You know that myth about cars running on water?

[Lomac]

Well it's actually true.

...kinda.

Last week, the US Navy flew a model airplane with a small 2-stroke engine. That's not normally news, except for one big detail: the fuel the plane burned was made from seawater via a process the Navy has been working on for years. Let's look a little into what this sorcery is, and if it'll ever power our cars.

Essentially, on a very basic level, what the Navy is doing is extracting CO2 and Hydrogen from the seawater, and then recombining it into hydrocarbon chains, and then liquefying that (via a metal catalyst) into synthetic fuel. The type of synthetic fuel that can be made can vary, but jet fuel (similar to diesel) and petroleum-type fuels, like what was run in that little model plane, and, yes, that same sort of fuel could potentially be run in your normal old gasoline car with minimal or no modifications.

If this seems suspiciously too good to be true, it's not — there is a cost here, and that cost is energy — it does take a lot of energy to do these conversions, which utilize around 23,000 gallons of seawater to make one gallon of fuel. Even so, it's a use of energy that makes a lot of sense — a ship with an onboard nuclear reactor (like, say any aircraft carrier) easily has the capacity to use the process to make fuel for its own aircraft, which solves a vast amount of supply-chain issues.

That's at what the Navy says is 92% efficiency. Here's how they describe the process:

CO2 in the air and in seawater is an abundant carbon resource, but the concentration in the ocean (100 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) is about 140 times greater than that in air, and 1/3 the concentration of CO2 from a stack gas (296 mg/L). Two to three percent of the CO2 in seawater is dissolved CO2 gas in the form of carbonic acid, one percent is carbonate, and the remaining 96 to 97 percent is bound in bicarbonate.

NRL has made significant advances in the development of a gas-to-liquids (GTL) synthesis process to convert CO2 and H2 from seawater to a fuel-like fraction of C9-C16 molecules. In the first patented step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins). These value-added hydrocarbons from this process serve as building blocks for the production of industrial chemicals and designer fuels.

In the second step these olefins can be converted to compounds of a higher molecular using controlled polymerization. The resulting liquid contains hydrocarbon molecules in the carbon range, C9-C16, suitable for use a possible renewable replacement for petroleum based jet fuel.

Also, because the process involves extracting the CO2 from seawater, it's quite carbon-neutral. That CO2 will end up back in there after the fuel is combusted, and the process can begin anew.

The Navy is saying they feel that the system could be commercially viable in 7-10 years or so, and resulting fuel would cost between $3-$6/gallon, which is not bad at all, really — that's essentially on par with current costs for fuels we pull out of the ground.

So how is this likely to play out? A safe guess would be that first the system will go into larger scale land-based stations, and then miniaturized to a degree that a seawater-to-fuel plant could be placed on a nuclear-powered ship, like an aircraft carrier. That, of course, is the Navy's primary goal.

After this development and testing, commercial land-based producers would become viable, and large-scale conversion of seawater to fuel would take place. The environmental impact of creating fuel in such a way could be beneficial, according Naval Research Lab research chemist Heather Wilauer:

"It's a net-zero carbon footprint. So you're taking the carbon, you put it in a fuel, it you burn it, it goes back [in] the atmosphere, but you're not creating anything more. I'm not getting fossil fuel out of the ground and putting more CO2 in the air, I'm actually using the CO2 from the environment."

If this can be scaled up as everyone is hoping, it could mean a drastically reduced dependence on foreign sources of oil and all the associated issues that arise with that. It will also mean we'll need to have the ability to generate all the energy needed to extract and produce the fuels, so we may need to look into new nuclear sources, or wind, solar, or really pretty much everything.

So, let's recap: Is it magic? No, it uses lots of energy and science. Can I use the fuel in my car, someday? Yes, it sure looks that way.

The Navy's Seawater-To-Fuel System: Can I Use It In My Car?

[Yodamaster]

Saw this when Jalopnik first wrote about it, it seems interesting, the real test is seeing if a large scale operation is feasable.

[multicartual]

Even if you could run water as a fuel source, the mother fuckers in power will still charge you at least 1/2 the cost of gas to run it, guaranteed

[Soundy]

So, let's recap: Is it magic? No, it uses lots of energy and science. Can I use the fuel in my car, someday? Yes, it sure looks that way.

23,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of fuel?

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Soundy

23,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of fuel?

Not to mention I doubt the carbon instantly ends up back in the ocean, there's going to be a delay of sorts.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by multicartual

Even if you could run water as a fuel source, the mother fuckers in power will still charge you at least 1/2 the cost of gas to run it, guaranteed

Since it takes so much energy to produce this synthetic fuel, it would cost way MORE than traditional petrochemical fuel.

[Ferra]

Originally Posted by Soundy

23,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of fuel?

pretty sure they process the fuel at the refinery plant (near the sea) before shipping the fuel to your gas station so you can fill your car...(so no you are not hauling thousands of gallon inside your car)


and 23,000gal of sea water per gal of fuel doesn't sound too bad
think about ore mining where we only get a few grams of ore per tonnes of earth processed...(ratio is like 250,000:1)
with precious metal like gold...i think they get less than 1 part per 50 mil. (50,000,000:1)

so 23,000:1 actually sounds pretty good
we have a lot more seawater than we have earth...plus processing seawater seems like a much easier task than processing earth.

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by Great68

Since it takes so much energy to produce this synthetic fuel, it would cost way MORE than traditional petrochemical fuel.

They said that it was about on par / slightly more than fuel now. As I mentioned before, it all comes down to whether large amounts of fuel can be produced quickly enough to quench supply.

[Geoc]

Isn't this the same as hydrogen fuel cell cars? Yes, the hydrogen can be extracted from water, but it costs a lot to do so.

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by Soundy

23,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of fuel?

It's not the actual water they use. It's whats mixed in the water. Dissolved CO2.

The water probably gets dumped back out after they get what they want out of it.

"Two to three percent of the CO2 in seawater is dissolved CO2 gas in the form of carbonic acid"

Technically, nothing is running on water. It's running on the chemicals they extract out of water. It's almost like saying that fuel cells run on water because they used electrolysis to make their fuel. Nevertheless, it's quite an achievement. However, they didn't mention how much energy it uses to make the fuel either.

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by Ferra

pretty sure they process the fuel at the refinery plant (near the sea) before shipping the fuel to your gas station so you can fill your car...(so no you are not hauling thousands of gallon inside your car)


and 23,000gal of sea water per gal of fuel doesn't sound too bad
think about ore mining where we only get a few grams of ore per tonnes of earth processed...(ratio is like 250,000:1)
with precious metal like gold...i think they get less than 1 part per 50 mil. (50,000,000:1)

so 23,000:1 actually sounds pretty good
we have a lot more seawater than we have earth...plus processing seawater seems like a much easier task than processing earth.

how much is 1 oz of gold worth compared to 1 oz of petroleum...

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Ferra

pretty sure they process the fuel at the refinery plant (near the sea) before shipping the fuel to your gas station so you can fill your car...(so no you are not hauling thousands of gallon inside your car)


and 23,000gal of sea water per gal of fuel doesn't sound too bad
think about ore mining where we only get a few grams of ore per tonnes of earth processed...(ratio is like 250,000:1)
with precious metal like gold...i think they get less than 1 part per 50 mil. (50,000,000:1)

so 23,000:1 actually sounds pretty good
we have a lot more seawater than we have earth...plus processing seawater seems like a much easier task than processing earth.

You should compare that to other fuel-generating techniques, not precious metals and shit. SAGD can get use steam to get you barrels of oil at 2.1:1. Then you can get 19 gallons of fuel per 42 gallons (1 barrel) of oil and the rest is used for other stuff. So steam to fuel alone is ~4.62:1 which slaughters 23,000:1 pretty badly.

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by underscore

You should compare that to other fuel-generating techniques, not precious metals and shit. SAGD can get use steam to get you barrels of oil at 2.1:1. Then you can get 19 gallons of fuel per 42 gallons (1 barrel) of oil and the rest is used for other stuff. So steam to fuel alone is ~4.62:1 which slaughters 23,000:1 pretty badly.

SAGD is still an oil recovery method though, this method does not extract oil at all, it turns it directly into fuel within the same "refinery".

This is a way to produce fuel that is compatible with our machinery, that could take a good chunk out of the oil used for fuel, allowing it to be used for other products.

[underscore]

True, but it still uses a lot less water to generate fuel.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by DragonChi

Technically, nothing is running on water. It's running on the chemicals they extract out of water. It's almost like saying that fuel cells run on water because they used electrolysis to make their fuel. Nevertheless, it's quite an achievement. However, they didn't mention how much energy it uses to make the fuel either.

Well see, this is exactly my problem with articles like this: they love to make it sound like you just put water in your tank, and away you go. Naturally, this is the sort of thing conspiracy fucktards love to jump all over - "Big Oil doens't want you to know about this!" Big Oil couldn't even be bothered to think about giving a fuck about this - from the sound of it the only place it's even viable to test right now is on naval ships, which are mostly nuclear powered in the first place and thus not burning petroleum anyway.

I understand what they're getting at with the technology; my comment was tongue-in-cheek, to the idea that... well, can you imagine the trailer you'd have to haul around with a 23,000 gallon water tank just to get one gallon through your engine?

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Well see, this is exactly my problem with articles like this: they love to make it sound like you just put water in your tank, and away you go. Naturally, this is the sort of thing conspiracy fucktards love to jump all over - "Big Oil doens't want you to know about this!" Big Oil couldn't even be bothered to think about giving a fuck about this - from the sound of it the only place it's even viable to test right now is on naval ships, which are mostly nuclear powered in the first place and thus not burning petroleum anyway.

I understand what they're getting at with the technology; my comment was tongue-in-cheek, to the idea that... well, can you imagine the trailer you'd have to haul around with a 23,000 gallon water tank just to get one gallon through your engine?

That's not what it is at all, 23,000 gallons is at the refinery, not in your car. What you get out of the refinery is regular fuel.

[tiger_handheld]

Has anyone seen the documentry Who Killed The Electric Car? As capitalistic as I am, corporations will decide when our dependencies will end.

I'm sure the technology exists but it's not main stream pricing, just working on economies of scale so they can rape us with the tech with bajillion in markup.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

That's not what it is at all, 23,000 gallons is at the refinery, not in your car. What you get out of the refinery is regular fuel.

[ae101]

didnt bmw made something like this called the "bmw hydrogen 7"