Saturday, May 28, 2016
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help   RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos
Find: in

US Navy is turning seawater in to fuel


Posted on Monday, 14 April, 2014 | Comment icon 36 comments

Large ships may never need to stop to refuel again. Image Credit: Bradley J. Sapp / US Navy
The need for a more efficient fuel source for large ships has lead to a highly unexpected solution.
The fueling requirements of battleships and other large vessels has proven something of a bottleneck for years with ships such as the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyer able to get through as much as 1,000 gallons of conventional petroleum fuel in the space of an hour.

Now the US Navy has come up with a solution that could have far-reaching consequences across the globe. Using a special type of catalytic converter it has been demonstrated that it is actually possible to create viable fuel out of nothing but seawater.

"This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition, from the laboratory, to full-scale commercial implementation," said chemist Heather Willauer.

Not only could this technology be used to keep ships going indefinitely without ever having to stop to refuel but it could also see a wide range of other commercial uses within the next decade.

Source: Discover Magazine | Comments (36)

Tags: Seawater, Fuel


 
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #27 Posted by paperdyer on 15 April, 2014, 14:27
Big Oil will become Big Seaweed!
Comment icon #28 Posted by bison on 15 April, 2014, 15:56
This process is intended to produce fuel for jets, not to run a ship's engines. There are repeated references to 'jet fuel' and JP-5 (same thing) in various articles on this. If a ship's engines were to be powered, something close to 100 thousand cubic meters of seawater per hour would have to be processed. that would use up a great deal of energy in itself. They can't extract more energy than is put into the process, in fact they will get less out than was put in. This is based on the recognized laws of the conservation of energy. If these laws had been overturned, it woul... [More]
Comment icon #29 Posted by Noteverythingisaconspiracy on 15 April, 2014, 16:34
Yes, i think you are absolutely right. It is a way to make jetfuel, for the fighter jets on the US Navy's nuclear powered aircraft carriers They can use the excess power of their reactors to make fuel, so they won't be as dependant on the navy's fleet tankers. Getting hydrogen out of seawater will always require more energy than you get out of it. The article speaks of 60 % efficiency, and that is pretty much what we get from present day electrolosys. If we one day develop a cheap and sustainable source of energy, then it will be a very useful technique, freeing us from the depen... [More]
Comment icon #30 Posted by cyclopes500 on 15 April, 2014, 20:12
Lets say in theory the Co2 source came from a Coke powered boiler, and the steam from that same boiler was turning a generator etc. How much Coke (carbon) would you need to make 1000 gallons of jet fuel? I mean weight to weight not for energy required. I'm picturing something like a cross between the old Coaling ships that used to feed the old WW1 battleships, crossed with a supertanker, with a nuclear power plant in it. Possibly with its coke furnace funnel bolted directly into the system. Ship sails from its destination empty bar the coal in one hold, on the way its making the fuel and f... [More]
Comment icon #31 Posted by DieChecker on 16 April, 2014, 1:05
Almost every article on this mentions that it is intended to be used for jet fighters And the ships themselves.
Comment icon #32 Posted by DieChecker on 16 April, 2014, 1:11
I did find this.... And this....
Comment icon #33 Posted by Orcseeker on 16 April, 2014, 13:14
I think you underestimate corporate lobbying power. How can one charge so much for a resource that can be so abundant? Because they can't. The process will gradually be cheapened even if it were expensive to process now. Sure the government can make use of it but the public? You've only got to look at a bit of history to know that there is going to be at the very least a great attempt to suppress the technology.
Comment icon #34 Posted by DieChecker on 17 April, 2014, 1:12
It will have to remain a military secret. Did anyone read the articles where the military was bragging about how this would save a lot of money, and in so doing make waging war less expensive, and therefore allowing the US to field more ships and airplanes? When you have such a large military advantage you don't go giving that technology to the civilians, who are going to immediately sell it to the Chinese and Russians and Iranians.
Comment icon #35 Posted by taniwha on 17 April, 2014, 7:56
I doubt this technology will lead to peace.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


  On the forums
Government study finds cellphone-cancer link
5-27-2016
The findings suggest that exposure to cellphone radiation may cause brain and heart cancers in rats.
Giant squid may grow larger than a school bus
5-27-2016
A new study has suggested that giant squid may actually grow to be much larger than previously believed.
Aristotle's lost tomb has finally been found
5-26-2016
The long-sought final resting place of the Greek philosopher has been unearthed at a site in Macedonia.
New optical clock is most accurate ever built
5-26-2016
Scientists have come up with a clock so accurate that it could even redefine the length of a second.
Featured Videos
Gallery icon 
Seeking new antibiotics under the sea
Posted 5-27-2016 | 2 comments
Scientists are seeking new treatments for antibiotic-resistant infections beneath the waves.
 
World's first mile-long pizza
Posted 5-26-2016 | 1 comment
Italian chefs have produced a single gigantic pizza that stretches for an entire mile.
 
What happened before the Big Bang ?
Posted 5-22-2016 | 4 comments
Is it possible to find out what took place before our universe came in to existence ?
 
Prehistoric creatures that still exist
Posted 5-21-2016 | 1 comment
A look at some remarkable animal species that have survived for millions of years.
 
Why do we have 10 fingers and 10 toes ?
Posted 5-20-2016 | 2 comments
What is the reason that we happen to have exactly 10 fingers and toes ? Why that number ?
 
 View: More videos
Stories & Experiences
Not in our jurisdiction
5-2-2016 | California, United States
 
Zippers and headlights
5-2-2016 | Raleigh, United States
 
Spinning, voiceless and breathless
5-2-2016 | Garland, Texas
 
Paralyzed
4-15-2016 | United States
 
The mysterious awakening
4-6-2016 | Los Angeles, California
 
Chocolate fairy? Really?
4-6-2016 | United Kingdom
 
Christmas Day haunting
4-6-2016 | London, UK
 
The funeral director
3-30-2016 | Hebburn, England
 
A strange sighting in Spain
3-30-2016 | Albatera, Spain
 
Dust patterns on basement floor
3-27-2016 | Smithville, Texas
 

         More stories | Send us your story
 
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.7 Unexplained-Mysteries.com 2001-2015
Privacy Policy and Disclaimer   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ