Jet Fuel from Seawater
The New Scientist headling reads: “How to turn seawater into jet fuel.” The “water into fuel” meme is one that will just not die – like lead into gold, it is an iconic example of turning something of little or no value into something of great value, which apparently appeals to our ape brains.
This is an old story that crops up from time to time. I recently blogged about a Florida inventor, John Kanzius, who found a way to burn salt water, resulting in many breathless news reports imagining a day in the near future when we would simply fill our gas tanks with seawater. The New Scientist story has a couple of new wrinkles, but first let me review the reason we will not be running our cars on water – the laws of thermodynamics.
As I discussed last week, in any new process that claims to produce energy it is a useful exercise to consider where the energy is ultimately coming from. In the case of water, the claims invariably are that the hydrogen and oxygen is split through some sort of electrolysis process, and then the hydrogen is burned back with oxygen to produce energy. Of course, thermodynamics tells us that this process must produce less energy than it consumes – it costs energy, it does not produce energy.
Looked at another way – in order to get energy out of a chemical process the end products must contain less energy than the starting products, and the energy released will be a portion of the difference in this energy content. Fossil fuels, for example, are energy dense molecules, and they burn to more stable products, like carbon dioxide, that contain less energy. The energy released comes from the bonds in the hydrocarbon that are being broken.
If the end products are the same as the starting products then the process cannot produce energy. It must, in fact, lose at least a little bit of energy, for no process can be 100% efficient. So if you start with water and end with water, you have not released any energy, you have only consumed energy going around in circles. John Kanzius, for example, failed to take into account the energy going into the radio waves he was using to help electrolyze the water.
So what about the New Scientist article? The new wrinkle (probably not really new, but I haven’t written about it before) is that the process included extracting carbon dioxide dissolved in the seawater. Rather than splitting hydrogen and oxygen and then burning them back together, they split off the hydrogen from the water and then combine it with carbon from carbon dioxide to make a hydrocarbon. The article reports:
It uses a variant of a chemical reaction called the Fischer-Tropsch process, which is used commercially to produce a gasoline-like hydrocarbon fuel from syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen often derived from coal.
So they are developing a variant of an existing commercial process, which at least makes it plausible that the process will work. But note that the process uses carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide – the latter is more stable, which means lower energy. Also, hydrogen as a free gas contains usable energy. The process derives its starting materials from coal, natural gas, or biomass – actual energy sources.
Getting hydrogen from water does not create energy – it uses it. And starting with carbon dioxide is problematic because carbon dioxide is the usual end product of burning hydrocarbons. So again we have the problem that we are ending with products that are similar to our starting products – so where is the energy coming from? Somewhere else.
Unless I am missing something, this process will not generate energy. The New Scientist article was not clear on that point. It may still turn out to be a useful process for the Navy, however. Imagine a nuclear aircraft carrier being able to create its own jet fuel out in the middle of the ocean, using the energy from its own nuclear reactor. I believe General Norman Schwarzkopf said during a press conference regarding the Gulf War, “Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.” (Sorry I could not find a specific reference – if anyone can, please leave it in the comments.)
The process may therefore be of tremendous logistical value to aircraft carriers, making them less dependent on the supply chain to keep their birds in the air. But this is only an option if you are carrying around a nuclear reactor.
Of course, other energy sources could be used – solar, wind, etc. This or a similar process may become valuable in a future with diminishing fossil fuel for those vehicles that simply need high-energy fuel to operate. In other words, this could be a valuable energy storage system, if not an energy generation system.
Incidentally, back when the coming hydrogen fuel economy was all the rage, the same point could be made. We have little or no free hydrogen on the earth, it has to be created. So hydrogen as fuel is an energy storage system, not a source of energy. We would still need an energy generation infrastructure. This is identical to battery-operated cars. The batteries just store energy that needs to be created elsewhere.
It can also be mentioned that since this process takes CO2 out of the ocean and then ultimately puts it back into the environment (into the air, but the ocean and atmosphere CO2 are in equilibrium), this is a carbon-neutral process. It does not take previously sequestered carbon and put it into the environment.
This is therefore an interesting and potentially useful process – I just wish the media would get the emphasis correct rather than repeated the tired “gas from water” theme.
So Steve – what is new? Isn’t it rather obvious that hydrogen is just a “mobile” energy source (or a mobile storage system if you like), but as a derived source of course uses energy to being produced.
But neither is oil a “free” source – it used solar energy and the energy of tectonics to being produced.
The only “primary” energy sources that can be used at present to produce derived energy – or stored energy systems – that are also carbon neutral are geothermal, solar, wave and wind energy to any serious level.
You forgot biomass, and hydroelectric.
The problem is that the media is sensational, not skeptical. Journalists are supposed to report the truth as objectively as possible. Some do, and some don’t. But it both events, editors take out the boring stuff, and layout designers and copyeditors write sensational headlines to get people to read. They justify it by saying that the truth is somewhere in the article. They forget that some people JUST read the headlines and take them to be fact.
So, what I do is write e-mail to the journalists responsible for the articles and ask them what happened. Often, they blame their editors, and I believe they are somewhat powerless in this regard. But if we remind them that they are the ones who look foolish when editors make these decisions, they’re more likely to stand up for themselves down the road.
The main point is that this type of process may make a lot of sense for the navy, which happens to have a lot of power available to operate this sort of synthesis reaction via its nuclear reactors.
There’s an article at The Register which expands on this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/20/seawater_synthifuel_foolishness/
Basically, the limitation of an aircraft carrier’s operation largely centres on its ability to supply jet fuel to its planes, so if they could make it on board it would eliminate a serious logistical impediment at a stroke.
“You forgot biomass, and hydroelectric.”
Biomass is not free, so called “bio diesel” is rather costly to produce, some estimates even go sofar as to state that total input cost is greater then output benefits.
You forgot biomass, and hydroelectric.
The only biomass that is “free”, meaning that it is a waste product and useless and potentially dangerous if not processed properly is garbage, and human and animal fecal material. Although I would say that a certain amount of animal waste is needed to maintain soil structure, and should not be “wasted” for energy production.
Do not get me started on hydro – I live close to Williston Lake, one of the largest man made lakes in NA.
By flooding this lake millions af acres where taken out as productive land, be it wild live, forestry of agriculture – wasted land is what hydro power means.
Add to this the millions of trees being burned or flooded and releasing methyl mercury and CO2 slowly – without any trees to capture the carbon released and thus neutralize the process.
kraut- I was referring to your statement”The only “primary” energy sources that can be used at present to produce derived energy – or stored energy systems – that are also carbon neutral…” not about them being free.
Chemical stability and low energy content generally tend to go together but this is not a hard and fast rule. This correlation should be used as the basis for a logical argument.
I meant to say it should NOT be used as the basis for logical arguments.
As I see the NewScientist article was correct – though maybe not carefully phrased:
“Navy chemists have processed seawater into unsaturated short-chain hydrocarbons that with further refining could be made into kerosene-based jet fuel. But they will have to find a clean energy source to power the reactions if the end product is to be carbon neutral.”
Also…
“But to make a jet fuel that is properly “green”, the energy-intensive electrolysis that produces the hydrogen will need to use a carbon-neutral energy source; and the complex multi-step process will always consume significantly more energy than the fuel it produces could yield.”
I am reading the same article you had read? I agree that the NewScientist authors ought to be more careful and perhaps add more emphasis on the wording – knowing that the public is happy to misunderstand the titles like: “turn seawater into jet fuel”, but otherwise the article seems to be correct. They point out that they will find an energy source and also that they will lose energy in the net process.
I read this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17632-how-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel.html
“tmac57 says:
August 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm
kraut- I was referring to your statement”The only “primary” energy sources that can be used at present to produce derived energy – or stored energy systems – that are also carbon neutral…” not about them being free.”
Point taken.
I’ll have to track down the article and read it for myself, but it’s not as obviously hokum as the letter which appeared in Nature maybe 10 years ago in which an Indian self-proclaimed chemist adds a little water to some dry leaves, boils the leaves for a minute, and claims that the liquid is diesel oil.
Carbon dioxide can be made to react but all reactions I’m familiar with require a huge energy input. The thing that I’d shout “bullshit” at in the article is the claim to produce jet fuel. Jet fuel is a special grade of kerosene with guaranteed maximum sulfur levels and with a bit more control over the composition than with your usual kerosene (most liquid hydrocarbon fuels are mixtures). While CO2 can certainly be converted to formaldehyde or formic acid, creating a carbon-carbon bond to make up the chains which constitute jet fuel is not a trivial reaction process. Plants and animals create such chains in numerous inefficient processes.
OK, read the article; I wish I had more info though.
Sure enough they use metal catalysts; what is not obvious from the article is that the energy input would indeed be enormous. There are also issues with “catalyst poisoning”, catalyst regeneration, and catalyst recovery – but that may not be such a huge technical hurdle since industry use very rare (and of course costly) catalysts and continue to improve techniques to retain their precious catalysts. So yes, they would be able to form short-chain hydrocarbons. I’d like to know exactly what hydrocarbons they’ve produced though; I’m still very skeptical about the claims of producing jet fuel.
You said: what is not obvious from the article is that the energy input would indeed be enormous, but what did you think it meant in the article when they said: and the complex multi-step process will always consume significantly more energy than the fuel it produces could yield. In addition, each step in the process is likely to add cost and problems.
It seems pretty clear to me.
Hence why they are talking about making unsaturated hydrocarbons. These can be added to one another, building up a chain until you reach the length of jet-fuel. Ever heard of methanol to gasoline?
Good, and thorough article.
I don’t like the idea of “Carbon Neutral”. Frankly, it annoys me. We need to stop putting the carbon into the atmosphere to the point where its almost nil. Either that, or produce some kind of genetic crop variation that takes out FAR more carbon then previous ones did. Or perhaps both. But I think fuels that still dump out more carbon into the atmosphere are a really bad idea. And this seems to take it from the sea, and put it into the air. Perhaps I am wrong, but isn’t that taking sequestered carbon and dumping it into the atmosphere?
I don’t see any issue with using hydrogen as an energy storage product. Nuclear is safe, efficient, but costly (mostly because of necessary regulations. Build enough and the cost will come down.). And you can always use wind/solar/tidal/etc to generate the electricity to do it.
Perhaps I am wrong. I’m not a scientist, but would like to be.
The New Scientist headling reads: “How to turn seawater into jet fuel.”
That’s easy: Charter a boat and hang out near a coastal military air base where the pilots are doing maneuvers: they sometimes have to dump fuel before landing. Scoop up the sea water/jet fuel mix. Pour into a large separation funnel. Drain seawater. Retain jet fuel. Voila!
On a more serious note, it would be far more efficient to filter plankton out of the seawater and use its reduced carbon-containing molecules as the starting point for fuel. Starting with carbon dioxide is like trying to roll a boulder up a sheer cliff.
Overall the conversion of CO2 to CyHx is exothermic. The only step which consumes loads of energy is the electrolysis (which is clearly stated in the article). Pulling plankton out of the sea-water is taking out the bottom of the food chain within the oceans – not such a good idea. CO2 is in equilibrium between the sea and the atmosphere (with oceans sucking up 90 GtC/year). Great idea from the Navy – especially if they use nuclear power. All it comes down to is a transfer of one type of energy into another (more useful for jets).
The Navy knows that the law of the conservation of energy can not be violated. If they succeed it will ultimately consume more energy than it produces. But modern carriers have two great big reactors to get energy from. Reducing the logistic connections and the service vessels needed to provide them makes the carrier a more efficient weapon, nothing more.
What about this patent?
It produces substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is defined as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input.
“System for electrolysis and heating of water”
US Patent Number 5,635,038:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,635,038.PN.&OS=PN/5,635,038&RS=PN/5,635,038
From the patent:
What is claimed is:
1. A system for producing excess heat in a liquid electrolyte for separate external use …
AND:
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS/VERIFICATION
Experimental test procedures and results and graphic display of those results from my previous U.S. Pat. Nos. ‘675 and ‘688 are repeated by reference thereto. Similar tests with respect to the new multi-layer conductive microspheres were conducted which showed substantially above 100% heat outputs (yields), also referred to as “excess heat”. Excess heat is more generally defined herein as the ratio (greater than 1.0) of heat energy output to electrical power input.
Independent verification of my previous experimental procedures and reliability, repeatability and heat output performance of a prototype of one embodiment of my improved system and cell were conducted and reported by Dr. Dennis Cravens, who is currently a professor at Vernon Regional Junior College in physics, chemistry, math and microbiology and Department Chairperson of Math and Science and a consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory. This testing verification occurred in two separate experimental procedures. The first was conducted at my lab on Feb. 25-26, 1995 on a system and cell which I had previously set up. The second procedure was independently conducted at Dr. Craven’s lab where he had complete charge of equipment set-up and operation. The embodiment verified was that of a cell having conductive microspheres of nickel/palladium/nickel composition.
The results of this independent verification were reported during a presentation, accompanied by presentation material entitled “Flow Colorimetry and the Patterson Power Cell Design” dated Apr. 10, 1995 at the 5th Annual International Conference on Cold Fusion in Monte-Carlo, Monaco. These presentation materials are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The text describing those experimental verification results was separately reported by Dr. Cravens in a published report entitled “Flowing Electrolyte Colorimetry” dated May 1, 1995 attached hereto as Exhibit B. In Exhibit B, Dr. Cravens reports that, during the I.C.C.F.-5 conference which I attended, this same improved prototype embodiment of my invention (nickel-palladium-nickel plated microspheres) was in continuous operational display producing excess heat. Several conference attenders were witness to this display who actually took data which clearly depicted continuous production of excess heat by the prototype.
your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable.
if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula??
to electrolyze water (only been done since about 3 years after Electricity was first harnessed and today 3% of all oxygen ((the ultra pure stuff)) is produced by electrolysis)does not endow the seperated atoms with their energy. that energy is ambient, already there. the sceptic must be very careful to not mount blind horses.
one must ask what authority you imagine you posess to make, such staatements, which in all obviousness lack any foot in the actual World. won’t bother with this trash site again. this won’t make the comment page now will it??
sign up for chemestry 101 and after a couple years try synthetic organic chemestry then you could study hydrocarbon compounds that is hydrogen and carbon. 92% of all freebourn carbon is in the ocean and more of the available hydrogen wait, is this not then a hydrocarbon molecule? couldn’t be any energy there; and oxygen thrown in: that is the universes strongest Oxydizer and if we combine H and O and C we get lets see Heptane, Butane, Octane and 46 other hydrocarbon compounds but, we could not possibly get energy from sea water Huh???
before i get real rude, just study something before you blather, you just look real foolish with that pseudo science. check Discover dec 2009 ‘navy makes jet fuel from sea water’ as well as several thousand google searches of accredited institutions around the world successfully doing what yu broadside so blatantly. can’t research before publication?????
dear sir,
just as an after thought: we cannot create hydrogen we may only liberate it. space is absoloutely full of it and so is the ocean.hydrogen provides ALL the energy in ALL fossil fuels 220 million cubic miles of hydrogen, ever so lightly bonded to 110 million cubic miles of the universes best oxydizer….
beyond this is the fact that mort than 92% of our CO2 is in solution in the ocean.
if, unlike the navy, were to disassemble the various energy components to the isotopic level.
designer hydrocarbons can be produced profitably by buying low grade coal. heating the coal white hot with a lot of electricity,then heating water to live steam and injecting the steam into the coal bed. the resultant gasses contain primarily hydrogen, the actual energy of all hydrocarbons. along with a few carbon compounds that must be seperated, dried then seperated further from contaminant gasses. then compressed and finally refined into various fuels, evaporatives and waxes.
Sasol of S. Africa, thanks to the Aphartide regiem, is now the worlds largest producer of designer hydrocarbons using the afore mentioned, antiquated Fishcer-Trompish method originally devised by two pre WWII german chemists and used to convert coal to run the Nazi war machine.
seperating H from O is much less energy intensive than taking it from C, which is the glue of the universe. if reduced to the isotopic level with an inductive plasma field (the control of which is at this moment my sole knowledge), operated at great depth (above 300BARS) we can teach our sub- atomic particles to form much more than simple hydrocarbons: we can produce most everything on the perodic table rather cheaply (its all there in the ocean), as this whole process is powered by the perfect nuclear generator (Sol). this is a very brief explanation of one form of designer hydrocarbon. that that you put in your auto each fill up is just that, a designer hydrocarbon.
want to know more?
Lee wrote: “your lack of knowledge of simple college level organic chemestry is remarkable.
if atom A contains 70 ergs of energy and atom B contains 33 ergs and it takes 5 ergs to seperate them, where do the laws of thermodynamics enter the formula??”
Lee, you are profoundly confused. The combination of your tone and misinformation is what we affectionately call the “arrogance of ignorance.”
We are dealing here in the realm of chemical reactions – and chemical energy is not in the atoms per se but the bonds between them. Some bonds are endothermic some are exothermic.
Bonding hydrogen to oxygen is an exothermic reaction – the resultant molecule has less energy in the electron shells than the original elements, and so energy is released. In order to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, that same amount of energy has to be put back in.
Thermodynamics is absolutely relevant, because it says that the amount of energy you get out cannot be greater than what you put in, in fact it has to be less.
So, unless you are talking about nuclear reactions, there is no energy source to be had by splitting hydrogen from water only to burn it again with oxygen.
The same is not true of hydrocarbons – that is why they are a source of energy. They can be burned directly, or the hydrogen can be split off then burned with oxygen. But if you make hydrocarbons (rather than pull them out of the ground) you have the same problem of thermodynamics.
Thanks Dr. Novella, I barely graduated high school, and even I can understand that. Too bad the author didn’t.
So, has science discovered what happens to “wasted” energy? Doesn’t it HAVE to go somewhere or change form? Or is the whole universe just constantly spreading out thinner, eventually to be absorbed into whatever lies beyond?