Burn Saltwater for Fuel!

[kailhofer]

I saw this and I couldn't believe it. If true, w o w ! !

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1570

Nate

[kailhofer]

... The catch is, you have to continuously apply RF energy to trigger the electrolytic reaction. So ... can it ever make sense to USE energy to release a flammable gas (hydrogen) as an energy source? It seems a bit like having a mink farm where you use the flesh of the skinned minks to feed the next generation of minks -- it ain't 100% efficient, so eventually you wind up with less than you started with. Now, arguably, if the energy to generate the RF is derived from some otherwise untapped source (wave power -- hey, if you're using salt water, you are most likely near the ocean; wind; solar; geothermal (locate a plant near a high-temperature vent in the ocean floor?); thermocouple (exploiting the temperature difference between surface and deep water) ...), it might still be worth it.

(Advantages of hydrogen: burning it produces only water vapor, and since you are starting with hydrogen FROM water, this shouldn't be a problem. Disadvantages: volatile and difficult to store, suggesting that it should be burned near the point of generation to minimize losses and risk. So ... seagoing platforms (like offshore oil rigs, but without the need for drilling) using wave / solar / etc. energy to extract hydrogen, then burning said H[sub]2[/sub] to generate electricity; energy stored in batteries or transmitted as microwaves?)

RM

I don't know. I guess the real question would be whether or not the burning gives off more energy than it takes to make the radio frequencies that make the reaction possible. If so, it would be usable as fuel.

Also, I don't buy that you'd need to be by the coast. Not sure how it is in Canada, but very little oil comes from inside the US. It's shipped or piped across the border, then distributed from there. Saltwater could easily work the same way.

Nate

[Robert_Moriyama]

I don't know. I guess the real question would be whether or not the burning gives off more energy than it takes to make the radio frequencies that make the reaction possible. If so, it would be usable as fuel.

Also, I don't buy that you'd need to be by the coast. Not sure how it is in Canada, but very little oil comes from inside the US. It's shipped or piped across the border, then distributed from there. Saltwater could easily work the same way.

Nate

(1) No process is 100% efficient. So you can't get out more than you put in ("cold fusion" claims notwithstanding); you are lucky if you come close. (In the case of fossil fuels, consider the energy expended to extract, refine, and transport it.)
(2) See (1). Moving large volumes of seawater would not be "free". And the hydrogen content of seawater would by definition be a fraction of its total mass (it being H[sub]2[/sub]O, sure, but hydrogen atoms are much lighter than oxygen atoms (viz. the periodic table), and THEN there's all that salt (sodium, potassium, etc., etc., plus chlorine)). Much of the mass would be dead weight, and corrosive dead weight at that, so again, the energy derived would likely be exceeded by the energy used.* 'Sides, it would be silly to pipe huge quantities of water over extremely long distances (viz. the trailer for "Resident Evil: Extinction" to see what happens when you STOP piping water into Las Vegas...).

(*As compared to oil, anyway.)

Any chemists / engineers care to comment?

RM

[kailhofer]

out more (1) No process is 100% efficient. So you can't get out more than you put in ("cold fusion" claims notwithstanding); you are lucky if you come close. (In the case of fossil fuels, consider the energy expended to extract, refine, and transport it.)
(2) See (1). Moving large volumes of seawater would not be "free". And the hydrogen content of seawater would by definition be a fraction of its total mass (it being H[sub]2[/sub]O, sure, but hydrogen atoms are much lighter than oxygen atoms (viz. the periodic table), and THEN there's all that salt (sodium, potassium, etc., etc., plus chlorine)). Much of the mass would be dead weight, and corrosive dead weight at that, so again, the energy derived would likely be exceeded by the energy used.* 'Sides, it would be silly to pipe huge quantities of water over extremely long distances (viz. the trailer for "Resident Evil: Extinction" to see what happens when you STOP piping water into Las Vegas...).

(*As compared to oil, anyway.)

Any chemists / engineers care to comment?

RM

I'm not looking for some Hippie perpetual motion machine. I'm not thinking it would be free energy for everyone. I'm hoping for something that could be used as a viable fuel that you can get into your car at less cost than gas.

Today's cars with very little modification can burn hydrogen or other gasses. I don't care if I can't get way less miles to the gallon if it costs way less, too. I don't understand the process enough to say if it would even work or not, but I hope so.

Maybe it would only be good for heating boilers in buildings or something like that--but there's got to be a good use for this. Perhaps it could be combined with some of the other alternative energy solutions people figured out for hybrid cars (like generators that gather extra energy gained when cars roll down hills) to add energy to the equation.

As for pipelines, do you realize how far people pump oil now? Crude oil is also highly corrosive, BTW.

Nate

[Robert_Moriyama]

(Sigh) I didn't say you thought it would be "free". My point was that transporting salt water long distances would COST energy, increasing the eventual total cost of the hydrogen extracted from it. Transporting oil long distances is intrinsically wasteful and risky, too, particularly since leaks in the pipeline / spills from ships and trucks cause significant environmental damage, and the energy required to pump or carry it should (but usually isn't) considered (except by the energy companies, who jack up prices for any (or no) excuse that comes to mind). I just think that we should try to avoid repeating mistakes of the past. You would not need a huge refinery complex to run this process, so distributing the platforms / plants to be closer to the eventual users would make sense, and locating them on or in the fuel supply would eliminate a lot of transportation cost.

(Of course, the ecological effects of having large numbers of these platforms / plants sucking up seawater would probably turn out to be different and worse than we can anticipate. These things always end up biting you in the ass one way or another.)

RM