Navy plans to make jet fuel from sea water

[KitemanSA]

Electrolyzers also are very large machines, ammonia synthesis reactors, compressors also are very large
At about 30 km away from my home is fertilizer making plant occupying not less than 10 km^2
And main component there are two ammonia synthesis trains with capacity 600 t/day each.

Seems you think that these things can't be made smaller, or that somehow a large tanker vessel can't hold a lot of liquid. I suspect you are wrong on both accounts.

[Joseph Chikva]

Electrolyzers also are very large machines, ammonia synthesis reactors, compressors also are very large
At about 30 km away from my home is fertilizer making plant occupying not less than 10 km^2
And main component there are two ammonia synthesis trains with capacity 600 t/day each.

Seems you think that these things can't be made smaller, or that somehow a large tanker vessel can't hold a lot of liquid. I suspect you are wrong on both accounts.

I know that these things can be made smaller. But shown by me 90 ton per day plant also is quite large for placing even on carrier's size ship. Do you not believe?
And you did not answer on very simple question: what is daily consumption of Task Force of #6 fuel and jet fuel. Can you provide such numbers?
Please answer and then let's go on if talk about sizes.

[Joseph Chikva]

You keep babbling about injection above the stoichiometric ratios or about getting more energy with exhaust injection.

Who said: "I believe that this reaction is exothermic?"
You only believe vs. I know that you are wrong. As "exothermic" means "releasing energy" on contrary to “endothermic” meaning “absorbing energy”, but energy even released in exhaust pipe does not make useful work. So shut up yourself.
Or you can not feel difference between belief and knowledge?

[KitemanSA]

You keep babbling about injection above the stoichiometric ratios or about getting more energy with exhaust injection.

Who said: "I believe that this reaction is exothermic?"
You only believe vs. I know that you are wrong. As "exothermic" means "releasing energy" on contrary to “endothermic” meaning “absorbing energy”, but energy even released in exhaust pipe does not make useful work. So shut up yourself.
Or you can not feel difference between belief and knowledge?

So you are telling me you know the reaction NH3 + NOx = N2 + H20 is endothermic? I believe you are mistaken, but it makes no difference and I don't really care. Companies are using NH3 in deisel engines to reduce NOx emissions. That is all I said.

Re energy in the exhaust pipe making useful work, that it YOUR idea. Please don't put your crazy words into my mouth. And yes, until you can discuss my idea (not your craziness, MY idea) knowledgeably then I think you SHOULD shut up.

[Joseph Chikva]

So you are telling me you know the reaction NH3 + NOx = N2 + H20 is endothermic?

I know that it does not matter is that reaction exo or end if you execute that reaction in exhaust system. Because even that will be exo, that from exhaust pipe will not make more work, but simply will heat up an environment.

[Joseph Chikva]

Re energy in the exhaust pipe making useful work, that it YOUR idea. Please don't put your crazy words into my mouth. And yes, until you can discuss my idea (not your craziness, MY idea) knowledgeably then I think you SHOULD shut up.

If not make useful work what the matter is that exo or endo?

knowledgeably?
I am asking once again:
How much fuel needed for Task Force per day?
Then we can go on your smart idea how to place on small chear a big ass.

[Joseph Chikva]

Two questions concerning ammonia. What is the energy density compared to diesel like jet fuel? Not good if the aircraft range is cut in half.

Since the VAST majority of fuel is used by the ships, retaining HCs for flight ops would not be significant.

Dan and Kiteman, and how good is to attach to the aircraft's nozzle/nozzles such a device?

[D Tibbets]

....
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 think I see your blind spot. A nuclear powered tanker is an option, assuming the ammonia production (or CO2 capture processes ) is viable for a ship. What you fail to see is that the nuclear carrier is also a large ship. If it has enough space, it could also incorperate a production facility. In this case it serves two possible functions. It could produce fuel for it's aircraft and thus have much smaller fuel tanks. It is a tradeoff. Of course the nuclear carrier does not need liquid fuel itself, that has never been implied and I have no idea how you became fixated on this point. The second reason a nuclear carrier might produce fuel is so that it can resupply other non nuclear ships in the group. This would eliminate the need for the separate nuclear tanker. I don't know if modern nuclear carriers carry fuel for escort ships, but in WWII it was common for the carrier with it's large fuel tanks to refuel escort ships. The advantage is that the fast carrier and fast destroyer do not have to wait for the slow tanker. This would provide tactical advantages as it increases the range of the relatively short range destroyers without the penalty of the limiting slow tankers. I believe modern destroyers have much greater range than their WWII counterparts (at least in the US Navy), so the advantage of the carrier also acting as a fast tanker is minimized.

Dan Tibbets

They are VERY large ships, but they are not empty. If they had a bunch of spare volume, they would be made smaller (or filled with other combat important stuff). Also, a carrier has much stricter design and construction requirements than a tanker and are thus MUCH more expensive per ton to build and operate. Take my word, it would be much cheaper to build the capacity into a level I tanker than a level IV carrier.

Besides, with one or two separate AONs for each strike group, the escorts can detach from the group to leave the combat zone to pick up fuel and other supplies.

I grant that the nuclear oiler may have advantages over a nuclear carrier multitasking. There are a lot of variables that would need evaluation. And, you are only partially right about the size of a carrier being related to fuel storage. In a nuclear carrier issues of flight deck length and width is determined by needs for handling the aircraft. A nuclear carrier has a large steam plant and distribution system. The fuel tankage is primarily for aviation fuel. If ship fuel tankage is substituted for the aviation fuel tanks, then available space would need to be increased, everything else being equal.

The question boils down to the volume/ weight of a hydrocarbon or ammonia production facility and and it.s output rate. I have the impression that these limiting factors are far from being met, irregardless of the type of ship bearing the plant.

Note that ideally a nuclear plant in a future carrier or oiler (or destroyer) would be a P-B11 reactor with direct conversion, no needed steam plant, and electrically operated catapults, etc. This by itself would free up a lot of engineering space. A Polywell might power the destroyers and cruisers, so the need for ship fuel resupply from any source may be moot. That would leave only the need for aviation fuel. If a carrier could handle this, the carrier could operate indefinably without fuel resupply. Air combat patrols would not consume much weapons except during very hot action. Bombs and food would be the only real resupply issues.

Dan Tibbets

[Joseph Chikva]

Note that ideally a nuclear plant in a future carrier or oiler (or destroyer) would be a P-B11 reactor with direct conversion, no needed steam plant, and electrically operated catapults, etc. This by itself would free up a lot of engineering space.

One more myth. Let's first to achieve breakeven and only then at the second stage let's talk about freeing of engineering space.
Because I am afraid that namely direct energy converter would be the roomiest component in your system.
Who says that this system will compact? Kiteman?

Also
Would you like the estimation how much space will be occupied by electrolyzers producing 20 tons of hydrogen per day? I will try to provide you such number.
As I am afraid that you too do not want to hear rational arguments. As electrochemistry as a rule gives the lowest yield per volume.

[paperburn1]

Not to mention this could be used as a range extender. If your production facility is smaller than the amount it could produce in say, 30 days then a continuous production unit could keep the fleet on station longer(much to the schagrin of the crew )

[KitemanSA]

Two questions concerning ammonia. What is the energy density compared to diesel like jet fuel? Not good if the aircraft range is cut in half.

Since the VAST majority of fuel is used by the ships, retaining HCs for flight ops would not be significant.

Dan and Kiteman, and how good is to attach to the aircraft's nozzle/nozzles such a device?

None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!

[KitemanSA]

I grant that the nuclear oiler may have advantages over a nuclear carrier multitasking. There are a lot of variables that would need evaluation. And, you are only partially right about the size of a carrier being related to fuel storage. In a nuclear carrier issues of flight deck length and width is determined by needs for handling the aircraft.

True, but its draft which is also an issue is mass related.

A nuclear carrier has a large steam plant and distribution system. The fuel tankage is primarily for aviation fuel. If ship fuel tankage is substituted for the aviation fuel tanks, then available space would need to be increased, everything else being equal.

True, but what brings this up?

The question boils down to the volume/ weight of a hydrocarbon or ammonia production facility and and it.s output rate. I have the impression that these limiting factors are far from being met, irregardless of the type of ship bearing the plant.

Not sure why you say this. Assume ~10 escort ships per CSG at ~75MW per ship, the two AONs would need to produce ~1500MW power each, given efficiencies. We put that kind of power into carriers now, shock / battle hardened, instant restartable, i.e. EXPENSIVE power now.

Note that ideally a nuclear plant in a future carrier or oiler (or destroyer) would be a P-B11 reactor with direct conversion, no needed steam plant, and electrically operated catapults, etc.

AOF anyone?

Oops, forgot the ship's efficiency.

[KitemanSA]

So you are telling me you know the reaction NH3 + NOx = N2 + H20 is endothermic?

I know that it does not matter is that reaction exo or end if you execute that reaction in exhaust system. Because even that will be exo, that from exhaust pipe will not make more work, but simply will heat up an environment.

Well DUHH!!!

[KitemanSA]

Not to mention this could be used as a range extender. If your production facility is smaller than the amount it could produce in say, 30 days then a continuous production unit could keep the fleet on station longer(much to the schagrin of the crew )

The ship is out there getting refueled as needed now. The crew time on station wouldn't change.

The only question is whether the fuel will be fossil as it is now, replacement HC as the topic article suggests, or ammonia as I suggest. If we are to move from fossil; seems the simpler, more efficient path would be NH3.

[Joseph Chikva]

None, so why are you so stupid as to keep bringing it up? The only person with such crazy ideas is YOU. Shut up about it already!

And in what "idea" is crazy, my little friend?
If for lowering of NOx emission you and not me proposed to use catalytic reduction after combustion cycle quoting this method? Now you do not like embodiment of your "smart" idea? Please, propose better.

And why "shut up"? Provide number of daily fuel consumption of Task Force or shut up yourself.
As I assume that Task Force consumes hundreds and may be even thousands tons of fuel oil per day.
But sorry you need small ammonia plant, which recall that has 2 times lower heat ability.