patrick.net

I am going to buy a car that runs on aborted baby fetuses. They are an abundant source of alternative energy, and as long as acquired in a free market environment, there is nothing wrong with it. Let's not let those little losers who couldn't even pick the right parents go to waste!

TOB,

>>I stated that the problems of using basic electrolysis for water powered vehicles is well known.

The point being that the vehicle is not being powered by water, but by something else.

Much in the same way as steam engines are not powered by steam or water, per se, but rather by the substance used to heat the water into steam. Should have thought about that analogy already :-).

TOB,

I'd say that would be a lawn mower that has a reservoir of peanuts, the peanuts being the agent containing the energy that is consumed by the lawn mower engine, no other energy to be added (except for you pulling the starter cord).

Of course, for the big picture one still has to consider where the peanuts come from and what energy was used to produce them, apart from sunshine.

The big picture is of particular interest in the case where you replace peanuts in the above scenario with hydrogen, and replace peanut farming with (say) building and operating a nuclear power plant whose energy is used (one way or the other) to split H2O into H2 and O2.

:-)

Well, yeah, sort of, except re-read my post about the scientific definition of a catalyst. The catalyst is not allowed to be consumed or altered to a lower energy form....that would be cheating. Kind of like calling coal the "catalyst" of a steam plant that makes electricity. Not really correct, in fact quite wrong.

Good point about the possible negative consequences of abundant energy. I think we already have seen plenty of negative consequences (socially, sprawl) be people *thinking* that energy is abundant.

Sure, platinum is very commonly used as a catalyst. One property of platinum is that it is good for adsorbing (note: adsorb, not aBsorb) other elements on its surface, e.g. O and H). I remember this from freshman chemistry, but a real chemist can tell you lots more about this.

A catalyst can help electrolysis become more efficient (less loss in the process), but it does not remove the fundamental principle that you still have to put in more electric (or whatever) power than you get out in H2 chemical energy produced.

So, yeah, I think Genepax is complete bunk. Especially the part about claiming that the "car runs on water". Like I said, so do a steam engines and old trains, but it misses the point rather completely.

TOB and others, I found this to be a good primer on the The Chemistry of Water. They have a good section on producing Hydrogen from water.

It's Thursday, and Mountain View inventory is back up at 167. I guess we're on track after all.