Get the scoop, here.
Essentially, a "game changer" has been developed by the US Navy using salt water to successfully power engines. Already, the price for this fuel is 3-6 dollars a gallon, and it will only lower from there. It's time to give Big Oil the swift kick in the *** they deserve. Also, for you skeptics, here's the official report from the Navy themselves.
US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete
US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete
So does this mean cars can be powered by seawater in the "near" future or will it be more of a "this works for ships and buildings that can house the necessary machinery" thing? Or does it mean we can refine the stuff and then ship it as we do now with gasoline?
I'm not the least surprised that this has been accomplished, but the price-point and environmental ramifications are pleasant. I'd say it'd be nice if we could find a way to torch the carbon dioxide without re-releasing it, but I suspect that could lead to a similar ecological problem given 100 or so years, possibly less. Then again, high oxygen, lowish CO2, that means we can support megafauna like dinosaurs once more.
I'm not the least surprised that this has been accomplished, but the price-point and environmental ramifications are pleasant. I'd say it'd be nice if we could find a way to torch the carbon dioxide without re-releasing it, but I suspect that could lead to a similar ecological problem given 100 or so years, possibly less. Then again, high oxygen, lowish CO2, that means we can support megafauna like dinosaurs once more.
Bismarck.Magnuss said: »
Get the scoop, here.
Essentially, a "game changer" has been developed by the US Navy using salt water to successfully power engines. Already, the price for this fuel is 3-6 dollars a gallon, and it will only lower from there. It's time to give Big Oil the swift kick in the *** they deserve. Also, for you skeptics, here's the official report from the Navy themselves.
Essentially, a "game changer" has been developed by the US Navy using salt water to successfully power engines. Already, the price for this fuel is 3-6 dollars a gallon, and it will only lower from there. It's time to give Big Oil the swift kick in the *** they deserve. Also, for you skeptics, here's the official report from the Navy themselves.
I love how the article says that Republicans will hate this. Reminds me of those ads that say "Dermatologists/dentists/trainers/etc. hate him/her! Learn how to blah blah blah with one weird trick!"
I'm a tad skeptical about this being the thing that will end dependence on oil, but if it works, hallelujah.
[+]
I'm trying to read this article because the concept is very interesting, but it is very difficult to get past the constant barrage of insults and out of the gate preemptive bashing of non-Democrats from the lib that wrote this.
[+]
article said:
This article was originally posted on proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
lol'd a bit
[+]
for the people who are too sensitive for partisan rhetoric.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
Edit: and videos for people who don't like to read and stuff:
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
Edit: and videos for people who don't like to read and stuff:
YouTube Video Placeholder
I'd say ignore the article's bias or even the article entirely and just go for the second link. Seriously not trying to lambast anyone's political views, here. I'd like to think both interested parties would be all for a cheaper source of fuel.
[+]
Hmm, so looking into this a tad more, it appears that the energy required to produce the fuel is more than the energy you get out of the fuel itself. Not very practical for replacing oil and reducing carbon emissions unless we start building a bunch of nuclear power plants for the very purpose of creating the stuff. This might be why the news outlets don't seem to care about the story.
[+]
Mmm, partisan biases aside, the link really sensationalizes the actual work being done. This is maybe a better summary of the findings: http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121013/NEWS/210130317/Navy-eyes-turning-sea-water-into-jet-fuel
A key piece of info that was skipped over in the bloggers zeal to cockpunch some Republicans: The various chemical reactions require an outside energy source. Unless the reactions are efficient enough, more energy could potentially be expended in order to produce the fuel.
A key piece of info that was skipped over in the bloggers zeal to cockpunch some Republicans: The various chemical reactions require an outside energy source. Unless the reactions are efficient enough, more energy could potentially be expended in order to produce the fuel.
it wasn't really being too sensitive but it was more like trying to listen to someone with Tourrette's and although you are interested in what they are saying, you get tired of listening to a cursing tirade every couple of sentences.
[+]
Admittedly, I didn't do that much work on reading it. I sorta read a few lines then went back to grading. That extra energy *** sounds ridiculous. That's not to say that it's still not a viable solution, but it obviously needs some work to be done.
I'm all for creating more nuclear power plants, but not really to produce this, but if they can do this to the side for vehicles, and use the nuclear power to power the grid as well, then sure, why not.
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
it wasn't really being too sensitive but it was more like trying to listen to someone with Tourrette's and although you are interested in what they are saying, you get tired of listening to a cursing tirade every couple of sentences.
I could name half a dozen posters on this site (on both sides of the proverbial aisle) at whom this comment could be directed. Just sayin'.
I mean, it all sounds very practical for usage out in the middle of the ocean, but land-based energy provides many more options to us aside from synthesizing our own hydrocarbons.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
it wasn't really being too sensitive but it was more like trying to listen to someone with Tourrette's and although you are interested in what they are saying, you get tired of listening to a cursing tirade every couple of sentences.
I could name half a dozen posters on this site (on both sides of the proverbial aisle) at whom this comment could be directed. Just sayin'.
Hey, nice apostrophe.
[+]
Shiva.Onorgul said: »
Phoenix.Amandarius said: »
it wasn't really being too sensitive but it was more like trying to listen to someone with Tourrette's and although you are interested in what they are saying, you get tired of listening to a cursing tirade every couple of sentences.
I could name half a dozen posters on this site (on both sides of the proverbial aisle) at whom this comment could be directed. Just sayin'.
Are you talking about me, you liberal scum? I never do anything like that. Go watch MSNBC and bow to your Obama shrine.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
I mean, it all sounds very practical for usage out in the middle of the ocean, but land-based energy provides many more options to us aside from synthesizing our own hydrocarbons.
hopefully all this means is that people will finally wake up and realize that it's possible to replace oil as a primary fuel source.
*** ***BALLS SWEATY ***
[+]
turn this into the Tourrette's thread?
Jetackuu said: »
I'm all for creating more nuclear power plants, but not really to produce this, but if they can do this to the side for vehicles, and use the nuclear power to power the grid as well, then sure, why not.
BUT WHAT ABOUT FUKUSHIMA MAN.
Last I read, all of California has been bathed in lethal radiation that will continue eastward across the US mutating everything in its path. Already fish are growing legs and walking on land, birds are melting right out the sky, wine crops are irradiated with Japanese nuclear waste and a portal to hell has opened up under San Francisco.
Everyone is going to die and its because we dabbled in
[+]
This is fine for the navy and the ships that use nuclear reactors to power them, but it isn't going to replace oil, ever.
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
This is fine for the navy and the ships that use nuclear reactors to power them, but it isn't going to replace oil, ever.
Honestly I seem to recall something about this some time ago, and I wouldn't go that far, may be a viable option for coastal areas.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
BUT WHAT ABOUT FUKUSHIMA MAN.
Last I read, all of California has been bathed in lethal radiation that will continue eastward across the US mutating everything in its path. Already fish are growing legs and walking on land, birds are melting right out the sky, wine crops are irradiated with Japanese nuclear waste and a portal to hell has opened up under San Francisco.
Everyone is going to die and its because we dabbled innuclear satanic energy.
Last I read, all of California has been bathed in lethal radiation that will continue eastward across the US mutating everything in its path. Already fish are growing legs and walking on land, birds are melting right out the sky, wine crops are irradiated with Japanese nuclear waste and a portal to hell has opened up under San Francisco.
Everyone is going to die and its because we dabbled in
I don't consider horrible acts of nature as logical reasons to not use a very potent source of energy that could drive the cost of energy nation-wide down a crapton.
Also: I have yet to read anything credible about any actual danger in the US from Fukushima, short of a bunch of anxiety driven retards giving themselves iodine poisoning closer to when it happened.
wow....
P-51 replica of the legendary Red Tail Squadron
You do know about the Tuskegee Airmen, didn't you?
Full disclosure: I have a pilot's license, SMEL, SES. Haven't been PIC for decades.
Rent and watch Carmen Jones.
P-51 replica of the legendary Red Tail Squadron
You do know about the Tuskegee Airmen, didn't you?
Full disclosure: I have a pilot's license, SMEL, SES. Haven't been PIC for decades.
Rent and watch Carmen Jones.
I know all about the Red Tails, what is your point and who are you talking to?
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »
and a portal to hell has opened up under San Francisco.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: »
I know all about the Red Tails, what is your point and who are you talking to?
But Carmen, all the Carmens, have always been my favorite operetta. And Carmen Jones was the first one I ever saw.
Also it resonates with me because of the whole shadow of WWII baby and pilot things.
My heroes as a kid were the WWII delivery pilots, the 1930s aviatrixes,
and Diana Prince.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
WWII delivery pilots
No, I wanted to fly the hot fighters.
Why pay for salt water when you can fill up at an oceanic coastal beach for free?
So if you live in Arizona, you're basically screwed.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.