According to the Navy's forecasts, the system will reach full installation on ships within a decade, and will provide fuel from seawater, at a cost of 1-2 dollars per liter.
The United States Navy laboratories demonstrated last week an unusual and promising use of seawater. An innovative catalytic device extracts the carbon dioxide and hydrogen from the seawater with an efficiency of 92 percent, combines them with each other and results in the creation of long molecules with nine or more carbons. These are, in fact, the same molecules that are also found in oil, and burning them releases a large amount of energy.
Navy scientists tested the new fuel on a replica of a World War II red-tailed Mustang (P-51).
The US Navy is in desperate need of an innovative way to generate energy, as one large battleship burns more than 3,000 gallons of oil every hour. If the new development can also operate in ships, then this is a real breakthrough. In the meantime, it seems that even senior officials in the navy and scientists involved in the development are excited by the matter, and define the development as a breakthrough. So there is hope.
Still, too many developments throughout history have failed the moment they needed to be brought to market, so we'll continue to wait and hope for the best. According to the Navy's forecasts, the system will reach full installation on ships within a decade, and will provide fuel from seawater, at a cost of 1-2 dollars per liter. Since the price of a barrel of oil (~150 liters) is about 80 dollars, it does not seem that the system will be able to easily compete with the oil suppliers, but it will allow the ships to part with the huge oil reserves that they have to carry, save the entire oil transportation system, and allow the ships to exist on their own .
For information on the US Navy website
To Dr.Roey Tsezana's book - the guide to the future
On the same topic on the science website: which removes fuel from the air
18 תגובות
Nissim, you are very wrong. Flying airplanes on hydrogen is possible and exists. The condition is that the hydrogen will be liquid and therefore its production near the flight path is possible in the matter of atomic planes without problems.
The CO2 is present in seawater in such a low amount that there is no practical possibility to extract it.
I bet with full responsibility because this is the method and everything else in the article is meant to deceive.
safkan You are probably the only one who understands that the conversion can only be H2 and all the other commenters do not understand so much, because in a marine environment, hydrogen (by investing energy to separate it from the water) is the only potential source of energy..
Life
It is impossible to propel airplanes with hydrogen without building a completely new propulsion system for them (certainly not a turbine subscription). In an excellent article they found a way to isolate hydrogen and carbon dioxide from seawater (as safkan said - probably also with the help of electricity generated from the ship's nuclear reactor), and turn these hydrogen and carbon dioxide into fuel materials. The process of turning these gases into fuels has been known for over 20 years.
Herzl Be careful. There is no leading perfume. The probability is that a nuclear aircraft carrier has enough energy to produce hydrogen. It is still not clear to me how to turn it into a conventional liquid fuel, except by liquefying the hydrogen to a low temperature. In this way it is possible to fly airplanes without a problem, even at greater ranges because the energy density of liquid hydrogen is greater than fuel.
Does this mean that oil can be produced from seawater?
If so, this is really a breakthrough
And the world will no longer depend on the Arabs
To be clear. The system cannot create from nothing. The options for this article are the following:
1. The entire article is a bluff and intended only for public relations.
2. There is hidden energy soaked in sea water and this is the way to release it.
3. The energy source comes from non-conventional sources not mentioned here.
4. The energy comes from the sun, the movement of sea waves, wind, temperature difference. in water and more. (In the water layers, the temperature can reach tens of degrees at a depth of over 100 m and more).
5. Atomic energy.
Be careful. There is no energy from nothing.
And NASA is toying (according to unofficial publications) with serious research on small-scale WARP propulsion in its laboratories. An exciting time.
Upon further reading of the article, I noticed that in the explanation of the second picture, a system of reverse osmosis, a power supply, and more are described. That is, the energy source is electrical. They may mean that a nuclear aircraft carrier will be able to produce jet fuel using electricity from the reactor and seawater. That is, not a leading Fraptum, but a serious application. The efficiency is not important since the reactor can provide the energy.
It's good that you drew my attention, for some reason the comments went into the spam comments section, which you can't check except for a sample (every time I go for five minutes I find 100 spams there) and you have to browse a lot to find something legitimate and usually I give up and delete everything.
Herzl
As I said in a previous comment. It is probably an energy conversion of a nuclear reactor that has large fleets of the American army.
The wording of the article here is bad and misleading, probably the original article was also poorly worded.
Maybe I will post a more detailed response, but not now because the detailed response for some reason was not received.
I read the original article. It seems that they produce H2 from water without investing energy - by a catalytic converter. In my opinion there is a leading perfumer here. Perhaps in the future more details will be given about the process - and it will turn out that there is an investment of energy from the sun or another source. In conclusion - it looks like a public relations exercise by the NAVY to get budgets from politicians, especially the matter of the model of the plane..
For some reason I can't upload a separate ad in which I detail my first message.
In short, what I said in my first message is accurate, the wording of the article is inaccurate and opens the door to irrelevant speculation. The new technology does not have any alternative source of energy to fossil fuel or nuclear fuel. There is only the conversion of chemically inert nuclear fuel similar to fossil fuel.
Following on from what I said in my first response, I bring here a somewhat more successful article regarding the new technology (currently it is a technology in its infancy, not yet an applied stage). Also read the responses of some intelligent readers who understand what the article is talking about, not what the article seems to imply.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/
IM coming back. It is not a process of creating energy from nothing, but only a process of conversion from one form of energy to another form of energy (the second is chemical energy).
The conversion itself requires energy and this is produced from another source, probably nuclear reactors that are on some of the large vessels in the fleet of the US Navy. The efficiency of the conversion is 92 percent if I remember what is written in the article I brought.
To understand what the enthusiasm is about.
The enthusiasm is not that they discovered a new source of energy that creates energy from nothing, but that the technology in question solves the problem of supplying chemical fuel to the navy's fleet. As of today, supplying chemical fuel to airplanes and small vessels is the only option, because these vessels are powered only by chemical energy. The dependence of a fleet on chemical fuel brought from far away creates a logistical problem, this technology is designed to solve the logistical problem (because according to this technology any large fleet will be able to autonomously produce chemical fuel for its own needs).
Further to my message from above. I repeat and claim that the wording of the article here is misleading (the source is also probably quite vague, therefore it led the commentators to give erroneous and misleading interpretations regarding the development of the American Navy, a preliminary development at the moment).
Here is an article that tries to be more precise - although it is also quite vague regarding the question of whether it is the production of energy from nothing or the conversion from another form of energy to a form of chemical energy (similar to fossil energy).
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/08/u-s-navy-can-convert-seawater-fuel/
Those who want to understand what it is about should read the improved article that I brought as well as read the intelligent comments of the readers.
It is not about producing energy out of nothing, but about converting from another energy (probably nuclear) into the energy of a fossil fuel-like fuel. It is said that the technology of the conversion is done with an efficiency of 92 percent, if I am not mistaken, the exact number 92 or something like that is mentioned in the article itself.
The reason for the conversion to chemical fuel (similar to fossil fuel) is that, as of today, small vehicles, including airplanes and small ships, are powered by chemical fuel. Therefore, shipping has to be fueled *externally*, using fossil fuel tank ships that bring fuel in distant supply lines. The US Navy's ambition is for a fleet to be able to exist for a long time autonomously without the need for distant supply lines.
A large fleet has autonomous energy sources, such as atomic reactors, sources which are supposed to provide chemical energy through the discussed conversion.
For TT at a price of 1-2 dollars per liter Israel will be able to get oil in any case
or produce the gas reserves itself. The question is whether the economy
The Israeli could afford such a price.
To Dr. Roy Szczena. "Battleships" (Battleship) is a type
which has not been built since World War II. The correct term is
warships
safkan
If you read the article that the article refers to, you will see that what you wrote is wrong. The decomposition is catalytic and does not rely on any nuclear reactor....
No one said that they produce out of nowhere - they produce here chemical energy that was not available before.
safkan
The article is worded in a misleading way because it implies that energy is produced from nothing. Actually another form of energy is used, for example energy produced by a nuclear reactor on aircraft carriers, to distill synthetic carbon fuel.
Such or similar technology in Israel will prevent the possibility of an oil boycott on Israel, which will strengthen it politically.