Re:Making Jet Fuel From Seawater While at Sea
by danielharan on Saturday September 29, 2012 @11:26PM
(#4591853)
Asking me to imagine a system as a whole doesn't prove your argument.
Instead of the energy system, consider the cost of military supply lines. There's more than the financial cost of delivery; long supply lines are vulnerable to attack and disruption. You don't need to imagine an example: consider IEDs in Afghanistan. Many of those were trucks delivering food and fuel to bases. Efficiency (i.e. insulating tents so less fuel is needed for A/C) results in less deliveries and less deaths.
The same principle applies at sea. Oil ships are a vulnerability and another thing to plan, as well as a major cost that can be more important than the energy efficiency issues.
Re:Making Jet Fuel From Seawater While at Sea
by ta12121 on Sunday September 30, 2012 @12:03AM
(#4591918)
I missed the part where you brought the argument back to the military. Yes, it makes sense for the military, as I acknowledged in my original post. The Parent, however was claiming that electric cars for general use are made moot by this technology, which is certainly not the case.
1) uranium -> nuclear power -> expensive synthesis -> local transport -> fuel
2) uranium -> nuclear power -> transmission lines -> charging batteries
3) crude oil -> refinement -> transport -> fuel
EDIT: Found a reference from another comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process... It says that the input energy is 2-4 times the stored energy for synthesized hydrocarbon fuel.