[TheEnergyMan]

www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/07/12903 ... per-gallon

The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) announced today that they have manufactured long-chain hydrocarbons -- that is essentially gasoline -- entirely from seawater, and used the fuel to power a flying model aircraft.

Using a patented electrochemical process, they have simultaneously extracted dissolved CO2 ions and created hydrogen gas from seawater. The resulting mixture of gases is then reformed into long-chain hydrocarbons in a chemical reaction.

[westexas]

I don't think that this is exactly news. Given an energy input, we have been able to synthesize liquid hydrocarbons for some time, but the cost number seems more than a little suspect, especially for a large scale commercial operation. And of course, the energy output would be less than the energy input.

However, I've often wondered if making synthetic liquid fuels, or synthetic natural gas, might be a good way to store energy from wind and solar sources during periods of excess electricity production.

[ROCKMAN]

Or put another way: did they factor in the $millions of lab facility used to make the synfuel? IOW I can make a lot of stuff really cheap if some one gives me the infrastructure. For instance I can make a fortune growing corn and making ethanol. All I need is for someone to give me the land and the ethanol plant for free. If all I have to do is pay the operational costs it should be very economical.

[Subjectivist]

Or put another way: did they factor in the $millions of lab facility used to make the synfuel? IOW I can make a lot of stuff really cheap if some one gives me the infrastructure. For instance I can make a fortune growing corn and making ethanol. All I need is for someone to give me the land and the ethanol plant for free. If all I have to do is pay the operational costs it should be very economical.

Easy peasy, in France the government builds and operates the nuclear power electric grid and as a result electricity is the cheapest in Europe. So if the American government owns the process, and builds the plants to use the process, and operates the plants maybe $3.00 is the benchmark price gasoline in the USA will be ten years from now. But it would take a national commitment and no political roadblocks could be allowed. Russia is more likely to manage such a plan than the divisive pliticians on all sides in the USA.

[Simon_R]

Were the USA to replace the energy used to power cars etc. using petrochemicals.
The energy input would be (As some have mooted here) nuclear, exactly how many reactors would that need, and what impact would this have on the 200year supply of nuclear fuel, does anyone have the figures ?

[Subjectivist]

Were the USA to replace the energy used to power cars etc. using petrochemicals.
The energy input would be (As some have mooted here) nuclear, exactly how many reactors would that need, and what impact would this have on the 200year supply of nuclear fuel, does anyone have the figures ?

Well the nuclear fuel supply is virtually unlimited using proven technology.

For the rest you need to know how much electricity and heat h process requires, that information isn't given.

[Simon_R]

Well the nuclear fuel supply is virtually unlimited using proven technology.

I am not sure that the fuel supply is unlimited, using conventional currently operating nuclear technology

This from the IEA website

Are uranium resources available in sufficient quantities?

The uranium resource base described in the IAEA-NEA publication Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand is more than adequate to meet projected requirements. Meeting even high-case global demand scenario requirements to 2035 outlined in this publication (782 Gigawatt electric net) would consume less than half of the identified resources documented in 2009. First elements from the compilation of data for the 2011 edition of this publication indicate that the uranium resource base remains more than adequate to meet projected demand to 2035 and beyond.

For the rest you need to know how much electricity and heat h process requires, that information isn't given.

Unless you are exploiting a resource, as opposed to converting and storing surely energy cannot be created, thus the amount of energy required to make a litre of diesel is exactly the same as the energy in a litre of diesel

[Subjectivist]

Well the nuclear fuel supply is virtually unlimited using proven technology.

I am not sure that the fuel supply is unlimited, using conventional currently operating nuclear technology

This from the IEA website

Are uranium resources available in sufficient quantities?

The uranium resource base described in the IAEA-NEA publication Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand is more than adequate to meet projected requirements. Meeting even high-case global demand scenario requirements to 2035 outlined in this publication (782 Gigawatt electric net) would consume less than half of the identified resources documented in 2009. First elements from the compilation of data for the 2011 edition of this publication indicate that the uranium resource base remains more than adequate to meet projected demand to 2035 and beyond.

For the rest you need to know how much electricity and heat h process requires, that information isn't given.

Unless you are exploiting a resource, as opposed to converting and storing surely energy cannot be created, thus the amount of energy required to make a litre of diesel is exactly the same as the energy in a litre of diesel

If you insist on building more crap Generation II reactors you will eventually run out of fuel, but if you build Generation IV reactors you won't. Gen IV cost about 10% more to build.

Of course energy can not be created or destroyed, but the process of converting from one form to another is not perfectly efficient. That means you need more energy in than you get out, and sometimes it is a lot more in than you get out. The only reason to do it i if he rsulting form, in this case liquid synthetic fuel, is more convenient than the original form, electricity.

[Simon_R]

Hi Subjectivist

From Wikipedia (I know, but couldn't find a better link)

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched

So we don't have a working one yet ?

[Plantagenet]

I predict the world will reach peak seawater in the year 2300.

[Subjectivist]

Hi Subjectivist

From Wikipedia (I know, but couldn't find a better link)

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched

So we don't have a working one yet ?

Wikipedia is not the font of all wisdom. The Generation IV design have all been prototyped, most of them as far back as 30 years ago. The IFR was prototyped and proven in 1986 but Chernobyl scared people and President Clinton eliminated all funding for the program a few years later. The MOSEL molten salt reactor was prototyped in both the US and Germany, but cheap Uranium meant nobody needed to build Thorium based reactors so they didn't. Russia has two sodium cooled reactors running and has used lead cooled reactors in some of their submarines. Gas cooled reactors were Generation II in the UK and one Generation III in America. Yes nobody is building any of these today, but they are all proven technology that can be built any time someone decides to do so.

[SteveO]

The Generation IV design have all been prototyped, most of them as far back as 30 years ago. The IFR was prototyped and proven in 1986 but Chernobyl scared people and President Clinton eliminated all funding for the program a few years later. The MOSEL molten salt reactor was prototyped in both the US and Germany, but cheap Uranium meant nobody needed to build Thorium based reactors so they didn't. Russia has two sodium cooled reactors running and has used lead cooled reactors in some of their submarines. Gas cooled reactors were Generation II in the UK and one Generation III in America. Yes nobody is building any of these today, but they are all proven technology that can be built any time someone decides to do so.

It typically takes 5 to 10 years to scale a process from prototype or demonstration up to commercial levels. Then there is construction time. It takes about 4 years to build a coal fired plant and those designs are fairly "cut and dried".

The problem with were we are now is that we squandered 30 years of cheap oil and capital building fast cars, crappy houses and flying to Las Vegas so we may not have another 10 to 15 years to build up these technologies.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub – and there’s your first problem: the govt wouldn't pay to build the system…the tax payers would. And if the fuel were sold for just the production cost it would essentially mean the tax payers are subsidizing the effort. So while it may look nice on paper to ignore the capex investment in the process it doesn’t change the fact that the net cost to the consumer would be a great deal more than $3/gallon IMHO. Ignoring the cost of the infrastructure doesn’t make it go away. In a way it’s not even true that it would cost the Navy $3/gallon: it won’t cost the Navy anything because they aren’t paying anything…the tax payers are.

There you go: “free” fuel for the Navy. LOL.

[Keith_McClary]

I can make a fortune growing corn and making ethanol. All I need is for someone to give me the land and the ethanol plant for free. If all I have to do is pay the operational costs it should be very economical.

I've heard farmers whine about the cost of equipment, fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, ...

[Subjectivist]

Sub – and there’s your first problem: the govt wouldn't pay to build the system…the tax payers would. And if the fuel were sold for just the production cost it would essentially mean the tax payers are subsidizing the effort. So while it may look nice on paper to ignore the capex investment in the process it doesn’t change the fact that the net cost to the consumer would be a great deal more than $3/gallon IMHO. Ignoring the cost of the infrastructure doesn’t make it go away. In a way it’s not even true that it would cost the Navy $3/gallon: it won’t cost the Navy anything because they aren’t paying anything…the tax payers are.

There you go: “free” fuel for the Navy. LOL.

Picky, picky, picky, always bursting my brilliant idea bubbles with your reality pin!

[steam_cannon]

Three dollars a gallon? I'll believe it when I see it but then again three dollars a gallon is not that cheap so they could be in the ballpark. And I wouldn't call it a new technology, but it's good there has been more research done into scaling it up. So it sounds like a good place for our government to put some R&D.

I think they are right that the best place to implement this would be on a nuclear aircraft carrier. On land or near shore civilian wind and solar could be used to produce electricity depending on the what the real costs are. But aircraft carrier would make sense as the first place to use a system like this since cost per gallon is not as much of a concern for military or ships out at sea and they could use the ability to refuel regular ships and aircraft. I hope the technology works out and scales up.