So there is no doubt that it works. It was abandoned after the war only because it was more expensive than extracted petroleum.
Almost a century later after its invention, it should be possible to have better efficiencies than in the past.
So there is no doubt that it works. It was abandoned after the war only because it was more expensive than extracted petroleum.
Almost a century later after its invention, it should be possible to have better efficiencies than in the past.
https://www.sasol.com/media-centre/media-releases/sasol-prod...
For the Air Force, their particular need is to avoid billions of dollars in contractor expense for reliably supplying fuel to remote bases in hostile territory.
synthesizing fuel also means nuclear powered aircraft carriers would be vastly more self sufficient
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft-carriers...
- Maybe in the future they could use fusion reactors for power, synthesizing Deuterium and/or Tritium to enhance their endurance (maybe indefinitely?)
- make the carrier (with minimal crew) and the planes into drones (AFAIK already in research/testing) since even if the material could be at sea forever the people could not endure and also many probably wouldn't sign up for such a job
My understanding is the submarines have been doing that for a very, very long time. No challenge there.
Here's a random article from 2008 saying "decades": https://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/nuclear-desalinati...
20 million barrels of oil would be worth about $1.6 billion dollars. So the military would be spending about $580 billion a year on fuel. Or 3/4th its budget.
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicator/world_crude_oil_production