Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    Not exactly a very economical idea. Expending fuel to make fuel. Unless they made it with gigantic solar powered tankers.
    I don't believe the idea is to make the fuel on the go.

    You make the fuel at land-based plants and use the existing oilers to move it to the ships. Or run the planes or the tanks, for that matter.

    The only difference is that you aren't using pumped-from-the-ground oil. It allows the military to be self sufficient for its fuel needs, in case Canada or OPEC or whoever decide to stop selling oil to the USA.

    The fact that it's green and such is just a nice PR bonus.

    Though you could probably get quite a bit if fuel generation on the go if you did up a fuel-making-oilier with a pair of aircraft carrier reactors. Depending on how efficient this process is, you could probably get a few hundred thousand litres of fuel per day out of it.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    I figured it was something like that before reading - thanks for saving me the time.

    Obviously, what the USN really needs to do is commission more wind-powered sailing vessels.
    That has the making of a Polish joke.

  3. #23
    Navy yeah that's great...

    Isn't seawater as a power source far more interesting for solving our conventional power needs?

    I assume this is the same or related research:

    Using this method, as little as five litres of sea water per day would produce enough hydrogen to power an average-sized home and an electric car for one day.

    The research team at UOW’s Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science (ACES) have developed a light-assisted catalyst that requires less energy input to activate water oxidation, which is the first step in splitting water to produce hydrogen fuel.

    A major limitation with current technologies is that the oxidation process needs a higher over-potential input, which rules out using abundant sea water because it produces poisonous chlorine gas as a side product under operational conditions.

    The research team, led by Associate Professor Jun Chen and Professor Gerry Swiegers, have produced an artificial chlorophyll on a conductive plastic film that acts as a catalyst to begin splitting water.

    The results were recently published in the journal Chemical Science.

    Lead author, Associate Professor Jun Chen, said the flexible polymer would mean it could be used in a wider range of applications and it is more easily manufactured than metal semiconductors.

    “The system we designed, including the materials, gives us the opportunity to design various devices and applications using sea water as a water-splitting source.

    “The flexible nature of the material also provides the possibility to build portable hydrogen-producing devices.”

    The development brings UOW’s energy research a step closer to creating an artificial leaf-like device that can efficiently produce hydrogen.
    http://media.uow.edu.au/news/UOW150897.html

    So what we're really talking about here is artificial photosynthesis?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    Not exactly a very economical idea. Expending fuel to make fuel. Unless they made it with gigantic solar powered tankers.
    What do you think powers conventional power plants?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  4. #24
    The whole "turning water into fuel" thing is a complete misnomer which is going to cause another media embarrassment. (remember water4fuel?)

  5. #25
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    I don't believe the idea is to make the fuel on the go.

    You make the fuel at land-based plants and use the existing oilers to move it to the ships. Or run the planes or the tanks, for that matter.

    The only difference is that you aren't using pumped-from-the-ground oil. It allows the military to be self sufficient for its fuel needs, in case Canada or OPEC or whoever decide to stop selling oil to the USA.

    The fact that it's green and such is just a nice PR bonus.

    Though you could probably get quite a bit if fuel generation on the go if you did up a fuel-making-oilier with a pair of aircraft carrier reactors. Depending on how efficient this process is, you could probably get a few hundred thousand litres of fuel per day out of it.
    The point is precisely to make fuel on the go. Thus eliminating the need for the oilers and tankers.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    The whole "turning water into fuel" thing is a complete misnomer which is going to cause another media embarrassment. (remember water4fuel?)
    I don't think the Navy would go so far outside on a limb unless they really had a proof of concept.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I don't think the Navy would go so far outside on a limb unless they really had a proof of concept.
    I think Gheld was mocking the media, not the Navy, for misrepresenting what the Navy is doing.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  7. #27
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    I think Gheld was mocking the media, not the Navy, for misrepresenting what the Navy is doing.
    Well, it wouldn't be the first time Yahoo "news" got it wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •