And the gas and oil companies will crush this over night.. LOL.

How was the convertor powered and at what efficiency? What can be done and what is practical are two very different things.

Fascinating, but how does the value of the inputs compare to the value of the outputs ?

i don't understand. If i do electrolysis on water i can get hydrogen and run something off of that. of course the energy input is greater than the output. what is different about this? terrible reporting to not clarify this obvious question.

Did they really make all the fuel including the lubricant as it was a two stroke ?
This does have uses even if it is not efficient energy wise. The example given is for an aircraft carrier with some of these being nuclear powered and this would mean they do not need to visit a port or tanker for aircraft fuel. Would also be useful when providing fuel after a disaster in remote locations.

It's a starting point, boys.

This story is not about a new source of energy - it's about producing jet fuel at a price cheap enough for the US Navy to seriously consider this method. Projected costs are up to 6 US dollars per gallon I believe. It works out cheaper and more convenient than relying on fuel resupply via tankers when out at sea.
Also, there is no electrolysis involved - it is a series of chemical reactions designed to produce various hydrocarbons, using as a starting point CO2 and H2.

As mentioned by nearly all the above, the projected EROEI figures for the final system are key. If we could build these plants near old mine workings, we might be able to use carbon capture and storage to keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere and thus stop it adding to global warming and ocean acidification. In fact, widespread deployment of this technology could assist in combating both.

This is a good tech for the Nuclear Navy. It would allow them to operate with fewer tenders and vastly lower logistics exepnses.
As to the expense question: I've never seen a figure for jet fuel, but in a generator story they quoted $400/gallon of diesel delivered to theater. If jet fuel on a carrier is anywhere near that price this thing could be inefficient and expensive and still cost less.
Reading the comapny website they state: "The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years."
So there is the answer on cost. If this can produce fuel on board the carrier then it will without a doubt save millions and improve logistics.

what does this have to do with anything that flies?
it takes a whole chemistry lab to make this fuel
plus who knows how much water it took to get these 18 drops of gas
wle