6 Comments

  1. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/18/climate-change-meets-high-tech/

    Excerpt….

    One solution to the fossil fuel conundrum is energy from water. Energy derived from the elements found in water has far-reaching potential. In that regard, the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory’s Materials Science and Technology Division announced they have achieved ‘proof of concept’ for a new technology that may be a game changer.

    The new process extracts carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater, which are processed in a catalytic converter to transform the elements into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel with 92% efficiency. This fuel can be used to power conventional engines already in use today. The catalytic device is described as an “innovative and proprietary NRL electronic cation exchange module or “E-CEM.”

    Naval scientists demonstrated the novel concept on April 2, 2014 with a model airplane powered by fuel from 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,” according to Naval research chemist Heather Willauer, Scale Model WWII Craft Takes Flight With Fuel From the Sea Concept, America’s Navy, Naval Research Laboratory Public Affairs, Story No. NNS14040704, Release Date: 4/7/2014.

    Looking ahead into the future, the Navy predicts seawater fuel will cost $3-6 per gallon, and it could be available on a commercial scale within 10 years.

  2. Any information on the energy density? If it is similar to gasoline, the price of this seawater fuel is $1000 – $2000 per tonne. Excellent price to keep nuclear propulsion economical for ships.

  3. Don’t know any more than you do. Probably less. Just found the article kinda interesting. I emailed the author, in the hopes he might join with any comments.

  4. The fuel created it JP5 as far as I know. There are papers from the Navy floating around online with all of the calculations. Right now carriers have unlimited propulsion fuel and food for months, but have to get more jet fuel for their aircraft very frequently (I believe less than 1 week). If they can make their own, they cut off that entire, expensive supply chain and the corresponding weakness it introduces in wartime.

Comments are closed.

Similar Posts

  • Oliver Stone’s “Nuclear” – An optimistic look at a powerful tool for addressing climate change and energy security

    By early 2019, Oliver Stone, a successful filmmaker who has created a long list of popular works of art, had become increasingly concerned and even depressed about what he had learned about the risk climate change posed to humanity. He’d watched Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and paid attention to dire warnings coming from credible scientific…

  • Atomic Show #206 – Energy Education

    We spent a lot of time on this show talking about energy-related education. It is important for people to have a better understanding of how they get energy, how humans use energy to enable better living, and how difficult life can be when there is no reliable, convenient source of delivered energy. We tipped our…

  • A Path from Coal to Nuclear is Being Blazed in Wyoming

    Many of those who care about finding solutions to the physical distress that our climate is experiencing, as reported on this week in a landmark 1,300 page report by the IPCC‘s Sixth Assessment Working Group 1 (Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis), are not looking at Wyoming. But based upon the announcement made in…

  • What happened to the NS Savannah?

    One of the more frequent inquiries I have received during my years operating Atomic Insights is “What happened to the NS (nuclear ship) Savannah?”. I just learned about a recently completed documentary film by Thomas Michael Conner, a former member of the ship’s crew, that is designed to answer that question in detail using sea…

  • Kenneth Pitzer blamed AEC advisors for slow power reactor development

    During the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) earliest years, the General Advisory Committee was sometimes viewed as a source of discouraging, delaying advice. Made up of selected members of the scientific establishment, the group habitually sought more studies and inserted costly delays aimed at making the perfect next step instead of taking steps that were good…