View Full Version : Could this destroy the oil market?



Garin
04-13-2014, 05:36 PM
The U.S. Navy Just Announced The End Of Big Oil And No One Noticed - (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/navy-ends-big-oil/)

Snowman
04-13-2014, 06:04 PM
No one notices since it costs more than conventional gas production methods, so will not be used by average consumers, it would not be surprising that after analysis it did not come in worse than these cost projections estimate. To put this into major production will require massive amounts of seawater, like tens of thousand of gallons of sea water per gallon created, and probably a dedicated nuclear power plants in close proximity. You will have NIMBY groups anywhere you even try and look, plus it has been like forty years since a nuclear power plant has been built in the US for various reasons. The military can do this because the National Security card can clear some red tape and costs do not have to be a primary concern.

Also they have been researching new fuels for decades, many do not pan out. If you follow development in most any area it is almost a running joke that you will here practically anything is almost ready to be in production in the next five years, just needs some more money and research time for now. Much of which will still be five away ten to thirty years from now.

PWitty
04-13-2014, 06:50 PM
That's cool tech, but an awful article. There was hardly any technical information in there. It was mainly just a political smear fest. I can hardly stand reading energy-related news these days because everything is turned into a political free-for-all. It gets so old, and it's frustrating since I'm in the energy industry.

I've never heard about that process before though. I'm a ChemE, and that process seems feasible. But I feel like it would require a MASSIVE amount of water to pass through the process before any tangible amount of hydrocarbons could be produced, because of how low the concentration of carbon in sea water is. I guess that's probably why the economic numbers it led off with went up to $6/gal at the top of the range.

Snowman, why do you think a dedicated nuclear plant would be required? This process would basically act like a conventional refinery, except instead of your feedstock being crude oil it would be sea water. The only reason you would need a dedicated power source of any kind would be if the process required a huge energy input. And like I said, it's hard to really tell anything about the operating conditions of the process because the article used little to no technical facts.

RadicalModerate
04-13-2014, 07:15 PM
Plus . . . Once the de-hydrocarbonized sea water was returned to the natural environment it would probably screw up the coral reefs.
And probably more than a couple of fish species and mollusks.

PWitty
04-13-2014, 07:27 PM
You should've posted the original source of the article. I guess that's probably why it was more a political smear fest than an informative piece on alternative fuel sources.

Proud To Be Filthy Liberal Scum: End of Big Oil (http://proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com/2014/04/12/u-s-navy-just-announced-end-big-oil-one-noticed/)

I googled the process, and this article is a bit more informative (and leaves the politics on the sideline).

DOD Live (http://science.dodlive.mil/2014/04/11/energy-independence-creating-fuel-from-sea-water/)

PWitty
04-13-2014, 07:55 PM
That's cool tech, but an awful article. There was hardly any technical information in there. It was mainly just a political smear fest. I can hardly stand reading energy-related news these days because everything is turned into a political free-for-all. It gets so old, and it's frustrating since I'm in the energy industry.

I've never heard about that process before though. I'm a ChemE, and that process seems feasible. But I feel like it would require a MASSIVE amount of water to pass through the process before any tangible amount of hydrocarbons could be produced, because of how low the concentration of carbon in sea water is. I guess that's probably why the economic numbers it led off with went up to $6/gal at the top of the range.

Snowman, why do you think a dedicated nuclear plant would be required? This process would basically act like a conventional refinery, except instead of your feedstock being crude oil it would be sea water. The only reason you would need a dedicated power source of any kind would be if the process required a huge energy input. And like I said, it's hard to really tell anything about the operating conditions of the process because the article used little to no technical facts.

And there it is! This is from the last article I posted. This is cool stuff.

“There are 100 milligrams of CO2 in seawater, which is 140 times more concentrated in seawater than it is in air,” Dr. Willauer tells me. “I say that because I have to explain that I have to process about 23,000 gallons of seawater to make a gallon of fuel.”

Snowman
04-13-2014, 07:59 PM
Snowman, why do you think a dedicated nuclear plant would be required? This process would basically act like a conventional refinery, except instead of your feedstock being crude oil it would be sea water. The only reason you would need a dedicated power source of any kind would be if the process required a huge energy input. And like I said, it's hard to really tell anything about the operating conditions of the process because the article used little to no technical facts.

Even catalyzed extracting H2 out of H2O is going to require a lot of heat and a study like a year or two estimated on how much land mass all the techniques on the near horizon would take to either generate the energy to run the reactions and/or grow biomass needed for feed stock. Nuclear was the only one that in any cases could even theoretically be the primary source to produce an equivalent amount of fuel the US consumes without needing more area than the US has.

PWitty
04-13-2014, 08:11 PM
Even catalyzed extracting H2 out of H2O is going to require a lot of heat and a study like a year or two estimated on how much land mass all the techniques on the near horizon would take to either generate the energy to run the reactions and/or grow biomass needed for feed stock. Nuclear was the only one that in any cases could even theoretically be the primary source to produce an equivalent amount of fuel the US consumes without needing more area than the US has.

Well, depending on the catalyst used in the reaction the energy required to separate the H2 molecules out from the H2O could vary significantly. That's why it's hard to tell without seeing the operating conditions of this exact process.

Do you remember where you saw that study? If so, then you're right in your initial comments. It would take a ton of energy to produce an equivalent amount of synthetic gasoline to fuel the entire country's demand. This application seems like it is more geared for Naval use, and other spot uses, though. Of course that original link the OP posted just saw summary of the process and tried to use it to proclaim the death of Big Oil, so I can see why you commented on the country's demand as a whole.