Diligent_d

This is another interesting development. Scientist named John Kanzius has discovered how to burn Salt Water via Radio Frequencies. "The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using salt water, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel. "

Climate Change : Yahoo! Green

The race is certainly on to find the next viable replacement to our current hydro-carbon energy economy.

Diligent_d

Yep. I concur that this one is in its infancy, hardly even in the cradle yet.

But we need to hold all of these alternative fuel sources in the same light, as any one of them could free us from the destructive albotross that our current hydro-carbon dependence hangs us with. Nothing yet poses a realistic alternative to the coal/oil infrastructure we currently depend on - but we need to find one quickly and ideas like this need to be considered, no matter how potentially far-fetched.

Wheeldog

Historically, the shift from one source of energy to another was a relatively gradual process with long periods of overlap. Wood, wind and water power continued to be widely used, while coal use grew. Coal was (and still is) an important fuel long after the adoption of oil as a primary source of energy. The problem we face today is that oil production may be dropping even as we search for and attempt to develop other sources of energy. This greatly complicates an orderly shift to alternative sources of energy. Even if a viable source of energy can be developed it takes time to bring it into production and to adapt existing technologies to effectively use it. Moving from petroleum driven transportation, chemical production and industry fuel will require an effort almost beyond imagination. By the time we find and develop a magic bullet the gun may be inoperable.

dkv

You read it wrong.
It generates 3000 degree Farenheit Temperature.

Viv

The sea will not be safe from our selfishness then?

Stophammering

I still think this requires more energy than makes it useful as an energy source. I also think we should stay away from the machine that does this. Far away.

Oregon Elephant

It does take far more energy to gerenate the radiowaves then the burning creates. Anyway, the process that they're taking about is nothing new. All the machine does is use the radio waves to brake apart the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas, which are well known combustibles. The process is most effieciant useing electricity (electrolysis) instead of radio waves, and even then it still loses energy.

I'm most upset that the cancer research that this guy did were completely over looked.

Wheeldog

That is the ultimate test of viability for any source of energy. If it takes more combined energy to find, extract, refine and distribute the energy from a given source than the end product provides in return - it is a losing proposition. It also needs to be acknowleged that most companies will not invest in a given energy source unless they are certain that the return on their investment will be high enough to make it worth their while. Why put your money in producing energy that returns only 5% on the original investment, when you could get 12% from another investment?