Electrogravitics: the REAL Reason It Went Into Black Ops, page 3

Stan Myers was Murdered

There's a tad bit of a problem with his invention. Water is the end product of the chemical reaction that takes place inside of the Proton Exchange Membrane ("fuel cell"). Splitting them up requires energy input. A PEM can be run in reverse - by applying a voltage potential across its terminals, it will separate hydrogen and oxygen from water (or, otherwise, reverse the combustion process of other compounds). These can then, later, be recombined to generate power.

Thus - a closed-loop system can be developed that works much like a battery.

The problem is that the initial power to separate the hydrogen and oxygen must come from some other source. Water is a very stable compound because both hydrogen and oxygen are among the most chemically reactive elements (the electronegativity of oxygen only to be exceeded by chlorine). In short - the bond forms to release huge amounts of energy, and it takes a very large amount of energy to separate the two (at least equal to the amount of energy released from their combustion).

I have literally hundreds more I could post. These show that we could be completely energy independent for practically nothing.

No, not really.

Take your geothermal example. Hardly viable for a large-scale power generating environment. You can produce enough power to run a house off of it, sure. Maybe a couple houses, depending upon how they are designed and how much energy you spend on climate control.

But what about an apartment complex that supplies the power needs of a few hundred individuals? The amount of body-heat that must be regulated in warm regions (pumped out of the building) is immense. Let alone powering lights, refrigeration units, cooking devices, and electronics.

Sure - it is something I would consider doing if I were building my own survivalist-inspired mansion (built to withstand the collapse of society). I'm a paranoid little bugger, and will never cease digging caverns through the mountains it will be built in.

But we're talking for the average person... and what can be done is not necessarily what is effective to be done.

Solar panels are in the same boat. They have a very high overhead investment and require complex power regulation systems. They are -way- out-of-reach for the average person. Upper middle class can, perhaps, justify the costs of installing a quality photovoltaic system - but the reality is that most homes are not designed to be all that energy efficient. We build homes above ground, where the temperature is often at one extreme of our tolerance or the other. Much of the power we generate is spent on climate control - when the ground stays a nice 55-65 degrees year-round (depending upon where, exactly, you are and how deep you're going).

In that respect - most homes are simply not suited to alternative energy concepts. When you think about powering a largely subterranean dwelling - the idea of using solar panels and stored power is not that bad of an idea, particularly when confronting winter (where snow buildup can degrade performance and overcast weather is common at a time when you need all the heat and power you can get).

Mostly, it's a matter of the technology not being there. The other end of it is that we are used to a very energy-intensive style of living (it's not even a standard of living - it's just the style; I find brick basements with mini-bars to be some of the most classy home environments one can imagine). Forget houses of glass and stainless steel - I say build a cozy underground labyrinth complete with a fire-side swimming pool and wine cellar... and say "damn the tornadoes!"