Energy From Seawater - Myth or Legend?

by ScienceDave | September 17, 2007 at 08:15 am
1154 views | 2 Recommendations | 1 comment

According to Nature correspdoning editor Philip Ball, the recent 'energy from seawater' myth is more of a legend -  similar so-called miracle 'cheap energy for nearly nothing' waters have been kicking around for some time.  The problem is, this myth just won't die, and, according to Ball, likely won't for some time.


Here's an excerpt from his blog.


Disclaimer: I absolutely agree with him.

The idea, articulated with varying degrees of vagueness in news reports when they bother to think about such things at all, is that the field is somehow dissociating water into oxygen and hydrogen. Why salt should be essential to this process is far from obvious. You might think that someone would raise that question.

But no one does. No one raises any questions at all. The reports offer a testament to the awesome lack of enquiry and critical thought that makes news media everywhere quite terrifyingly defenceless against bogus science.

And it's not just the news media. There is footage of labs and people in white coats and engineers testifying how amazing the result is, and no one seems to be wondering about how this amazing phenomenon works. As a rule, it is always wise to be sceptical of people claiming great breakthroughs without the slightest indication of any intellectual curiosity on their part.

So, what's the problem? Ultimatley, you need to be able to produce more energy than you put into the reaction, ultimately breaking the fundamental laws of physical chemistry (i.e. thermodynamics).

But 'energy for free' enthusiasts
don't want to know about thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is a killjoy.
Thermodynamics is like big government or big industry, always out to
squash innovation. Thermodynamics is the enemy of the Edisonian spirit
of the backyard inventor.

Here, however (for what it is worth)
is the definitive verdict of thermodynamics: water is not a fuel. It
never has been one, and it never will be one. Water does not burn.
Water is already burnt — it is spent fuel. It is exhaust.

Oh, it feels better to have said
that, but I don't imagine for a moment that it will end these claims of
'water as fuel'. Why not? Because water is a mythical substance.
Kanzius's characterization of water as an 'element' attests to that:
yes, water is of course not a chemical element, but it will
never shake off its Aristotelian persona, because Aristotle's four
classical elements (earth, air, fire and water) accord so closely with
our experiential relationship with matter.

Kanzius isn't the first to have found such a wonderful role for water...

And then there is poor Stanley Meyer, inventor of the 'water-powered car'. Meyer just wanted to give people cheap, clean energy....In 1996 he was found guilty of
"gross and egregious fraud" by an Ohio court. He died in 1998 after
eating at a restaurant; the coroner diagnosed an aneurysm, but the
conspiracy web still suspects he was poisoned [by oil companies]...

...It's not easy to establish how
Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that
was able to split water using less energy than was released by
recombination of the elements. Dig a little deeper and you will
soon find the legendary Brown's gas — a modern chemical unicorn to
rival phlogistion — in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined in a
non-aqueous state called 'oxyhydrogen', in the same proportions in
which they are found in water (2:1). Brown's gas was allegedly used as
a vehicle fuel by its discoverer, Australian inventor Yull Brown.

recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
Peter O.

Look... I am not a scientist but I enjoy watching Star Wars and Star Trek kind of stuff; we spent billions of dollars on wars; how much have we spent on all the wars that we (U.S.A.) have fought?  trillions? How much have we given away to the F******* bankers for the bailouts? Trillions? If we took that money and invested it in trying to find a power source for the 22nd Century that would be a huge step for mankind.  And I am a libertarian mind you; lets just look at Star Trek; what kind of energy do they use to power the U.S.S. Enterprise?  Do they use coal? Oil? Fuel Cells?  Electricity?  Do they stop at Chevron space station to refuel?  Don't they use some kind of nuclear energy?  I don't know?  I am not a scientiest?  I love to read about it though; and if anybody has any foresight and wisdom and intellect to talk about nuclear energy being used in cars in a safe manner-safer than oil- then bring it on and talk about it.  Peace out.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from