US Navy aims to make jetfuel from
Vampire-lust tales will rot your brain
Analysis Coverage of recent US Navy research into producing jet fuel from CO2 and hydrogen has been widely reported under headlines such as "making jet fuel from seawater". The coverage illustrates not only declining modern understanding of science and technology, but also the sad eclipse of proper science fiction by vampire-lust fantasies.
The stories arise from a paper presented at the weekend by Robert Dorner and colleagues at the Naval Research Laboratory. According to the Navy boffins:
The impact CO2 is having on the environment has been thoroughly documented over the last years. Many different technologies have been proposed to reduce its impact on global warming such as geological sequestration. However, an interesting and attractive alternative would be the recycling of the gas into energy-rich molecules.
Dorner and Co have been working on mixing CO2 and hydrogen to produce light hydrocarbons which could then be processed into jet fuel. As jet fuel is rich in energy, doing this uses a lot of energy - and even then, a lot of the CO2 and hydrogen actually turns to methane. Methane can actually be a useful fuel, but not as useful as jetfuel - and as a waste product it's far more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide, being a hugely more powerful greenhouse gas.
But Dorner and his colleagues have managed to get the amount of methane produced down to 30 per cent or so, using special catalysts. The "sea water" bit comes from the fact that Dorner has also noted that there's a fair bit of CO2 in sea water, plus hydrogen too if you have even more energy to crack water molecules apart.
If you were interested in being green, and had a whole load of energy which you considered green and wanted to make liquid fuel with, you probably wouldn't bother harvesting your CO2 from the sea - you'd get it from coal power stations or other hydrocarbon-burning powerplant exhausts. Such ideas are already commonly touted among researchers.
Enormous amounts of cheap carbon-free power aren't normally to be had, however, which is why such ideas remain mainly notional.
They aren't quite as notional for the US Navy, however. That's because US Navy aircraft carriers have powerful nuclear reactors aboard, potentially able to supply large amounts of energy if the ship wasn't going at full speed and launching planes (the reactors power the catapults as well as the ship's props).
As a result the primary limiting factor on how long a US carrier can keep flying its planes is actually the amount of jet fuel it can carry. The reactor's uranium lasts for years.
Thus it would actually be useful if you could build a plant on a carrier which could scoop CO2 out of the water, crack hydrogen from it too, and combine these to top off the ship's jet-fuel tanks. The carrier would be able to keep dominating airspace without needing to break off and replenish its supplies so often.
That's how Dorner may have presented the ideas to his bosses at the navy lab, perhaps. But when speaking to people concerned primarily about the environment, it's generally seen as silly to start mentioning nuclear power.
But there aren't really any other options for processes like this. Making synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels always consumes a lot more energy than you could get by burning the fuel, so it's mostly witless to make them using fossil power. (The US military is interested in making jet fuel using coal, but this is merely because America has a lot of coal mines and potentially not enough oil wells. The Germans who developed such processes originally did so for similar reasons.)
I don't smoke anything. However, as an engineer, rather than use problems as an excuse to ridicule an idea and the people who think it has any merit, I see them as opportunities to consider ways around them.
Yes, I know big sand storms happen a fair amount, but there are still sufficient and sufficiently lengthy periods without storms in any given location to allow an array in that area to generate. To protect the active surfaces of the panels from abrasion, you install automatic shutters to shield the panels when there's enough airborne sand to cause concern. It doesn't matter that with the shutters closed, the panels won't be generating power, because they wouldn't be able to generate much in the middle of the storm anyway.
Well, assuming wikipedia is right, total power consumption for 2005 was 500exajoules (that's from all sources- not just fossil fuels but nuclear, renewables, everything). To provide this amount of energy over a year with a 5% efficient solar cell that only works for 4 hours a day (to cope with odd hours, lowered efficiency due to clouds etc)) would take 73,410 square miles.
Thats a 25 mile wide strip right across Africa's widest bit (according to Google Earth).
The other problem with this sort of plan is that it means that we're hugely reliant on other- notoriously corrupt and unstable- countries to deliver our power. We're not too happy topping up our oil from the Russians- imagine how we'd feel if we were essentially at the mercy of this week's winner of some long-running African coup? So we'd have to defend "our" section of the world's solar array- and the power cable.
The sand problem could be solved. I'm not sure how, but it seems like the sort of thing that'd be possible to fix. Perhaps with some sort of wall which holds the sand back and a hydrofluoric acid moat at the bottom of the wall that carries the sand off to a disposal area where it's un-dissolved and used to reclaim land or fill bags to help hold back the ever-increasing tides?
We could also run it- far wider- through Saudi Arabia and parts of Australia. But having the Saudis in charge of our power isn't something that I'd find particularly reassuring, and Oz would mean there's a whole half a world ready to cut our power. Alternatively it'd end up being run through the US and the cable would 'accidentally' fail just as they hit peak power consumption in winter.
So it's really not a good idea. If we still had an Empire- or if anyone else did so there was a relatively stable set of rulers- it may make sense.
Nuclear power, however, is derived from materials that are mined in places like Canada and Australia- stable, friendly-to-us places. It doesn't add to greenhouse gasses and produces a volume of waste orders of magnitude smaller than normal power plants. It also produces enough "excess" power to let us create artificial fossil fuels (which the article was about), allowing us to smooth (or even remove the need for) the transition from fossil fuels to pure-electric.
What are you smoking? "So, short of a massive and sudden dust storm," which happens all the time in desert.
Do you know what we call sand traveling at high speed? Sand blasting. Even with an army of mops and a lot of panels, after a while they will be coroded beyond usefulness and then what? They aren't that recyclable and they aren't biodegradable. And neither are the battery back-ups.You should lay off the pot.