Salt water fuel..???

[Sublimewind]

Could be an interesting next few years for this guy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo

[silver_vibe]

I cannot watch videos at work. Would you mind posting the guys name and/or the process name so I can try and find a news article on the subject?EDIT: Is it John Kanzius?

[Sublimewind]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »I cannot watch videos at work. Would you mind posting the guys name and/or the process name so I can try and find a news article on the subject?EDIT: Is it John Kanzius?That would be the man... Lemme guess, old news??

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Sublimewind »That would be the man... Lemme guess, old news?? A bit, but I still appreciate the post - keep people talking about these things.http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Joey_White

[prathman]

Yes, I like the understated comment from your link: "The only drawback is that the RF generator could be using more energy than the water produces, and that would therefore make the experiment useless."I presume his RF generator is electrolizing the water into hydrogen and oxygen which then burn to again form water. If so then the generator will definitely consume more energy than you can get out of the combustion.

[ClunkClunk]

There's no free rides when dealing with thermodynamics, unfortunately.

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by SLORegal »There's no free rides when dealing with thermodynamics, unfortunately.Maybe not, but how 'bout this: Use nuclear power to generate electricity which in turn is used to power our cars. Considering the fact that in January 2007 the total fuel costs of a nuclear power were typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.

[joatmon]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »Maybe not, but how 'bout this: Use nuclear power to generate electricity which in turn is used to power our cars. Considering the fact that in January 2007 the total fuel costs of a nuclear power were typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.I am in the evacuation zone for a nuclear power plant, and that doesn't bother me. However, one of the big obstacles to increasing nuclear power is NIMBY. Do you think where you live would be a good place to store spent fuel? I'm sure there's nobody in LA that would object

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by joatmon »I am in the evacuation zone for a nuclear power plant, and that doesn't bother me. However, one of the big obstacles to increasing nuclear power is NIMBY. Do you think where you live would be a good place to store spent fuel? I'm sure there's nobody in LA that would object Pfft! Spent fuel isn't an issue...that's why Nevada was allowed into the union, right? I know that's an issue, but there is relatively a small amount of waste compared to the amount of energy generated. I don't know what can be done with that stuff because no one wants it in their back yard. What's done with it now? Can the current process for disposing of it be scaled up if more nuclear plants are built? Rhetorical question.