navy

The Navy is Using WHAT for Fuel?!

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.



–The Navy converts seawater to fuel.

–On the Bonus Show: David talks about the behind-the-scenes of the last 24 hours and previews the following week.

Website:
Become a Member:
Be our Patron on Patreon:
Discuss This on Reddit:
Facebook:
Twitter:
TDPS Gear:
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more:

Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon:

Broadcast on April 14, 2014 David’s Instagram: –Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

–Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

–Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

–Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj

–Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930

–Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

You Might Also Like

47 Comments

  • Reply
    Pawadin
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Ok i know this is a year old but even then it was old news unless you were into science, this is similar to a Hydrogen fuel cell which uses water splits the oxygen burns it and out of the exhaust goes hydrogen which upon contact with oxygen again becomes H2O(Water) steam without impurities and bacteria , imagine that if you are thirsty your car is a water purifier you can drink straight from the exhaust (you have to cool it off first tho). The problem is engineering and manufacture/materials cost its expensive and it needs electricity to run the cell.

  • Reply
    hatzonme
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Dont quit your day job

  • Reply
    navy57
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Most of you people don't have a clue. This is typical of the "research" that gets conducted all over the world, such as the stunning discovery decades ago that Frisbees aren't up to carrying payloads.  Your instant rapture (" An example of non fossil fuel energy in use NOW!") shows how ignorant of reality you are. Your faux conspiratorial obsession with the idea that "they" ( meaning"Big Oil") are calling the tune and hiding this "discovery" from us is simply ludicrous. 

  • Reply
    hi9580
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    with energy you always put in more then you get out that's just how our universe allows it

  • Reply
    koningkont
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Imthe just go on H2 there ate cars that run on this

  • Reply
    strongforce79
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    This tech will never see the light of day, DRILL BABY DRILL

  • Reply
    Jeremy Higgins
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Just a quick note, David "Cation" is pronounced "Cat – eye – on", not "Kay – shun".

  • Reply
    Drew Carrier
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    People have already driven cars on hydrogen, the space shuttle uses liquid oxygen and hydrogen

  • Reply
    Ty Brady
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    It takes more energy to create this energy than there is energy in the end product. They are using excess energy from the nuclear reactors. It's good for the Navy though, just means less weight and storage space for the boat to carry, and fewer refueling stops.

  • Reply
    theyarecomingforyou
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I'm highly sceptical, as if it was 'free' energy there wouldn't be a cost per gallon to producing it. I suspect this will simply be an alternative method for storing energy – that is it requires energy to convert seawater into usable fuel. Many US Navy ships have nuclear generators and it would be useful to convert that energy into another form for use in smaller vehicles (i.e. drones, etc).

  • Reply
    Alexi Bosconovich
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    … Suddenly it all makes sense!

    1) Use fossil fuels long enough to create climate change
    2) Wait for water levels to rise
    3) Harness newly risen water levels, to create new fuel
    4) Sell new fuel!
    5) ??????
    6) Die to natural disasters created by climate change.
    6.5) Wonder who the hell decided on this plan to begin with, as the earth rains unholy death upon what remains of the human race.

  • Reply
    niriop
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    The idea that Big Oil can have so much power is laughable.

    Even if oil drilling, extraction, refinery and distribution at its most extensive constituted some 5% of the global economy, that's still 95% of the rest of the economy to turn against oil and say: Fuck you, we want this new source of energy to power our products.

    No one industry is all powerful…

  • Reply
    Thurgor Supreme
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Yup. This technology has been around for a while now. We could've opened up power plants on both coasts and supplied electricity to a substantial population of the country. This would make CO2 levels static by taking it out of the oceans and then allowing the water to re-absorb CO2 from the air, and then rinse and repeat. Basically, any CO2 this process emits is recycled on a global scale. And what this essentially means is that any other form of energy we utilize that DOESN'T emit CO2 would indirectly reduce CO2 levels (solar, wind, nuclear, etc).

    With all the green energy and save the planet talk, it kind of boggles my mind that nobody has a huge boner for this technology.

  • Reply
    DarkWater4Eva
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I wonder what's the by product or exhaust/waste from this process. It would suck to use all ocean for fuel so much that sea levels diminish

  • Reply
    Radix Malorum
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Don't worry this tech will be killed off by the overpowered oil lobby and we'll never hear of this again.

  • Reply
    Rathelm MC
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    As cool as it is, it's not a fuel source. They say it takes twice as much energy than they get out. So it's a mechanism to turn electricity into jet fuel by means of the nuclear reactors on our large carriers.

  • Reply
    Henbot
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Is this fake? Have you clarified it? It would be great but really we need to learn a way to turn Carbon Dioxide into fuel source rather than a by product.

  • Reply
    TheDajamster
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    It's so fun to watch you try to talk about technology.
    On a serious note, I really hope there's a push to make this public knowledge.

  • Reply
    Anthony Danisi
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    cation= CAT + ION

  • Reply
    tony12345pl
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Takes the Carbon we burned that sunk into ocean and now being put back in air

  • Reply
    LouistheHedgehog
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    $3 to $6 per gallon? I don't think this is a viable alternative.

    Besides, I thought this would be about cold fusion.

  • Reply
    Adipatus
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I'll take this cum granum saltis since science is not your forte.

  • Reply
    Greasyspleen
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    At 92% efficiency it's merely a fuel source, not an energy source.  More energy is expended producing the fuel than is produced by burning it.  So it's not a replacement for the fossil fuel in your car.  The navy is happy to have this technology because it means they can fuel their diesel powered ships in combat when their fuel supply lines are stretched or cut off.

  • Reply
    EgadsNo
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

         This really gets my goat.  Yes David the corporatist media and even the corporate bitch entity known as the US govt worked hard on subverting this technology.  Its called 40 years ago and the history of nuclear power.

         Oh so cool another way to make hydrocarbons, you know those things that WHO announced was responsible for 1 out 8 deaths on this planet now.  Ozone and particulate matter as result of combustion of "fossil" fuels.  The same thing MIT last year announced will cut short the lives of 2 million Americans that year.  Yea more deaths every year then the entire history of nuclear power which is still providing 20% of our power hungry demand.

         There are black sand beeches that naturally are as radioactively hot as the exclusion zone of fukushima currently.  Life is thriving at Chernobyl- scientists walk around without respirators in plain clothes.  Meanwhile the ecosystem is still recoiling and facing huge problems from the Exxon Valdez.   The US went on a mad dash to buy up and subsidize photovoltaics in a deal with China- because the chinese government does not care about how they refine the rare Earths used in the production of photovoltaics.  They are more then happy poison billions directly and the food and water supply of billions more that will continue for generations from the meager push for "green" energy provided.   Wind is not as green as you think either when it uses a hundred times as much steel and concrete and thousands of times as much space in watt for watt production.  They are also doing a number on several species of rare birds, while not living up to expectations.

         David you responded to this new technology saying it would get better, what makes you think ancient first generation nuclear power plants that still run today have no room for improvement?   You want to talk about energy independence- were you aware that when we removed "waste" from a fast breeder reactor in the US we have extracted 3% of the usable energy.   That the reason the waste is still radioactive is because it contains 97% of the usable energy left over and the more you use it up- the less radioactive it becomes?    We never designed the plants to facilitate the lower temperature waste from fast breeder reactors- even though that is what the scientists wanted.  The govt got its bombs and then setup a bunch of regulation which handed over to GE a sweetheart deal being the monopoly provider of fuel rods so we can go back to being slaves to big oil.  GE got the fuel rod monopoly and to continue making generation equipment for fossil fuel power plants.

  • Reply
    Caged
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    we've pumped enough gas & oil into the oceans that it makes sense.

  • Reply
    srgwarcock
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Those cunts! I don't even know why I'm mad, but I'm pretty sure this technology isn't going to do shit for the rest of us, thus making us reliant on oil for another couple of decades.

  • Reply
    whatsuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Can this work in cars

  • Reply
    Vashu627
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    This only works because of all the oil BP spilled into the ocean. :p

    Nah, but if they really did try to turn sea water into fuel on a large scale, you could expect the oceans to dry up within 100 years or so.

  • Reply
    Shirt-Guy
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    What do they do with the salt and other contaminants from the ocean water?  

  • Reply
    dav3fk
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    It's amazing that the oil companies let the navy do this research.

    And it's amazing research. It could do much to end some of the nastiest international interactions.

  • Reply
    Ōkami-san
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I'd like to know more about this process – how much energy is used in making the catalytic converter? How much "energy" is there in water? Why does it have to be 'sea water' it seems like any water would do given there's no mention of the salts Na and Cl.

  • Reply
    15hmael
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    David, this is not a new source of energy. Albeit a great innovation, it is merely a conversion of one type of energy ( that is not easily transportable) to another (that is.) The real news is the Navy and  the rest of the  U.S.Armed Forces know  and  probably have known for awhile that the gig is up, and that this is not front page news. 

  • Reply
    Shangori
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I'll be the asshole…: They use energy.. to make fuel.. to use for energy..

    Now, the last time I checked it's relatively impossible to get more energy from a system than you put into. Just, you know, conservation of energy. 

    Now the resulting fuel IS NOT simply h2 gas. It's actually a carbonhydrogen chain – jetfuel 😛 So, I'm afraid you use more (nucleair) energy then you put in … to make a fuel by taking out CO2 from seawater … that in the end will just get burned where the CO2 disappears into the air.

    I'm sorry, but the only plus side to this, in my opinion, is that you take away the supply chain in those aircraftcarriers. And really nothing more. It might possibly create a way to get zero carbon emission, if you initially use several other clean energy sources to 'store' their energy in this type of fuel. But the input will ALWAYS be more than the output.

    So, pakman, it's more a small yay, instead of a big yay. Now if they could use this to actually get H2 and CO2 separately, then we're in business. 

  • Reply
    Schweí Übersteigen
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

     And you know damn well FOX will twist this amazing ecological breakthrough into being "Anti Corporate America" or some such shit! And "Obama should be impeached because of it for some reason!"…

  • Reply
    Jack Cogswell
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I wouldn't be surprised if we heard no more about it. The fuel gods on Wall st. think nothing of destroying the earth's crust and atmosphere by fracking for dollars. The return is good and who cares as long as the money keeps coming. I think David made a good point. New tech for seawater fuel and already it's touching $3 per gallon. As the tech develops the cost will drop. This makes it [the tech] a hard sell on Wall st. It can't possibly satisfy their greed.

  • Reply
    Francis Watts
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Research "Stanley Meyers"

  • Reply
    Neil F
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    oh but this report is nonsense.  They convert seawater into hydrogen and oxygen, and use those as fuel.  I think this is demonstrated in every highschool science lab in the world….electrolysis.  It takes more electrical energy to do so, then the products produce.  In this case they do it, so they can stay out at sea longer, without having to dock for refuel.

  • Reply
    Neil F
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Its ironic the right thinks climate change is fake, but love the military.  The military does believe in climate change and spends billions a year to address future challenges. 

  • Reply
    Rainbowhawk1993
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    I learned about this a few days ago and I now have hope for the future of energy.

  • Reply
    Premier Rik Latyeskov
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    HOLY SHIT

  • Reply
    jergification
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    When the hydrocarbons burn again, it will go back to CO2 right? How does this solve anything?

  • Reply
    Nyx & Hemera
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Jules Verne saw this coming!

  • Reply
    MilitantAntiTheist
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    There's a video I ran across several years ago about some kid who invented a solar panel that produced several times more energy than the standard solar panels being used, but I knew right then nothing would come of it.

  • Reply
    Geary
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    This isn't actually accurate. What's going on is that aircraft carriers and larger battleships use their reactors to convert water into hydrocarbons. The process is extremely inefficient and expensive, and the military is only looking into it because it allows our fleets to stay independent of nations they're anchored near for longer windows of time.

  • Reply
    BramSLI1
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    This is awesome news!

  • Reply
    John Phoon
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    'Cation' is pronounced cat-ion.

  • Reply
    kurtilein3
    November 12, 2017 at 4:36 am

    i have to say, you botched the story by making it sound as if it would produce energy. you left out one side of the equation, and that is the energy consumed by the process. this makes no sense for any ship that is powered by hydrocarbons. it only makes nuclear powered ships more independent. and the price per gallon only makes sense if you assume that energy is free.

    if you do not have any nuclear powered ships, this technology is worthless for you. and if you have a nuclear powered ship that runs on electricity, this technology is still worthless for you. but aircraft carriers still need liquid hydrocarbon fuel for their aircrafts. so if you have a nuclear powered ship that still requires some hydrocarbons to be fully functional, you can now celebrate.

  • Leave a Reply