US Navy turns seawater into jet fuel – This is REAL Genius

The US Navy is big. Like, really big. It’s got some 290 ships, thousands of aircraft
and probably tens of thousands of small boats and launches. And apart from a few nuclear
powered carriers and submarines, all need fuel – either from a fleet of 15 so-called
oilers or fuel ships, or from bases dotted around the world. But the Navy has just announced a technology
which is pretty much the holy grail for any global taskforce. It’s managed to perfect
the creation of fuel, which is something they need, from seawater. Which is something they
have no shortage of at all. What’s even better from a military perspective
is that it doesn’t require any modification of the ships engines – you aren’t getting
a liquid hydrogen fuel out of the mix that needs a fuel cell to operate, you’re getting
a highly efficient hydrocarbon based fuel, like gasoline, that can power both ships and
aircraft. Although so far the only plane it’s powered
is this model one at the US Naval Research Laboratory. Small steps though eh? Here’s the science bit – saltwater is passed
through an electrically charged cell, which causes the seawater to swap hydrogen ions
produced at the anode with sodium ions. At the Cathode, the water is reduced to hydrogen
gas and sodium hydroxide. The end result is CO2 gas and hydrogen, which are then passed
through a heated chamber with an iron catalyst in it, which causes them to combine into long
chained hydrocarbons – that is, fuel – and methane gas, which can be siphoned off and
used elsewhere. The fuel is then refined into jet fuel if needed in another nickel-based
catalyst. It’s predicted to cost around $3-$6 a gallon
to produce, that’s about as much as fuel costs at the pump in the US right now, and whilst
installing distillation equipment on hundreds of US ships might be expensive, the savings
from not having to operate the oiler fleet or get fuel to bases around the world, or
from fluctuating prices, will likely run into the billions every year. So what’s the downside? Well it’s not the
most eco friendly solution. Methane is a useful fuel but a potent greenhouse gas if it’s not
completely burnt, and even if it is burnt, the whole lot will produce CO2 just like burning
any other liquid or gas fuel does. But that’s not a new problem, nor is saving
the environment the navy’s task. They prefer to save people from it. Or sometimes destroy
it with bombs. At any rate, there are an estimated 80-100,000 ships in the world, and over quarter
of a million planes. So the Navy’s emissions are a bit of a drop in the ocean, pardon the
pun. The military is already working with a number
of partners on commercialising the tech, and it’s estimated it’ll be finding it’s way onto
US warships within a decade.

100 thoughts on “US Navy turns seawater into jet fuel – This is REAL Genius

  1. Didn't you forget the SMALL downside, that generating fuel uses energy? You know, the whole reason they ship fuel on those ships in the first place, is that they cannot power themselves. So, where they get power to run all those chemical reactions??? Pixies going to make it? Or solar panels? LOL

  2. Excuse me but this is a bit like Willy Wonka inventing teleporter and thinking it could only be used to send chocolate. Creating hydrocarbon fuel efficiently from seawater would be one of the most amazing breakthroughs humanity has ever made, since it would mean that we would no longer be reliant on dwindling reserves of fossil fuels. Ironically the navy's ability to make its own fuel would mean also that it would not need to be deployed in the middle east to stabilise countries that supply most of its fuel in the first place. Self supply of energy will change the world.

  3. the description of the process is wrong. He says the water is electrolysed into hydrogen and then magically its a carbon-based fuel. Where did the carbon come from? or more, how did the carbon get into long chain hydrocarbons? My guess is the whole process depends on the microscopic life in the water, the plankton and algae sucked up in the seawater, which is full of fats and oils. I don't know what idiot wrote the script, but surely he should know that you just can't make one element (carbon) from another (hydrogen), except in a star.

  4. Recently watched old Russian sci-fi movie, called Kin-dza-dza. It's about desert planet. Inhabitants used all their water to make fuel.

  5. In Jules Verne's book, 20,000 leagues under the sea, Captain Nemo's Nautilus supposedly got its fuel from the sea as well. Amazingly forward thinking Mr Verne.

  6. Thats easy they just generate hho from water and then burn it in a jet engine. They could do that even in airplanes buy condensing water using thermotronics and then getting water to use for hho.

  7. check out new low cost high outptu solar furnace and air conditioner and our kickstarter campaing

  8. the navy's job is to save people from the environment?……hmmmmmm….please china, turn this navy into coral reefs:)

  9. I can just hear all the conspiracy theorists hunkering down to their keyboards!
    Folks, this is NOT "free" energy.  It is NOT a "car that runs on water".

    The process requires MORE energy, in the form of electricity to drive the electrolysis step, than the energy value of the fuel produced.  I'm assuming that the navy plans to use electricity from its nuclear-powered vessels to drive this.  The advantage for them is just that fuel can be produced in-situ in locations where tanking it from home base would be difficult or expensive.

  10. water consist of hydrogen and oxygen. run a current through it and you get exactly that, where are the hydrocarbons coming from?

  11. The Zionist suppress this technology so the American will lose WW3. Preparing PAX JUDAICA. And the fall of north Americans into some countries.

  12. … carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas… the content of your video made me feel suspicious about its accuricy. İt must take carbondioxide from air?

  13. $6 a gallon? Sounds like the Navy is working for big oil. This has nothing to do with Genius, and everything to do with keeping the status quo going.

  14. I didn't exactly follow the "science bit"
    "Salt water (H2O+NaCl) is passed though an electrically charged cell, which causes the seawater to swap hydrogen ions with sodium ions… the water is reduced to hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide." So far, so good…
    "The end result is CO2 gas and hydrogen." And the carbon comes from……?

  15. The energy required for electrolysis of the seawater into H and O is much greater than energy produced in combining them back together again through combustion. It doesn't take a genius to know that…just a tiny bit of knowledge of the basic laws of physics…something that was totally overlooked in this video.

  16. So much more politically correct than simply using a GEET reactor conversion which would turn the sea water into fuel without any exhaust. Score one for the Navy, they know how to find a solution that won't threaten the status quo and keep their budgets huge.

  17. This is actually a bass backwards method- they end up with hydrogen but them go on to re combine to produce a hydrocarbon type gas. They should stop when they have the hydrogen and just use that.

  18. The thing about it not being environmentally friendly is not quite right because the co2 that is harvested from the ocean is co2 that is dissolved from the atmosphere. That makes this close to carbon neutral if the power used is created environmentally friendly. The Navy will be using its nuclear power to make it so that means no new carbon is added to the system. If you were to store lots of this fuel somewhere and never burn it it would even become carbon negative.

  19. I was onto the back in 2009-2010, and when I found out about what could be done folks were saying its bullshit. Well, sigh let's keep paying stupid amounts of money for fuel. Fucking sheep.

  20. The holy grail of energy is compact fusion reactors… you know, like the one tony stark shoved so far up his ars that you could see it glowing through his chest

  21. how does he not realize that if the CO2 is taken out of the environment, and then put back into the environment, then no CO2 has been added to the environment?

  22. BRILLIANT I am subscribing to the greatest hoax of all time the only question on my mind is how did this fool keep a straight face when taking the piss.

  23. Ok now I absolutely must get paid. if the savings are in billions $$$$$ per year then I should also get in the range of a few billions $$

  24. The 'science bit' is complete rubbish. The energy needed to provide the electricity to split hydrogen and oxygen from sea water is greater than can be possibly derived from using the hydrogen as fuel. Apart from the energy deficit of such a process the chemistry as outlined is complete BS; where did the carbon dioxide magically appear from in the chemistry explanation?

  25. This was found a few years back by John Kanzius. His cancer killing machine could also burn seawater. Baylor University is stalling the Cancer machine with a lawsuit wanting cash for studies. It should have been in Clinical trials last summer.

  26. As long as the CO2 and H2 are produced from a nuclear reactor (or solar/wind onshore) then it will be a carbon neutral fuel cycle. The sea and atmosphere have to remain a CO2 equilibrium, so the sea would have to re-absorb the CO2 taken out from it,

    Talk about missing the point 🙁

  27. Because the methane came from the ocean in the first place, it's not really adding to the total atmospheric load is it?

  28. Okay, I understand the technology, but will it past the cost test, to produce the hydrogen you need electricity, where are you getting the electricity and how are you creating it? This is not really new technology, but something we have known about for over 100 years. We have tried this with cars, yes, it works, but it isn't cost effective as of yet. I have made hydrogen using a battery and water. If we could somehow collect the methane at the bottom of the ocean it releases, that would make more sense.

  29. I'm missing something. Just like the well known hydrolysis of water into hydrogen and water, the process of converting sea water to fuel will require a LOT of energy. In the case of hydrolysis, it required more energy to be input than the net energy that the resulting fuel can offer. This is also likely to apply to the process described here. In other words, the oil tankers or a nuclear reactor are still required to supply the energy used to keep the conversion process running.

  30. WHERE DOES THE ELECTRICAL POWER COME FROM? This must therefore be, fake news. Someone please prove me wrong. I don't dare. I beg ! Please show me the way beyond me cynicism. I really want to believe humans can be trusted. Especially The English. Simply because they are the best liars. Bad liars get caught….But if the electrical power comes from a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, then logistics comes into question. Under what circumstances would it be an advantage?

  31. Could you just make a big still and separate the hydrogen from the oxygen that way? No CO2? No methane? If so then you could essentially have rocket fuel!

  32. This is the main source of fuel that has been used to transport humans to The colony on Mars. Laugh if you feel the need. The truth is still the truth.

  33. You say it’s not Environmentally friendly cos it emits CO2, but it’s not adding extra CO2 like fossil fuels do, the Carbon released will be absorbed by the Sea( Plankton etc). True we need to reduce the overal Carbon gas but that is best done by reaforestation projects that are happening thanks to groups like ‘Cool Earth’ and ‘Ecosia’ a Tree planting search engine( 80% of profits go to grass roots tree planting/reaforestation). And numerous small community/village based Permaculture reforesting deserts.

  34. The reason the Navy is looking at it isn't that it is economical, but at $6 s gallon it probably is just as cheap as what they are doing now. The whole point for them to have a strategic resource that can move with the fleet.

  35. Was this an April fool's joke because that little RC plane couldn't run on even normal fuel it uses nitro methane based fuel.

  36. NaCl +H20 = NaOH + H2 which equals CO2 + H2. Yeah. Seems legit. Anyway if this was a practical means of fuel generation, the Navy would have just switched their jet engines over to burn hydrogen rather than kerosene. Thanks for the chuckle, educated-but-approachable-sounding-British-dude.

  37. The Earth is going to get angry if we start taking away all that CO2 we gave her all these years. We need to start driving more SUV's and V8 pickup trucks. LOL

  38. Ah everyone panics saltwater has a NaCl compound if you pass an electric current you get H2 gas with a trace Cl2 gas they have to be separated the NaOH is left behind in order to make fuels there must be another electroyliser with distilled water and NaOH to get H2 gas and O2 gas, now you can make fuels with strange alchemy the CH4 is already stored on board the ships so its possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *