Drop In Fuel Out of Seawater?

Yup....not cheap though....

"Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2. The gases are then converted to liquid hydrocarbons by a metal catalyst in a reactor system."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-scale-wwii-craft-flight-fuel.html#jCp

http://nrc58.nas.edu/RAPLab10/Opportunity/Opportunity.aspx?LabCode=64&ROPCD=641515&RONum=B7963

Doesn't "E-CEM" remind anyone of "E-Cat"?

Doesn't that gobbledygook remind anyone of so much other gobbledygook?

No....

"Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, have recently demonstrated proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and hydrogen (H₂) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel."

"E-CEM Carbon Capture Skid. The E-CEM was mounted onto a portable skid along with a reverse osmosis unit, power supply, pump, proprietary carbon dioxide recovery system, and hydrogen stripper to form a carbon capture system [dimensions of 63" x 36" x 60"]. Image: U.S. Naval Research Laboratory"

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/04/scale-model-world-war-ii-craft-takes-flight-fuel-sea

Yup!

Like "ICCP"......

A retro rotor encabulator.

If this could be self contained on a small scale, it would be fantastic for AUVs that could patrol indefinitely.

"despite an unfavorable energy balance"......maybe not.

Yeah, you're right. The article forgot to mention that little fact.

The basis for the article is to make Jet Fuel out of seawater. Here is the original story (from the US Navy) that some Yahoo! editorialized...badly: Fueling the Fleet.

The US Navy doesn't have battleships on the active roles. Interesting that one is used in the story. Of course, the article highlights the "The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel" however amazing that might be.

All of the US Navy's submarines are nuclear...(last US Navy Diesel Boat)...not some as the article states...and there are a heckuvalot more submarines than carriers.

Thanks for the post.

If you saw the picture with the beaker, it looks like that 500 mL of seawater produced a few mLs of fuel. The balance seems to be back to extracting large quantities again like we are doing with ethanol.

Energy in, energy out. No loss, no gain.

Maybe we can convert carrier flight decks to solar panels with enough strength to launch and recover drones...? The solar panels can be used to make more electricity to run the jet fuel production facility for the drones.

Maybe we can make love, not war.

I think using nuclear power to produce the fuel would be cost effective....A carrier could produce the fuel for their jets...

That would be a LOT of JP4!

Yes, there's no mention of where the energy comes from (unless I've missed it) as that would reduce the amazement factor. As JS said in #14, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier using power from the reactor to produce aviation fuel has all sorts of obvious advantages. But that's very different from a ship producing its own fuel, as the article about the battleship seems to imply.

The (overlooked) purpose is allow nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to produce jet fuel while still in an intense operating theater, without having to stay in rendezvous with a tender vessel. That way aircraft operations remain combat ready and un-interrupted.