So it is possible for fuel

[dicer]

http://marineinsight.com/news/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas/

 

[Lou Scannon]

I didn't see where they stated what would be the source of energy (a) to reduce the CO2 back to C, and (b) to create all the C-C and C-H bonds needed to synthesize the fuel. I'm sure they have something in mind, and net energy production is probably not considered essential for by the military, as it would be for a commercial enterprise.

"Schiefgehen will, was schiefgehen kann" - das Murphygesetz

 

[BigClive]

Pretty much anything can be synthesized in the world of organic chemistry from the basic carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. But the process would be hugely energy intensive and presumably only possible with almost unlimited amounts of nuclear-generated electrical power.

 

[IRstuff]

So, instead of 600 million gallons of fuel delivered, it'll be 1200 million gallons of reactant delivered...


Or, installing a small nuclear reactor on each ship to generate the energy to make the fuel.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[dgallup]

If they can just "gather" H2 from seawater why don't they convert the engines to run on H2?

And if they suck all the CO2 out of the ocean it will reverse the anthropogenic global warming and the oceans will freeze solid and we'll all die! (just kidding)

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.

 

[JayMaechtlen]

Looks like the US nuke powered vessels are all carriers or subs.
So- might they go with (new) nuke-powered fuel-making resupply ships, or would this be on stationary installations?

Jay Maechtlen

http://www.laserpubs.com/techcomm

 

[btrueblood]

"US nuke powered vessels are all carriers or subs."

Since the goal is to make JP-5 jet fuel, and the biggest shipborne consumers of that fuel are aircraft, and (some) carriers are nuke-powered already, why go to the expense of making new ships? Then again, I am assuming our Federal procurement $ will be spent wisely.

 

[IRstuff]

" (some) carriers are nuke-powered already"

Actually, they ALL are. Any non-nuclear carriers are only floating museums.

However, the issue with using the existing carriers is that there is no infrastructure for doing this task. It would require massive reconstruction, since there is no spare room in any given carrier.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[btrueblood]

Yes, IRstuff, if you go by the naval designation. But I made my statement waffly, because some would call ships like the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3), or the USS Essex (LHD-2) carriers as well (or are you going to argue that they don't carry aircraft?).

"There is no infrastructure"

Obviously not on existing ships built before the technology was developed. I disagree that it would require "massive" reconstruction, but I'm not a naval architect. It might be simpler to include the new plant only in upcoming hulls. There is always room, if clever engineers are allowed to make it happen.