Skip to comments.
US Navy 'game-changer': converting seawater into fuel
economic times ^
| 7 Apr, 2014, 08.00PM IST
Posted on 04/07/2014 9:18:38 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
To: DeaconBenjamin
2
posted on
04/07/2014 9:22:27 AM PDT
by
fhayek
To: DeaconBenjamin
Climate change oceans rising?
Problem solved!
3
posted on
04/07/2014 9:23:06 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Somehow I expect that someone will say that this process will cause global warming.
4
posted on
04/07/2014 9:23:56 AM PDT
by
MeganC
(Support Matt Bevin to oust Mitch McConnell! https://mattbevin.com/)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Where does the energy come from in this process?
Sure you can reverse the combustion process but that requires energy.
Lots of it. More than you will get out of the fuel you make.
5
posted on
04/07/2014 9:30:44 AM PDT
by
BitWielder1
(Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
To: DeaconBenjamin
“...only aircraft carriers and some submarines are equipped with nuclear propulsion.”
I didn’t know that. For some reason, I thought we had a few cruisers that were nuclear-powered.
At any rate, this is pretty big stuff, if it pans out. A conventionally-powered ship that can refuel at will would have a significant advantage over one that could not.
6
posted on
04/07/2014 9:31:02 AM PDT
by
DemforBush
(The scourge of mariachis and polka bands everywhere.)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Money saved to go to further home indoctrination.
7
posted on
04/07/2014 9:32:03 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(If the cross is not foolishness to the lost world then we have misrepresented the cross." S.L.)
To: Gamecock
8
posted on
04/07/2014 9:32:30 AM PDT
by
Gamecock
(If the cross is not foolishness to the lost world then we have misrepresented the cross." S.L.)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Convert sea water into fuel?If the federal government is involved in this we will have a shortage of sea water within 3 years.
9
posted on
04/07/2014 9:33:13 AM PDT
by
Iron Munro
(The future ain't what it use to be -- Yogi Berra)
To: BitWielder1
“Where does the energy come from in this process?
Sure you can reverse the combustion process but that requires energy.
Lots of it. More than you will get out of the fuel you make.”
The navy has been funding the polywell reactor for many years. They also wanted their Littoral Combat ships to use a rail gun, but the rail gun technology was not ready in time. Now this to make jet fuel and diesel at sea. They obviously think there is a power source available for all of that. Exactly what is anyone’s guess.
10
posted on
04/07/2014 9:36:24 AM PDT
by
BJ1
To: DeaconBenjamin
Can Lead to Gold transformation not be far behind?
11
posted on
04/07/2014 9:37:08 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: DeaconBenjamin
I don’t know about sea water, but the river water around Cleveland used to burn pretty good.
12
posted on
04/07/2014 9:38:23 AM PDT
by
Cowboy Bob
(They are called "Liberals" because the word "parasite" was already taken.)
To: DemforBush
I think we had two (California class?) at one time.
13
posted on
04/07/2014 9:38:31 AM PDT
by
CrazyIvan
(Obama phones= Bread and circuits.)
To: BJ1
"Despite initial difficulties in spherical electron confinement, at the time of the 2005 research project's termination, Bussard reported a fusion rate of 109 per second running D-D fusion reactions at only 12.5 kV (based on detecting a total of nine neutrons in five tests,[10][11]"
Apparently Fusion.
14
posted on
04/07/2014 9:42:38 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: DeaconBenjamin
And as soon as it is shown to be viable we will give it away to every other country. We cannot have an advantage...
To: BJ1
... They obviously think there is a power source available for all of that. ...
A nuclear powered ship to cook up diesel fuel for all the non-nuclear ships in the fleet?
I'm sure it could be made to work. Will it work well enough?
Is it economical? Is it strategically sound? That I don't know.
16
posted on
04/07/2014 9:47:08 AM PDT
by
BitWielder1
(Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Where do they get the carbon?
17
posted on
04/07/2014 9:47:55 AM PDT
by
Steely Tom
(How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
To: BJ1
18
posted on
04/07/2014 9:48:34 AM PDT
by
null and void
(Politics: Voting for the monkeys that are better at flinging poo at their opponents...)
To: DeaconBenjamin
“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,”
But CO2 is a “pollutant”.
And like all articles it never answers the big question; How much energy is required to retrieve the hydrogen? More than the hydrogen provides, I suspect.
19
posted on
04/07/2014 9:49:52 AM PDT
by
ryan71
(The Partisans)
To: DeaconBenjamin
Oh great! Now we are going to use sea water for fuel. There is only so much sea water on this planet. Sea levels will lower and marine life will be put in jeopardy. And what are they going to do with all that toxic CO2? They’ll have to release it into the air and make man made globul warming worse, which will melt the polar ice caps, kill the polar bears and raise sea levels and drowned millions of coast and island dwellers around the world.
THIS IS JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE!
(cynical sarcasm based on liberal thought process)
20
posted on
04/07/2014 9:50:29 AM PDT
by
Tenacious 1
(My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
