino Matarazzo and VfB Stuttgart got their Bundesliga campaign off the ground on Saturday with a win over Mainz.
RECENT POSTS
Marsch Wins Coaching Honor
American Trio Wins 3. Liga Title
Konrad Commits To Barcelona
Matarazzo, Stuttgart Eye Promotion