# Seawater into fuel



## MishMouse (Apr 7, 2014)

http://news.yahoo.com/us-navy-game-changer-converting-seawater-fuel-150544958.html

If they can get this to work efficiently, hopefully it will move to the civilian world.
The best part of this story is that it is seawater and not freshwater.
If it were freshwater it would not be as good of idea as it is with seawater.


----------



## DevilsBrew (Apr 7, 2014)

A guy was telling me about this the other day.  Getting power from water.  Made my head hurt.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 7, 2014)

You need energy to make this conversion. Even with an endless source of energy, from the ship's reactor, the article still quotes 3-6$ per gallon. The article fails to mention that or if there is another input energy source.


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 7, 2014)

When I first saw it I thought it was a leftover from April Fools day. There is far more to this process than discussed.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 7, 2014)

You can indeed turn CO2 and H2 into any fuel you want....with an energy source not specified in the article.  I worked on design for a nuclear heat driven process for making hydrogen a few years ago.  Could work....but too costly.  For the USN with lots of (high temp) reactors at remote sites and an appetite for oil, who knows?


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 8, 2014)

It's probably not politically correct to mention how they are using nuclear power to do this. Instead it appears as though they are using something other than oil in what would be oil burning applications. Almost trying to put a green spin on it in addition to the independence on other nations thing.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Apr 8, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> You need energy to make this conversion. Even with an endless source of energy, from the ship's reactor, the article still quotes 3-6$ per gallon. The article fails to mention that or if there is another input energy source.


Sometimes having liquid fuel delivered to a military unit is very costly. In a war zone situation it can be hundreds if not thousands of $ per gallon. If Nuke ships can make their own liquid fuel for 3-6$ a gallon that would be an insane bargain.I say full steam ahead.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 8, 2014)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Sometimes having liquid fuel delivered to a military unit is very costly. In a war zone situation it can be hundreds if not thousands of $ per gallon. If Nuke ships can make their own liquid fuel for 3-6$ a gallon that would be an insane bargain.I say full steam ahead.


 
I agree, I'm a fan of nuke power and being able to make fuel cheaply can have huge effects on our nation. Forget warzones, we are shipping freight using 4$ diesel fuel right now.


----------



## begreen (Apr 8, 2014)

Big ships burn bunker fuel, one step above asphalt. It is much less than diesel, but it has gone up a lot. $2.80/ gal is the 2013 price I found. A big container ship with a 100000 hp engine can go through an ungodly amount per day. The Emma Maersk's 109,000 hp engine burns 1,660 gallons per hour!  That's over $100K per day just for fuel.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 8, 2014)

Jets use jetA which is like kerosene. I couldn't tell from the article if the product of this new technology would be bunker fuel or jetA or something in the middle. Bunker fuel is a low grade fuel but is very much different than asphalt, it is a liquid more like crude oil. Also, ships burn bunker fuel because it is cheap. I do not know (maybe someone else?) if the ships could not run just as well on lighter weight diesel fuel.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 8, 2014)

They are shooting at making JP-5 jet fuel.


----------



## Jags (Apr 8, 2014)

BrotherBart said:


> They are shooting at making JP-5 jet fuel.



Yep - JP5 is the Navy's choice of jet fuel.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 8, 2014)

The chemical process runs on syngas via the old Fischer-Tropsch process.  $6 might be the cost if you DON'T count the cost of building and running the nuclear reactor, otherwise you have to make a lot of oil to amortize a nuclear carrier.  For domestic use, this is called natural gas to liquids 'GTL' and makes sense starting at or just above the current price of crude oil.  I happen to think that OPEC doesn't want the price it to go much higher for fear of GTL plants being built, and once built, you would still run them at the current price.  Thus years hovering right around the $100 mark.

Of course for the Navy the economics work out all different.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 9, 2014)

Jags said:


> Yep - JP5 is the Navy's choice of jet fuel.


 
I just read that jp8 was the military jet fuel choice which is similar to commercial jet-A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8

Either way, sounds like diesel fuel. Can ships made for bunker fuel run on diesel?


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 9, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> The chemical process runs on syngas via the old Fischer-Tropsch process.  $6 might be the cost if you DON'T count the cost of building and running the nuclear reactor, otherwise you have to make a lot of oil to amortize a nuclear carrier.  For domestic use, this is called natural gas to liquids 'GTL' and makes sense starting at or just above the current price of crude oil.  I happen to think that OPEC doesn't want the price it to go much higher for fear of GTL plants being built, and once built, you would still run them at the current price.  Thus years hovering right around the $100 mark.
> 
> Of course for the Navy the economics work out all different.


 
I love it when the economics work out like this. The OPEC guys want to make sure that they are just barely cheap enough to be the cheapest option. The price of oil has little to do with supply and demand.


----------



## BrotherBart (Apr 9, 2014)

JP-5 is used on carriers because of its higher flash point. Not as easy to blow up the boat.


----------



## Jags (Apr 9, 2014)

What Bro said on the JP5.
The big ship engines are basically diesel and I would assume could be tuned to use the much lighter fuel, but that is probably more in @fossil wheel house, than mine.


----------



## begreen (Apr 9, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> I just read that jp8 was the military jet fuel choice which is similar to commercial jet-A.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP-8
> 
> Either way, sounds like diesel fuel. Can ships made for bunker fuel run on diesel?



Big container ships have huge generators aboard, typically 3, that run on diesel. An average big boat has 3MW of generating capacity, though they don't run all at one. They command a healthy fuel bill on their own.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 9, 2014)

begreen said:


> Big container ships have huge generators aboard, typically 3, that run on diesel. An average big boat has 3MW of generating capacity, though they don't run all at one. They command a healthy fuel bill on their own.


 
Do those generators provide electric for propulsion power similar to a locomotive? Surely the container ship doesn't need 3MW of electric for lights.


----------



## begreen (Apr 9, 2014)

No, that is just for aux power on some ships. They don't run all the generators (typically 3) at once. These generators power all the ships systems, pumps, lighting and giant compressors uses to start the engine.  Some container ships use the main engine for propulsion only (direct drive to the prop) and others have mega generators running electric motors driving the prop. The facts for these boats are staggering. The newest generation are larger than aircraft carriers.

The Emma Maersk is a new generation hybrid with the following engine compliment:

She is powered by a Wärtsilä-Sulzer 14RTFLEX96-C engine, the world's largest single diesel unit, weighing 2,300 tonnes and capable of 109,000 horsepower (81 MW) when burning 3,600 US gallons (14,000 l)[32] of heavy fuel oil per hour. At economical speed, fuel consumption is 0.260 bs/hp·hour (1,660 gal/hour).[33]She has features to lower environmental damage, including exhaust heat recovery and cogeneration.[34] Some of the exhaust gases are returned to the engine to improve economy and lower emissions,[35] and some are passed through a steam generator which then powers a Peter Brotherhood steam turbine and electrical generators. This creates an electrical output of 8.5 MW,[36] equivalent to about 12% of the main engine power output. Some of this steam is used directly as shipboard heat.[37] Five diesel generators together produce 20.8 MW,[36] giving a total electric output of 29 MW.[27] Two 9 MW electric motors power the main propeller shaft.[36][38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Mærsk


----------



## mellow (Apr 9, 2014)

Gotta have something to power those rail guns to fend off the pirates


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 9, 2014)

The navy is retiring their steam fleet. The navy used to be the source of many stationary boiler engineers at power plants and now the navy isn't using steam. Maine Maritime Academy started up a stationary boiler engineers course a year or so ago as there was a shortage of power plant operators.

The future for the navy is being christened in Bath Me soon

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...mwalt-prepare-battle-report-article-1.1743213

Reportedly, the shipyard ran out of electricians to run all the wires.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 9, 2014)

mellow said:


> Gotta have something to power those rail guns to fend off the pirates


 
Automatic steam guns. Just bake them buggers.


----------



## brant2000 (May 5, 2014)

Highbeam said:


> Either way, sounds like diesel fuel. Can ships made for bunker fuel run on diesel?



Yes, and generally with many less complications.  On merchant diesel ships (large slow speed diesels, that is), we would start up with lighter diesel oil before switching over to HFO (heavy fuel oil).  The biggest challenges with HFO is the need to heat it enough to be able to pump, purify, and inject it.  Without heating it, it's like molasses.  

That all said, I don't believe many (if any) USN vessels operate on HFO.  I believe only low speed diesels (in addition to marine boilers) can operate on the real heavy stuff.


----------

