Someone said "Almost certainly this is an energetic dead end; you don't get something for nothing in this universe,
I have read a great many post that seem to all say what was said here. but, I have to ask,
Is burning coal or oil or putting gas into your car any different? you put way more oil into the process of generating electricity for commercial use than you get out,,, but the grid needs electricity and yes it costs allot to produce it. If we spend allot to produce it by burning sea water rather than oil then we will be closer to breaking our dependency on foreign oil. this seems like a good idea to me. Who said that this discovery was "free energy" anyway? Why are so many people putting it down because it is not "free energy? It seems to me that it will beat burning oil all to pieces. Of course it's not Free but with some refinement it may well turn out to be cost effective when you factor in oil dependency. Look at all of the money put into extracting, transporting and refining oil and coal.
Not necessilarily true. The energy return for gasoline is over 600% (meaning it only requires about 15% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline to pump crude out of the ground, refine it, ship it to the gas station, store it, and dispense it to your car's gas tank). Good ol' mother nature already stored the energy for us millions of years ago (or 6,480 years ago, if you are a creationist fundamentalist...
) We just dig it up, dust it off (refine it) and burn it.
Coal is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. Electrical production costs less than $0.02/kw-hr from coal, even the lastest and most expensive scrubbed coal electrical production plants. Nuclear is a bit more expensive, wind is closer to $0.10/kw-hr, solar maybe as high as $0.40/kw-hr. The amount of energy it takes to mine coal is miniscule compared to the kw-hr we get from burning a ton (2000 lbs) of it. Estimates are that it takes the equivalent of burning about 68 lbs of coal to obtain a ton of it - and we have plenty of it. Hundreds of years of it, in fact, even at our current and projected future ELECTRICAL energy demands.
The question of proven oil reserves is really a matter of access. Even at $150/barrel, crude is STILL cheaper to buy from mideast, offshore drilling, etc., but when it gets to be around $200/barrel, and gasoline approaches $8-$9/gallon... well THEN that's a different story. US Oil shale and the Canadian tar sands have enough proven oil reserves to supply North America alone for well over 150 years - more than the proven stores of mideast oil. It simply isn't economical to do so, because gasoline is so cheap due to cheap mideast oil.
Make no mistake, OPEC knows this. That's why they just decided to start producing more oil - exactly to keep the price per barrel down. WHY? b/c when it gets REALLY expensive, we'll turn to the more difficult but self-sustainable reserves available on our continent, and show them the middle finger. Then they'll go selling the oil to China and India.
In fact, that is exactly why we continue to be dependent on oil - it is simply the cheapest way out of the situation, global warming bs be damned.
So - back to the "discovery", "experiment" or whatever it is. So, this guy has found a way to take 200 watts, and create heat energy. What exactly does he plan on doing with this heat energy?
If you use it to take it through the rankine cycle and turn a turbine, you put in 200 watts of electrical energy in the form of radio waves, and convert it into a whopping 55 watts of electrical energy.... sounds like how you make a million dollars in racing - you first start with FIVE million.....