Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 21, 2018 8:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 05, 2014 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
Regarding http://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/04 ... gry-navy/#
The USN's report is at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a544072.pdf

In it they mention the problem with calcium and magnesium plating the electrodes, and suggest that a membrane be used to filter this, and also periodic reversal of electrodes. But, what I recall, these come out of solution as water is almost boiling. So, if waste heat from an LFTR was used, to heat the water and precipitate the unwanted Mg and Ca, membranes would not be needed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 05, 2014 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
taking co2 out of the atmosphere isn't the goal.

the goal is stopping the tons of carbon dioxide from coal polluters , while still producing enough energy to have a decent standard of living for the world.

to achieve clean energy and decent standard of living, nuclear energy is the only long term solution.

of course, there are some who do not want clean energy, and some that do not want the poor to have decent standard of living, those people generally support coal over nuclear, and support solar/wind over nuclear. the people who support coal/wind/solar over nuclear have a special place either on the surface of the sun for all eternity, or in a burning underground coal pit for all eternity, or being sliced slowly by a windmill, again for all eternity.

as for taking carbon out of the atmosphere, it is called trees, which nuclear will also save because nobody in the poorer countries will have to cut them down for energy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Making the removal of CO2 from the air and sea viable is a tool we need to research, trying to make it economical.
We don't know much worse global warming will get, since coal, oil and natural gas consumption is just going up.
Worse case, mankind might be forced to do some kind of global scale CO2 scrubber to save us, regardless of economics.
So having this tool in our climate change fight toolbox is certainly worth it.
So studying ways to shift 100% of oil consumption for fuels to producing it from CO2+H2O from the Oceans might be the way to do it. Produce billions of tons of Jet Fuel replace and keep it in storage for instance, much more compact way to store it than CO2 is gas form or just planting lots and lots of trees.
Perhaps the cheapest way might be to perform mass desalinization of Sea Water (using LFTR) on the coast of desert areas and plant forests there. Just a crazy thought.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 3:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5048
Looking a bit further out in the future, humanity will want to control the climate as e.g. the sun fluctuates in output. Efficient and effective technology to control CO2 in the atmosphere will be an important part of that. There is no need to directly recover CO2 from seawater; olivine dispersal can do it as well and bind up the CO2 as stable solid to boot.

For warming, albedo-management is likely much more effective than CO2 removal, but it doesn't stop ocean acidification.

At the moment the priority should be to shut off the CO2 faucet, before we start mopping things up. Best way to go is with nuclear powerplants displacing coal plants, and electric transport as much as possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 3:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
macpacheco wrote:
Making the removal of CO2 from the air and sea viable is a tool we need to research, trying to make it economical.
We don't know much worse global warming will get, since coal, oil and natural gas consumption is just going up.
Worse case, mankind might be forced to do some kind of global scale CO2 scrubber to save us, regardless of economics.
So having this tool in our climate change fight toolbox is certainly worth it.
So studying ways to shift 100% of oil consumption for fuels to producing it from CO2+H2O from the Oceans might be the way to do it. Produce billions of tons of Jet Fuel replace and keep it in storage for instance, much more compact way to store it than CO2 is gas form or just planting lots and lots of trees.
Perhaps the cheapest way might be to perform mass desalinization of Sea Water (using LFTR) on the coast of desert areas and plant forests there. Just a crazy thought.


Image

Sources of electricity in the U.S. in 2009[5] fossil fuel generation (mainly coal) was the largest source.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/ -- in the "usa the most advanced, greatest, bestest, honorable and most beneficial and peaceloving nation in the entire world/planet/universe" 39% of energy came from turning soild coal into CO2, and 27% came from turning natural gas from underground into CO2.

FOR EVERY CO2 MOLECULE YOU TRY TO RECLAIM WITH COAL POWERED ELECTRICITY, 10,000 MORE CO2 MOLECULES WILL BE RELEASED BY COAL PLANTS MAKING ELECTRICITY BY TURNING CARBON INTO CO2.

THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE CO2 PRODUCTION IS NUCLEAR ENERGY. TRYING TO RECLAIM CO2 FROM THE OCEAN USING COAL ELECTRICITY IS LIKE TRYING TO MAKE THE WORLD COLDER BY OPENING YOUR FREEZER.

trying to reclaim CO2 from the ocean with coal powered electricity, while coal plants are operating 24/7 is the most laughable idea i have read on these forums in a long long long time. the idea is so laughable, this thread should be locked and thread starters banned for good from this site.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 3:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
NicholasJanssen wrote:
taking co2 out of the atmosphere isn't the goal.
No, the goal is to make fuel for jets and other aircraft using energy from nuclear power by taking CO2 from the ocean.

YOUR goal may be different, but we are talking about the Navy here.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
KitemanSA wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
taking co2 out of the atmosphere isn't the goal.
No, the goal is to make fuel for jets and other aircraft using energy from nuclear power by taking CO2 from the ocean.

YOUR goal may be different, but we are talking about the Navy here.



Then i suggest you convert coal to jet fuel. You'll use coal either way you try, might as well go the direct route.

(to clarify, because i know some people might STILL not get it:
1. YOU WILL EITHER USE COAL ELECTRICITY TO RECLAIM CO2 FROM THE SEA(i guess you want to then combine it with hydrogen which will require more coal electricty).
2. OR YOU CAN CONVERT COAL TO JET FUEL WITH COAL LIQUEFACTION.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 4:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
NicholasJanssen wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
taking co2 out of the atmosphere isn't the goal.
No, the goal is to make fuel for jets and other aircraft using energy from nuclear power by taking CO2 from the ocean.

YOUR goal may be different, but we are talking about the Navy here.



Then i suggest you convert coal to jet fuel. You'll use coal either way you try, might as well go the direct route.

(to clarify, because i know some people might STILL not get it:
1. YOU WILL EITHER USE COAL ELECTRICITY TO RECLAIM CO2 FROM THE SEA(i guess you want to then combine it with hydrogen which will require more coal electricty).
2. OR YOU CAN CONVERT COAL TO JET FUEL WITH COAL LIQUEFACTION.


OR you can use nuclear power to extract CO2 and H2 from seawater and make the fuel without having to have any oilers. We are taking about the US Nuclear Navy here.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 9:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1547
I didn't know we had mobile coal mines that can travel across the oceans.

The objective of the USN programme is to allow carriers to produce fuel for their air group and potentially for their escorts using their nuc-plant - removing the need for fast oilers charging all over the place which are vulnerable to submarine attack and missile attack and so on.

And as for civilian use - it appears carbon dioxide release abatement is not going to cut it - unless you know a way fo suppress production by cattle or similar, we have to drive the carbon dioxide concentration back to pre-industrial norms and I don't think abatement can manage it anywhere near fast enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 11:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
E Ireland wrote:
I didn't know we had mobile coal mines that can travel across the oceans.

The objective of the USN programme is to allow carriers to produce fuel for their air group and potentially for their escorts using their nuc-plant - removing the need for fast oilers charging all over the place which are vulnerable to submarine attack and missile attack and so on.

And as for civilian use - it appears carbon dioxide release abatement is not going to cut it - unless you know a way fo suppress production by cattle or similar, we have to drive the carbon dioxide concentration back to pre-industrial norms and I don't think abatement can manage it anywhere near fast enough.


you cant be serious if you believe what you just wrote.

the united states navy relies on petroleum for all of its destroyers (62 of them), and cruisers.
A hulking Arleigh Burke–class destroyer might typically burn a minimum of about 24 barrels (1,000 gallons) of fuel per hour.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1547
I am well aware of the absurd fuel consumption of the existing Burkes, this is largely a result of being an aegis fitted knockoff of a Sprucan which was a steam turbine ship.that had had GTs fitted one for one with no attempt to optimise the power distribution system. There is an integrated 'Electric Ship' R&D programme underway to correct this.

Either way, if a carrier can support its air group without an oiler then the economics of gas turbine powered es orgs changes drastically as the entire oiler fleet has to be justified by them alone. You would likely see a return to the nuclear powered cruisers of the cold war era. And modern destroyers are essentially cruiser tonnage vessels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
I have the feeling that some responders to my post didn't read the referenced article(s).

The point here is not to directly attack the CO2 global warming problem. It is to provide fuel for aircraft, while out at sea. It is also good that this doesn't add any CO2 to the atmosphere+ocean.

The navy's project is particularly useful in that much of the time on the ships, there will be a surplus of electricity. The only time this is not the case is when the ship is at full throttle, or is firing its energy weapons. What to do with all that electricity? Well, here's something useful.

I mention the idea of using surplus reactor heat instead of membranes to soften the water because sub-100 degree heat is not capable of being used in a steam turbine for electric production. Yes, it could possibly be useful for a Sterling engine, and after softening may be suitable for input to one.

Land-based commercial power plants may also have some use for this, for dumping unconsumed electricity, such as that used by the unreliable sources such as wind power.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
E Ireland wrote:
I am well aware of the absurd fuel consumption of the existing Burkes, this is largely a result of being an aegis fitted knockoff of a Sprucan which was a steam turbine ship.that had had GTs fitted one for one with no attempt to optimise the power distribution system. There is an integrated 'Electric Ship' R&D programme underway to correct this.

Either way, if a carrier can support its air group without an oiler then the economics of gas turbine powered es orgs changes drastically as the entire oiler fleet has to be justified by them alone. You would likely see a return to the nuclear powered cruisers of the cold war era. And modern destroyers are essentially cruiser tonnage vessels.

Quote:
NRL researchers believe that RDEs have the potential to meet 10% increased power requirements as well as 25% reduction in fuel use for future Navy applications. Currently there are about 430 gas turbine engines on 129 U.S. Navy ships. These engines burn approximately 2 billion dollars worth of fuel each year. By retrofitting these engines with the rotating detonation technology, researchers estimate that the Navy could save approximately 300 to 400 million dollars a year.. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-rele ... the-Future


Maybe the geniuses in the usa navy should be using nuclear powered ships, instead of having 2 billion dollars a year diesel fuel costs to fight poor afgani and poor iraqi.

The proud USA Navy is afraid of no man, no country, no war, no mission, no job, no task, no sacrifice, except clean nuclear power.


Last edited by NicholasJanssen on Apr 06, 2014 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
RKeyes wrote:
I have the feeling that some responders to my post didn't read the referenced article(s).

The point here is not to directly attack the CO2 global warming problem. It is to provide fuel for aircraft, while out at sea. It is also good that this doesn't add any CO2 to the atmosphere+ocean.

The navy's project is particularly useful in that much of the time on the ships, there will be a surplus of electricity. The only time this is not the case is when the ship is at full throttle, or is firing its energy weapons. What to do with all that electricity? Well, here's something useful.

I mention the idea of using surplus reactor heat instead of membranes to soften the water because sub-100 degree heat is not capable of being used in a steam turbine for electric production. Yes, it could possibly be useful for a Sterling engine, and after softening may be suitable for input to one.

Land-based commercial power plants may also have some use for this, for dumping unconsumed electricity, such as that used by the unreliable sources such as wind power.


Quote:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a544072.pdf
An electrochemical acidification cell has been developed, tested, and found to be practical for
recovering large amounts of CO2 from seawater for use as a carbon feedstock in sea-based fuel
production process. It is recommended that this technology be transitioned from the laboratory to a marine environment where carbon dioxide and hydrogen can be produced in quantities above those achieved at the laboratory scale. There are many challenges to scaling this
technology, including design, ion exchange material regeneration, process efficiency, water fouling, hardness scaling on the cathode, and power requirements that can be assessed and addressed in these future larger scale tests.



Your article could have been written by a high school chemistry teacher. All it said that it is possible to produce CO2 from electrolysis of seawater. It makes no mention of wattage, or cost per CO2, or the feasibility of turning seawater into jet fuel(ofcourse they say "further studies are needed to . As for their "Excess energy" production while at sea, I suggest them tow one of their diesel powered ships to save diesel fuel, or perhaps tow a barge containing jet fuel for use in their planes.





Quote:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a544072.pdf
2.0 OBJECTIVE
The initial studies conducted in the summer of 2009 evaluated both synthetic seawater and Key West ( KW ) seawater. However, the study with KW seawater was only conducted once at an effluent seawater flow rate of 140 mL/min for a period of 23 minutes due to seawater unavailability. Thus the objective of this part II study involved process verification of the electrochemical cell as a function of increased operational time and flow rate using a larger supply of KW seawater.


MORONS CITE "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY" AS A REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR FIRST TEST IN 2009. I GUESS IT TOOK THEM ANOTHER 2 YEARS TO FIND EXTRA SEAWATER. Where is the followup study? this linked article was done in 2011.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
As if this entire thread didn't already make the usanavy look bad... their new 7 ?? 3.5?? billion dollar destroyer...... runs on petroleum?

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer
Name: Zumwalt
Builders: Huntington Ingalls, Bath Iron Works
Operators: United States Navy
Preceded by: Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
Cost: US$3.45 billion (unit cost),[1] US$7.0 billion (total unit cost including R&D)[2]



A seven?/three and a half? billion dollar ship, that needs to be refuelled with petroleum?? Really?
most advanced destroyer in the history of naval warfare, using 1930 era propulsion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group