Navy plans to make jet fuel from sea water

[D Tibbets]

...

My first response allowed as how 90% of the benefit would be obtained by converting the SHIP'S turbines to ammonia. Once again Dan, keep up please.

I don't get your point. Considering the ship fuel consumption only, a conventionally powered ship could use it's stored diesel to produce ammonia, then use the ammonia to to power the engines. This conversion would only add problems and fuel bulk as it would cost diesel energy to produce the ammonia. This is a losing deal. Alternately, the ammonia could be provided by a tanker, but again, as the energy density of ammonia has been reported as ~ 50% that of diesel, the volume/weight of fuel carried by the ship or delivered by a tanker has to ~ double for the same range.

A nuclear ship uses the nuclear reactor to generate the propulsive drive, so liquid fuel storage is mostly a moot point for ship propulsion. Transfer or production of liquid fuel only applies to providing for aircraft operations, or possibly to refuel destroyers that are accompanying the nuclear carrier. In this latter situation I could see the benefit of an in situ production facility aboard the nuclear carrier to produce either hydrocarbons and ammonia for the escort ships, if the chemical production equipment efficiency in terms of weight and volume are good enough, and if the resultant frequent escort refuelings (would need to be more frequent if ammonia used) do not detract overmuch from the war fighting capability of the nuclear carrier.

A nuclear powered oil or ammonia tanker might be the best solution. This dedicated fuel supply ship could accompany a task force and refuel the other ships on an as needed basis without the need to shuttle back and forth to a depo base. Fewer tankers would be needed, less depo supplies would be needed and at some cost of fuel, it could even be cheaper. On the down side (?), this tanker may be an even more attractive and vulnerable target than the carrier.

Dan Tibbets

[Joseph Chikva]

As for injecting ammonia to reduce NOx emmisions, does that consume energy, or release more energy?

I believe that the catalyzed reaction is exothermic.

What is "injecting ammonia to reduce NOx emissions"? Additional quantity of ammonia above stechiometric ratio?
Not for reducing of flame temperature till number, at which nitrogen is less reactive?

[KitemanSA]

...

My first response allowed as how 90% of the benefit would be obtained by converting the SHIP'S turbines to ammonia. Once again Dan, keep up please.

I don't get your point. Considering the ship fuel consumption only, a conventionally powered ship could use it's stored diesel to produce ammonia, then use the ammonia to to power the engines.
....
A nuclear powered oil or ammonia tanker might be the best solution.

Well, he is finally catching up. Only took a page or two!

They could get something like 90% of the effect if they were to convert their LM2500s and RR equivalents to burn ammonia and just make the ammonia. MUCH simpler. Every strike group would have an AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) or maybe an AOF.

[Joseph Chikva]

...

My first response allowed as how 90% of the benefit would be obtained by converting the SHIP'S turbines to ammonia. Once again Dan, keep up please.

I don't get your point. Considering the ship fuel consumption only, a conventionally powered ship could use it's stored diesel to produce ammonia, then use the ammonia to to power the engines.
....
A nuclear powered oil or ammonia tanker might be the best solution.

Well, he is finally catching up. Only took a page or two!

They could get something like 90% of the effect if they were to convert their LM2500s and RR equivalents to burn ammonia and just make the ammonia. MUCH simpler. Every strike group would have an AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) or maybe an AOF.

But I am not still not catching up about your belief that injection of ammonia for reduction of NOx emission is exothermic. And so I am asking once again: do you think that injection of any additional quantity of fuel into the flame above stechiometric ratio will release more energy? All the more if goal of that injection is only reduction of flame's temperature.

And are you going to produce ammonia onboard?
Have you ever seen ammonia making plant? For example, this: http://www.phxequip.com/plant.79/ammonia-plant.aspx is the plant producing 90 tons of ammonia per day. Are you not interested in the area which such a plant occupies? Height?

[KitemanSA]

Joey,
I mentioned that Diesel engine companies inject NH3 to reduce the NOx. It is injected into the exhaust gas, not into the cylinder. It REDUCES to NOx that is made in the cylinder... as in the opposite of oxidizing the N2. I believe they use a simple catalyst to make it happen quickly. Are you caught up yet?

[KitemanSA]

Every strike group would have an AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) or maybe an AOF.

And are you going to produce ammonia onboard?

Let my TRY to make it as simple as possible. The idea is to use nuclear power aboard the AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) to make ammonia and then transfer it to the ship to be used as fuel in their turbines. Is THAT simple enough for you? Have you caught up YET?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joey,
I mentioned that Diesel engine companies inject NH3 to reduce the NOx. It is injected into the exhaust gas, not into the cylinder. It REDUCES to NOx that is made in the cylinder... as in the opposite of oxidizing the N2. I believe they use a simple catalyst to make it happen quickly. Are you caught up yet?

I am caught up that injecting into exhaust pipe of any media will not make any useful work even if that reaction is exothermic.
And what is "Diesel engine companies"?
Is this commercial solution? As I doubt as ammonia present in exhaust gas means the very strong smell.

[Joseph Chikva]

Every strike group would have an AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) or maybe an AOF.

And are you going to produce ammonia onboard?

Let my TRY to make it as simple as possible. The idea is to use nuclear power aboard the AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) to make ammonia and then transfer it to the ship to be used as fuel in their turbines. Is THAT simple enough for you? Have you caught up YET?

You can try anything you want.
But let me too to make some calcs.
As I know maximum available electric power on any USA warship does not exceed 50 MW. Correct?
I quoted you the number how much energy is needed for producing of 1 nm3 (89.3 g) of hydrogen via water electrolyze - 4.3-5.6 kW*h. Let's say - 4.3 kW*h. Ok?
If so, we can produce only 50000/4.3= 11627 m3/h = 1038 kg/h = 24.9 t/day of H2 if even all available power will be directed on electrolyze.
Ok?
This corresponds to make of 141.1 t/day of ammonia.
Is this quantity enough for aircraft carrier's order?
I doubt that no.

Now let's imagine how roomy will be facilities allowing do all you want. If to recall in chemistry namely electro-processes give the lowest yield per working m3.
And I have already provided to you the link showing how 90 metric tons per day Ammonia production facilities look like.
Good luck, but I have very resonable doubts in possibility of placing those on any ship.

[KitemanSA]

Joey,
I mentioned that Diesel engine companies inject NH3 to reduce the NOx. It is injected into the exhaust gas, not into the cylinder. It REDUCES to NOx that is made in the cylinder... as in the opposite of oxidizing the N2. I believe they use a simple catalyst to make it happen quickly. Are you caught up yet?

I am caught up that injecting into exhaust pipe of any media will not make any useful work even if that reaction is exothermic.
And what is "Diesel engine companies"?
Is this commercial solution? As I doubt as ammonia present in exhaust gas means the very strong smell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_ ... _reduction

[KitemanSA]

And are you going to produce ammonia onboard?

Let my TRY to make it as simple as possible. The idea is to use nuclear power aboard the AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) to make ammonia and then transfer it to the ship to be used as fuel in their turbines. Is THAT simple enough for you? Have you caught up YET?

You can try anything you want.
But let me too to make some calcs.
As I know maximum available electric power on any USA warship does not exceed 50 MW. Correct?

Right, and it is just totally against the laws of the universe that we could ever make one with more nuclear power. No, wait, the CVN78 is designed with more, so I guess maybe we COULD make one with more. Duffus. Please TRY to keep up.

[KitemanSA]

And are you going to produce ammonia onboard?

Let my TRY to make it as simple as possible. The idea is to use nuclear power aboard the AON (auxiliary oiler, nuclear) to make ammonia and then transfer it to the ship to be used as fuel in their turbines. Is THAT simple enough for you? Have you caught up YET?

This corresponds to make of 141.1 t/day of ammonia.
Is this quantity enough for aircraft carrier's order?
I doubt that no.

Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!

[KitemanSA]

Now let's imagine how roomy will be facilities allowing do all you want. If to recall in chemistry namely electro-processes give the lowest yield per working m3.
And I have already provided to you the link showing how 90 metric tons per day Ammonia production facilities look like.
Good luck, but I have very resonable doubts in possibility of placing those on any ship.

Joey...
How bout you try to read up a bit before you continue to stick your foot into your mouth.

Start here. http://nh3fuelassociation.org/

[KitemanSA]

There is so much more we could do with the plants, but we are stuck in the 1950's Rickover model. Imagine re-engineering with alternate core designs like we futzed around with before. Sodium, Floride, Thorium...
So much possibility. Sigh.

I know the Airforce futzed around with molten fluoride-salt based reactors, when did the Navy ever do so? The Navy's liquid sodium fast reactor suffered the fate of most all fast reactors; decommissioning. LFTRs are the bridge to Polywell; a bridge that could last for millions of years even if fusion remains "fifty years away" for ever.

[Joseph Chikva]

Joey,
I mentioned that Diesel engine companies inject NH3 to reduce the NOx. It is injected into the exhaust gas, not into the cylinder. It REDUCES to NOx that is made in the cylinder... as in the opposite of oxidizing the N2. I believe they use a simple catalyst to make it happen quickly. Are you caught up yet?

I am caught up that injecting into exhaust pipe of any media will not make any useful work even if that reaction is exothermic.
And what is "Diesel engine companies"?
Is this commercial solution? As I doubt as ammonia present in exhaust gas means the very strong smell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_ ... _reduction

Thanks, I did not know. But it changes nothing. As initially we told about energy density that in times lower for ammonia.
NOx issue is additional.
Then you mentioned that injection of ammonia for the purpose of reduction of NOx will give more energy.
I am stating again - that will not!
Regardless to that is catalytic reduction exothermoc reaction or endothermic.

[Joseph Chikva]

Why in the world would you conceive of making ammonia for an aircraft carrier. They are nuclear powered. Jeez, dude, PLEASE try to keep up!

I thought that you in NAVY call the set of warship where is one carrier, some number of destroyers, etc. as "order".
And as I know not all from that "aircraft carrier's order" are nuclear powered.
# 6 fuel oil?