Re: Electrolysis is not always ludicrous...

[Mike McWilliams]

Don W. wrote:
> "charliew2" <charliew2@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:11do553ed9lfobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > "Don Lancaster" <don@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:3jq52pFqg3jrU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > Peter Lowrie wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Mike
> > > >
> > > > ...Is this to say that sugar contains Hydrogen, how would one go about
> > > > extracting Hydrogen from sugar?
> > >
> > > The energy required to extact the hydrogen would vastly exceed that of
>
> the
>
> > > recovered hydrogen.
> >
> > Not so, Don.  You would burn the synthetic fuel to release its energy.
>
> If
>
> > you used atmospheric CO2 in this process (i.e., there is a strong
>
> inference
>
> > above that the new process would duplicate the way that plants sequester
> > atmospheric CO2), there would be no net fossil carbon emissions to the
> > environment.
>
>
> You're a smart fellow -- where the heck are you coming from here?  The
> energy contained in sugar comes both from hydrogen and carbon.  Converting
> energy from one form to another results in some heat losses.  So how can
> you end up with anything close to the energy you started with if you
> extract hydrogen from sugar?  What do you mean by "burn the synthetic fuel
> to release its energy"?
>
> Don W.

The point is you never end up with as much as you started, but something 
which follows the way nature does it in my opinion has a higher chance 
of success where all methods so far have proven to be expensive. Natural 
systems have been using the sun as the dominant energy source for eons, 
I would suspect that evolution has come up with some fairly decent 
efficiencies, which intelligent humans can hopefully improve on. What I 
am hoping for is a manufactured method which imitates natural methods, 
such that the energy produced doesn't have to go toward reproduction as 
in living systems.