When will we use salt water for fuel?

Question

We have recently found a way to burn salt water using radio waves, and turns H(2)O int HHO. About how long until we should expect to use salt water as fuel?

Answer 1

Years if not decades from now. This is a recent discovery. Now they have to study the concept to see if it can be a viable energy source. If so, then they need to design machinery/engines/vehicles that can utilize this technology. Then you have to get consumers to be willing to abandon their current method for this new method.

Answer 2

Never - this violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Note that they said that they could burn water with radio waves by breaking the hydrogen & oxygen apart. But they did NOT say that they would somehow generate more energy than they put in to the process.

They MIGHT use this as some kind of desalination process - i.e. put energy in to make H2 & O2 from un-drinkable salt water, use that energy in something like a fuel cell to convert back to fresh water & use the electricity from the fuel cell (plus a little more) to make more radio waves to restart the process.

But otherwise, they're selling a perpetual motion machine.

Answer 3

GM have a working prototype of the Hy-wire that James May drove on Top Gear a few years ago (note, not a dummied-up concept, a working prototype). It uses salt water as fuel and converts it on board.

Aside from GM, BMW, Honda (and probably others) are investing heavily in fuel-cell development. From here, product awareness and market demand are key. I'd say about 10 years, tops.

Answer 4

Well, I'm not holding my breath. Since it will take at least as much energy to generate the microwaves (actually more since nothing is 100% efficient) as you will get from burning the hydrogen produced.
The only use of this would be to produce a portable fuel using power from a stationary power plants, like nuclear, solar, wind, etc.

Answer 5

NEVER. It will never make econonic sense. There is energy lost in converting radio frequency energy, into chemical energy. It takes more RF energy than what you get back when you burn the hydrogen. Even if it were 90% efficient, which I highly doubt, does it make sense to pay $100 for electricity needed to produce $90 worth of hydrogen?

With the exception of nuclear (E = mc^2), energy can not be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed from one form into another.

Answer 6

This sounds like the standard very inefficient way of breaking down water molecules where you put in more energy than you get out, like in bio-fuels.

You might have to ask a fish to find out how to properly use salt water...

Answer 7

undemanding regulations of physics and chemistry preclude this from working. persist with the cycle: means in --> radio waves ---> water ---> hydrogen/oxgyen ---> water + means out means out can not exceed means in. The water is already "burned". Going from water --> hydrogen/oxygen and then back to water can not have a internet means output, and could actually arise short to a minimum of a few quantity. this variety of "water fuelled" despite has been around for a minimum of 30 years and likewise proves to be an impossible perpetual action device. something that runs in this effectively runs on the electric powered energy which makes the radio waves. Sorry. there is not any such element as "unfastened" means. it consistently might desire to come from a means.

Answer 8

Hmm, I don't know. -_- It's not that I'm not excited about this new technology--I am--but you know how it is....Big Oil, hell, Big Money in general, is going to find *nine kinds* of excuses to say no, and to maintain their *profitable* status quo until Peak Oil hits. They've done this with *every* form of alternative energy to hit the United States....to the point that Big Oil now *freely WASTES* compressed natural gas and petroleum gas in *burn offs* at newly drilled sites.

Not to mention....if we switched from a petroleum-based economy to a saline-fueled one this year....well, that would make a large chunk of the *world* a whole lot less relevant, now wouldn't it? ^_^ And while *I* like the sound of it, lots of other people *would not*.

But....having said all of that. I think the biggest *engineering* issue is going to be adapting to the New Emissions.

If it's a strictly hydrogen/oxygen reaction, we're all good. But....if any of the NaCl in the water breaks down, we're going to have *sodium oxides* and *hydrogen chloride* to deal with.

Now, if this use of the tech is fairly straightforward--say we're using a modified Midnight Sun "burn chamber" type of technology that uses photo-voltaics and thermocouples to convert the heat and light of the burn into electricity directly, then the emissions control remains straightforward for at least half of the problem....the sodium oxides would likely form a powder that could just be caught as it settles into the bottom of the "burn chamber".

But then we'd need some sort of filter or catalyst for the hydrogen chloride, so folks don't have to breath the acid.

It's not a big problem. ^_^ It's not even *as big* a problem as what you see with three-way catalysts for cars, having to regulate particulates, CO/CO2 emissions, and also NOX emissions as well.

But I bet Big Oil will make a *big mountain* out of this molehill.

Still....I rather hope they don't. ^_^ I rather like the idea that we've found this replacement for *petroleum as Fuel Source* well *before* Peak Oil hits.

Thanks for your time....and good luck in your endeavors! ^_^

Answer 9

"The skeptics who will agree that it is possible to burn salt water - and there are plenty who won't even go that far - argue that at best the energy required to burn it would be greater than the energy produced by burning it.

Kanzius admits that is the case now in this very early stage of development."


it's never going to be feasable in other words, this is just another sham, it takes more energy to split water than burning H2 + O2 yields

Answer 10

When the present fossil fuels start drying up.