Making Jet Fuel From Seawater While at Sea

Extract CO2 and H2 from seawater, react to form hydrocarbons of varying lengths, then refine. Presumably all powered by the nuclear reactors.<p><i>initial studies predict that jet fuel from seawater would cost in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce</i>

This is a good reason why Tesla cars are folly.<p>This is why electric vehicles won't work. I'll copy in most of a comment I made a few days back.<p>Let's say tomorrow some grad student gets fusion going at a very low price. The best way to use this to power cars would be to use it to create a fuel with a high energy density. If you had 'free energy' you'd extract C02 from the atmosphere and turn it into a hydrocarbon.<p>For more info look at:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density</a><p>and this interview with Nobel Prize winning Physicist Robert Laughlin<p><a href="http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/08/laughlin_on_the.htm.." rel="nofollow">http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/08/laughlin_on_the.htm...</a>.<p>the key quote is: "The ones that are technically trained get it right away: hydrocarbons, which we burned today have the greatest energy density possible of all fuels. Things that have carbon in them. Will people fly airplanes? Usually people say yes for the same reasons. Well, how are you going to make the airplanes fly? Battery. Batteries are pretty heavy. Oh--you can't have airplanes unless you have hydrocarbon fuels. You could in theory do it with hydrogen, but it's highly dangerous, noxious fuel. Quantum-mechanically, we know the energy content of those fuels is optimal. There will never be anything that beats them." A massive breakthrough in energy density for batteries might be possible but it's unlikely. Huge resources have been put into improving batteries and while they have improved it's not been enough to get near the energy density of hydrocarbons.

When energy is cheap, plentiful and clean things like this are possible. If only we built more nuclear power plants and solar power farms. Turning coal into jet fuel isn't a great idea :)

One of the main endurance (and damage control) problems for a nuclear carrier is the huge amount of jet fuel used by the air wing, so this would be a huge deal. After jet fuel, they just need to underway replenish armaments and food, both of which are easier than fuel (food isn't dangerous, and most missions don't expend weapons now, so the total volume is lower than for fuel).

Once again, military research might lead the way. Note, if they invest into this, it's _not_ because of reduced price, increased efficiency or reduced greenhouse effects, but because of an _strategic_ advantage against "the enemy".<p>Personally, I read about similar methods, for synthesizing carbon based fuels, many times before. Most of them were private founded but rather small scale. I can't judge if there was a significant science or engineering breakthrough. So, I suspect the only thing that might have changed, is that a clever guy convinced the military this would be a huge strategic advantage.<p>The ironic thing is, the US could instead focus on producing all their fuel at home to end the dependency on oil from the middle east. Then, they would have an even bigger strategic advantage and wouldn't need as much military investment. Anyway, we might end up with synthetic carbon based fuel with all its advantages - and probably the military can keep their carriers.

Very interesting.<p>Can someone who knows about this stuff comment on whether the energy required to <i>extract</i> the H2 from the water, is more than the energy contained in the <i>chemical bonds</i> of the H2 itself? (assume both sides of the comparison contain equal number of molecules)<p>I suspect it is.. otherwise they are potentially sitting on a much more important innovation, than mere jet fuel.

Isn't this also heavily destructive to our ecosystem because they use the carbon trapped in the water and release it into our atmosphere? Didn't we want more trapped carbon than less?<p>I don't get why everyone finds this great since it takes a very long time for carbon in the atmosphere to get trapped in seawater.

France could certainly use this technology. With their abundance of unused nuclear power and access to the sea, this could bridge the gap between hydrocarbon powered and electric vehicles.

Okay great. Where does the energy come from?