Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Aug 18, 2018 7:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
NicholasJanssen wrote:
MORONS CITE "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY"
Are you always this hateful?

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 7:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
NicholasJanssen wrote:
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.
More like 70s era. But given the way the USGov does its numbers, nuclear powered ships are way more expensive to buy than petroleum powered units.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
KitemanSA wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
MORONS CITE "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY"
Are you always this hateful?



No I am not usually. But the issue is this, the navy uses 2 billion dollars of fuel per year(see earlier posts) to fight poor iraqi and poor afgani because the navy is too incompetent to have nuclear powered destroyers.

Then in their vast incompetence, the navy wants to use nuclear???? power from aircraft carriers to fund a carbon dioxide from seawater, to produce fuel for jets. then they cite "seawater unavailability". ... *speechless* the MOST ADVANCED FEARLESS RESOURCEFUL THE UNIVERSE HAS EVER SEEN, NAVY cites "seawater unavailability" on why their experiment couldn't last more than one half hour.

When usa navy people devote their entire fleet of destroyers and cruisers to petroleum fuel, then want to magically produce petroleum fuel from the sea using an air craft carrier's nuclear power, well that is so laughably stupid I can't control myself. This year is 2014, every single navy destroyer and cruiser ship should be nuclear right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 06, 2014 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2237
The aim, at least. is clear after a lot of acrimony.
You want a floating nuclear power plant to make liquid fuel on the go. The energy has to come obviously from the nuclear power plant. It is at best a niche use.
The best way for collecting carbon would, in my opinion, be the filtration of sea water for algae and plankton. You may be lucky, or unlucky, to get floating plastic with it. CO2 collection may not be worth it. Fixing it to recoverable forms could be left to natural processes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 336
Forgive the ignorance, but does the process separate CO2 from seawater and, at the same time, produce hydrogen ? If it's so, what about the power consumption per unit (mole or kg or whatever unit) of hydrogen, if it's known ? At last, separate CO2 from seawater is almost useless, but if we can have a convenient source of carbon and hydrogen, then it may be an interesting way to produce liquid fuels in an energy effcient manner


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
jagdish wrote:
The aim, at least. is clear after a lot of acrimony.
You want a floating nuclear power plant to make liquid fuel on the go. The energy has to come obviously from the nuclear power plant. It is at best a niche use.
The best way for collecting carbon would, in my opinion, be the filtration of sea water for algae and plankton. You may be lucky, or unlucky, to get floating plastic with it. CO2 collection may not be worth it. Fixing it to recoverable forms could be left to natural processes.

Filtering for microorganisms is inefficient. Growth rates vary considerably over time and place. The USN wants reliable processes, and this fits the bill.

Yes, I spent a lot of time looking into the use of algae Botryococcus braunii for its ability to produce exogenous hydrocarbons. It may be useful for low-tech, low-capital projects but it is very finicky and subject to competition with other micro-organisms.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
Alex P wrote:
Forgive the ignorance, but does the process separate CO2 from seawater and, at the same time, produce hydrogen ? If it's so, what about the power consumption per unit (mole or kg or whatever unit) of hydrogen, if it's known ? At last, separate CO2 from seawater is almost useless, but if we can have a convenient source of carbon and hydrogen, then it may be an interesting way to produce liquid fuels in an energy effcient manner


It does generate hydrogen. concentrated CO2, as this provides, is useful for many things, but in combination with the co-generated hydrogen, direct synthesis of fuels is practical. I don't recall if the power consumption per unit of hydrogen is mentioned. Of course, more is better but keep in mind that, with the appropriate sized LFTR (or other nuclear power plant), there will be lots of surplus electricity so perhaps efficiency isn't so important. This might not be the case in other applications of the technology.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
KitemanSA wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
MORONS CITE "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY"
Are you always this hateful?


Seawater unavailability does seem a bit absurd. Was the tide out? I think it's more likely that they didn't have an adequate supply of filtered, softened water when they needed it. I would hope that further refinements of this system address this supply issue.

But calling them morons? I don't think so. You, Nicholas, seem to hate everything about this. Perhaps you hate the US Navy, or military in general. I neither hate them or love them, but rather take what useful research they produce and use it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
RKeyes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
NicholasJanssen wrote:
MORONS CITE "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY"
Are you always this hateful?


Seawater unavailability does seem a bit absurd. Was the tide out? I think it's more likely that they didn't have an adequate supply of filtered, softened water when they needed it. I would hope that further refinements of this system address this supply issue.

But calling them morons? I don't think so. You, Nicholas, seem to hate everything about this. Perhaps you hate the US Navy, or military in general. I neither hate them or love them, but rather take what useful research they produce and use it.


When you defend a moron for citing "SEAWATER UNAVAILABILITY" as a reason their experiment could not last one half hour, your intelligence becomes suspect.

When you post such a thread about creating petroleum from seawater, when the navy only has a handful of nuclear powered surface ships, and 92 destroyers that require 2 billion dollars worth of fuel to power their petroleum engines, your intelligence becomes suspect.

When in 2014, the united states navy has an all petroleum destroyer fleet, and plans to replace it with another petroleum based destroyer fleet, their intelligence becomes suspect.

There is nobody here who respects The United States Armed Forces more, and wants them safely out of harms way, and when you accuse me of hating the military you cross the line.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Here and There
"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."

I support coal because that's what my utility makes the juice from. Since they don't own any nukes, I guess I am supporting coal over nukes. Gosh darn, it sounds like I am goin' to spend my days in some lake of fire because I plugged my laptop in the wall socket.

Sort of reminds me of the Greenpeace folks, somehow. Young idealistic kids.

Maybe, some of us ain't too bright, but we is good people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2013 1:50 pm
Posts: 264
Eino wrote:
"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."

I support coal because that's what my utility makes the juice from. Since they don't own any nukes, I guess I am supporting coal over nukes. Gosh darn, it sounds like I am goin' to spend my days in some lake of fire because I plugged my laptop in the wall socket.

Sort of reminds me of the Greenpeace folks, somehow. Young idealistic kids.

Maybe, some of us ain't too bright, but we is good people.


Nah, you are here so u are good person. One day we can rest happy that we will no longer be unwilling participants in the deadly use of coal.

NUCLEAR POWER IS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER IS CLEAN NUCLEAR POWER IS CHEAP!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
OK, so can we can the discussion about who is a moron, etc. and just concentrate on the issue at hand? I really don't like it when people here start using more and more hostile language.

I think the fuel from seawater idea has merit. However, I'd like to see some numbers on how much can be produced, given the demands of the energy weapons, the ship's engines, miscellaneous ship electrical demand, and the efficiency of the process itself. But, it would not surprise me if this information was secret. I can understand that the US Navy may not want to disclose figures about its energy weapons, propulsion electrical demands, etc. But the process itself is not classified, so I am hoping we can get a better idea of its efficiency.

Back to the relevancy to Thorium reactors though: Several people who are in the position to know such things, have indicated that the path of least resistance towards getting and LFTR developed and built in the US to to bypass the NRC and make this a military project. If it is to be a military project, it has to fulfill military needs. This fuel from seawater process is only viable if there is a high-output electrical power plant onboard, which will create a constant quantity of power at low cost. From my viewpoint, this can only be a nuclear reactor of some sort. Because of the small size, inherent safety, and a raft of other reasons, LFTR seems to be the way to go. So, to promote LFTR, promote this program.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 571
Location: Iowa, USA
NicholasJanssen wrote:
When you post such a thread about creating petroleum from seawater, when the navy only has a handful of nuclear powered surface ships, and 92 destroyers that require 2 billion dollars worth of fuel to power their petroleum engines, your intelligence becomes suspect.


The US Navy has aircraft, lots of aircraft, that need petroleum based fuels. The US Navy also has trucks, generators, stoves, and all other sorts of things that need petroleum fuels to run. Unless you are suggesting the US Navy use nuclear powered aircraft and trucks I suggest you moderate your anger over this research.

NicholasJanssen wrote:
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.


That may be your goal but the US Navy's goal is to keep their aircraft flying. An aircraft carrier without jet fuel is not a battleship any more, it's a tomb.

Also, you may be unaware that many DoD projects are placed under a lead branch rather than being run by the DoD directly. I suspect that the US Navy has the most people with the knowledge of nuclear reactors, seawater, and fuel transport that makes them the best fit for the project. There is no doubt in my mind that the Air Force is just as interested in this project for their own aircraft fuel. Would you be just as angry if the Air Force was the lead branch on this project?

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
From a military readiness standpoint I can understand why you would want to generate your own supplies on board. as much as possible. I am sure Napoleon would have wanted food and heat generated with him in Moscow rather then freezing to death on the way home.

Getting co2 from seawater does seem anti green. since we are trying to take carbon out of the atmosphere instead of putting it back in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CO2 from seawater
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2014 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 70
Ida-Russkie wrote:
From a military readiness standpoint I can understand why you would want to generate your own supplies on board. as much as possible. I am sure Napoleon would have wanted food and heat generated with him in Moscow rather then freezing to death on the way home.

Getting co2 from seawater does seem anti green. since we are trying to take carbon out of the atmosphere instead of putting it back in.

True what you're saying about Napoleon. I am not especially qualified in military history and strategy, but from my understanding, one of the big issues is protecting supply lines. Less supplies to worry about, less supply lines, makes for one very big advantage.

I am not sure in what way this is anti-green (unless you mean in the ignorant, Green Party way) - The ocean and the atmosphere maintain a balance of CO2 based upon solubility. CO2 extracted from seawater will be balanced when it absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group