Not in the US fleet. Ours have been all nuclear for a while. There are many internationally.
Sometimes an argument for US diesel-electric (or other non nuclear) subs comes along. However, it doesn't last long with a four star navy nuclear advocate, and his very competent staff.

I thought some of the big destroyers were nuke. Maybe I just assumed...

You can bet that if doesn't take down big oil as predicted, the libs will find a reason to oppose...perhaps marine life is sacrificed in the making of the energy...that won't fit their modus operandi.

...and: C: "Fossil fuels" are the same stuff that the Navy has created from water and CO2. I can't help but think that the Navy has actually discovered that the earth actually makes hydrocarbons and that they aren't "fossil fuels" at all.
This would eventually be the rough equivalent of Galt's transformer and would make cheap motive power available to all: FOREVER.
Now ... Watch Washington shut this down ...

All subs are nuclear. Only aircraft carriers are nuclear. No other US surface ships are nuclear now. All CGNs are decommissioned. Surface combatants, largely DDG51s are large, terrible consumers of fuel. Their efficiency over the operational tempo is just awful.

search keywords "gore elk hills oil reserve occidental" is the writer is really that ignorant of recent ( Clinton/Gore era) history, or more likely spewing agitpropaganda for the low info koolaid drinkers.
I don't buy the CO2 greenhouse gas model ( other than a social engineering meme) but Instead of all the hysteria, a more rational focus would be growing more trees, both N & S Americas have a lot less CO2 /O2 converters than they used to.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed...by endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken

If you couldn't tell, it's the ideological bent of the author that calls into question the objectivity of the entire article. I've been reading about this for several years, and while it is an interesting concept, it is limited in its economic impact. It certainly isn't going to be single-handedly repowering the Navy - no matter what one tree-hugger thinks.

B and C aren't that far apart, are they? It's like comparing Dr. Robert Stadler to Dr. Floyd Ferris, don't you think.

The author doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that democrats are paid off by "big oil" and other "dirty fuel" companies just as much as their republican counterparts.

I think this is a very clever idea. And could save money on fuel and effort for the navy, especially during deployments or activities where refuelling may not be readily available. The theory on the energy from sea water is not that young. I remember reading some papers on it many years ago. And south land tales displayed a huge generator pulling ocean water for electricity for Los Angeles. So it's not a new concept! But it's great to see it being applied effectively :)

I'm not against oil or fossil fuels. I'm not against "green energy". I just don't think the USA should put all eggs in one basket and definitely shouldn't get rid of cheap effective energy creation, like with coal. But I think the USA should be more energy independent and make their own energy! We have all the resources, we are just being blocked at every level! Alternative sources are good, I'm addition to the main sources!
Good for the navy!

HOLY COW!!!

While this is interesting the writer of the article does not seem to be as good at math as they are at bashing republicans. This technology will work fine on a carrier that needs lots of jet fuel but would find getting it from a tanker inconvenient and expensive. Due to transport costs a gallon of jet fuel on a carrier is way more expensive that it is on land. But, thanks to the carriers having their own nuke reactors on board the cost of electricity is pretty low. So, they can use the excess electricity to do something fairly wasteful like cracking water. Cracking water is normally a pretty energy expensive activity. But, when you are out in the ocean the equation changes enough that the cost to crack the water is less important that having the jet fuel you need here and now, So, while this totally works out in the ocean on a carrier to make it make sense on land would first require us to have a way to crack water for dirt cheap. That means we either need solar arrays that are an order of magnitude better than we have now, or using nuke power to crack the water. Coal and Natural gas cannot get the price per kilowatt hour down enough to make it worth the trouble. Even Nuke Light Water Reactors would make the process to expensive. But, with next gen nuke plants being able to produce kilowatts for less than coal then, it would make sense to use them to crack water and produce fuel since it could then be done for cheap..

Imagine, making a "profit" - how dare they!

Read this from the article:
"I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this."

No sign of partisanship there...right?

I completely ignored the ideological bias. The concept is pretty intriguing. I agree several class of ship have their own reactors which negates the need for this type of power. But for those that don't this would work. I suspect the authors push stems from his leftist eco-wacko "no nuke" vision.

Navy ships use a heck of a lot of fuel and that could offset demand.

Unless I am mistaken the process requires more energy than contained in the fuel created, so it is fine for the military where having the fuel in the middle of the ocean in a wartime setting is extremely valuable, but much less valuable in a civilian peaceful setting. Perhaps someday it will be developed to a better than breakeven level, but it has to compete with cheap gas and cheap coal that are (arguably in the case of gas) plentiful.
Coal is currently considered dirty but new tech could be imminent to make coal emissions comparable to natgas in power plants.

I've been reading about this for quite some time on military.com.