4 ms·

Didn't Google X try out something similar, and then decided it was uneconomical? https://x.company/projects/foghorn/ https://x.company/projects/foghorn/

• nradov 5y ago
  The US Navy continues to research similar technology for manufacturing synthetic kerosene out of sea water onboard aircraft carriers. They aren't too concerned about economics. Their goal is to reduce the amount of jet fuel they have to haul around.
  • mbesto 5y ago
    > Their goal is to reduce the amount of jet fuel they have to haul around. Which has economic consequences :)
    • nradov 5y ago
      No it's more about survivability. Tankers are a vulnerable part of the logistic train. And storing large amounts of fuel is a fire risk.
      • mbesto 5y ago
        Ok let's get pedantic. Not having to store fuel means: - I have to spend less money on logistics because I don't have to put out fires, I don't have to train people to put out fires, I don't have to hire people, etc. etc. - Less fuel needed to be held means more working capital needed for energy consumption, less time to fuel up. - Less fire risk means I have to allocate less money for risk based allocations (insurance, hospitalization for people getting burnt, emergency planning and services required to deal with fires, etc.) - Less fuel means the cost to create an aircraft carrier is much less - A smaller fuel tank required means a smaller overall aircraft carrier, which means I spend less - etc etc. This is by all means an economic decision.
        • nradov 5y ago
          No that's nonsense. The ships will still have all the same fire fighting equipment and they will continue the same damage control training for crews. If this fuel synthesis technology is built into future aircraft carriers then they won't be any smaller or cheaper. The large size is a requirement to maintain high sortie rates and handle rough seas, and reducing the size wouldn't significantly reduce costs (steel is cheap). If anything they will be more expensive due to the complex machinery and increased power generation requirements.
          • mbesto 5y ago
            The suggestion that there isn't some powerpoint presentation that the US Navy created (or consultants to them) that says "if we invest $X millions/billions to create smaller fuel jet fuel tanks we won't save money" is total nonsense. That's not how capital intensive government projects work.
            • mbesto 5y ago
              Couldn't edit my original but I finally had some time to google this: > The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is the single-largest consumer of fuel in the world and Jet fuel accounts for 71% of the entire military’s petroleum consumption. Therefore, DoD needs to maintain a strong logistical support to provide jet fuel for its equipment across the world. https://patentyogi.com/aircraft/us-navy-plans-produce-jet-fuel-seawater-board-aircraft-carriers/ https://patentyogi.com/aircraft/us-navy-plans-produce-jet-fu...
              • s1artibartfast 5y ago
                That doesn't mean that synthetic is a cost savings measure. The DOD could be interested in it purely for the tactical and strategic advantage. For example, it could cost 2X when everything is taken into account, but still be attractive because it provides a type of combat advantage that can not be obtained in any other way. Not everything is fungible.
  • TeMPOraL 5y ago
    It helps having more power onboard than they know what to do with, thanks to a handy nuclear reactor.
• rmcginnis 5y ago
  Project Foghorn was technically successful but couldn't hit the economics. The tech lead on that project is now a scientific advisor for Prometheus - Matt Eisaman