The goal was to "capture" CO2 from the air by operating a converter powered by hydrogen that was broken out of seawater molecules. It was operated at a 92% efficiency, which is pretty good for any machine. But that 92% was the rating for the energy conversion of hydrogen to fuel. I did not see the rating for breaking the hydrogen from seawater - a process that has been historically very energy inefficient. In essence they are looking for a chemical perpetual motion machine. While I'd applaud their efforts, you cant fool mother nature, there is no free lunch. And there is no such thing as free fuel. Energy in one form can only be produced at the cost of energy in another form. We have searched for a form of energy that provided higher output than the input costs for decades - and there is a reason we haven't found one. I don't think the good doctor would seek to deceive us, BUT again I say there is no free lunch.

Posted last week: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...

Of course it requires more energy to do it than is in the fuel created. It may be an important strategic development for the Navy, but not an economic fuel source outside that narrow use.

A new fuel source for the engine of the world. Humanity always provides hope.