Although it is clear that there is far too little information available, there is one glaring application, or perfect "fit" for the Kanzius system, even if it were to be less efficient than DC electrolysis...
OK make that a "semi-perfect" fit since it depends on the technique being engineered and optimized up into the range of 50% eff - in terms of comparing P-in (electric) to P-out (heating value of the H2 and O2 when recombined) ... and a few other advances >From all the information available, it appears than now, the RF-salt-water >technique is not quite that efficient, but after all that is to be expected, >as the whole thing is relatively new. At least one person who has intimate >knowledge of the situation does believe that it can reach 50% ... but even >then, the ultimate question becomes: "So what?" It is still not close to the >level of DC electrolysis, ergo "So what?" Here is one (pie-in-the-sky) answer to that. How achievable this hybrid system can be, in reality, is difficult to gauge. Nobody thought that the Kanzius reaction would work to begin with, so a final answer really depends upon an Edisonian-type of exhaustive experimentation, on sea water under expected conditions. The crux of the following suggestion is this. Ocean water, in addition to NaCl and other salts, contains organic matter. On average, the ocean has a salinity of 3.5%, or 35 parts per thousand. The carbon content can vary enormously, but in many vast areas of open ocean there is more than 3 parts per thousand of carbon near the surface- which is mostly in the form of single celled algae and cellulose. Three parts per thousand does not sound like much, but if you look at a large-ocean going catamaran as your power plant, under sail and at the same time converting wind energy to electricity... and at a modest 4 knots, then the bottom line is that there is an effective and available mass of carbon, based on the mass of water flowing between the two hulls, which is incredibly large! Consequently, carbon availability that is not a limiting issue. The idea is that even though the electrolysis of sea water itself would be only 50% efficient, IF the oxygen produced from that reaction then immediately combines (using catalysis) with some of the available carbon (i.e. cellulose, carbohydrate or whatever) to immediately form CO (carbon monoxide) and then be further utilized in the well-know "water-gas-shift" reaction... then one can greatly increase the final output of hydrogen. 4 H20 --> 4H2 + 2O2 or alternatively 4 H2O --> 2 H2 + 2 HOOH --> 4H2 + 2O2 (using RF in the Kanzius technique) .... followed by catalyzed, oxygen starved-combustion of the carbon source: 2 O2 + (C6H10 O5)x (typical polysaccharide) --> 4 CO + ~3 H2 + (mixed carbonate oxides) + heat ... followed by the water gas shift reaction - in which water and the carbon monoxide (highly reactive) which is produced in the combustion reaction, further react to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen: 4 CO + 4 H2O --> 4 CO2 + 4 H2 In the end, If all of the hydrogen which is produced- is then utilized in a fuel cell or high efficiency ICE at 50% Carnot, then all-in all, one can barely breakeven or not quite so why bother? End of story ? Hmm... maybe not. Remember, in the set-up for this concept, we are assumed to be operating on the open ocean, where even though wind energy is more plentiful and reliable than it is on-land - there is no good way to store that wind (solar) energy, in a liquid form except perhaps cryogenically as liquid air. Therefore, when comparing this approach to straight electrolysis -- instead of the 8hydrogen atoms expected from 10 units of electricity input into thesystem you could (in a perfect world) get 8+6+8=22 hydrogen atoms. Therefore - in this hybrid situation, where the hypothesized 10 units of wind energy are converted into electricity and then into H2; compared to the standard approach of using normal electrolysis (80% efficient) which gives 8 units of hydrogen - instead, by going to the extra effort and using RF first followed by converting that output in the more complicated water-gas-shift system, you get the 22 units! Given that there will be further problems unaccounted for in this overly simplified analysis, let's just say that you can perhaps set a goal of achieving double the net benefit of wind energy by using this approach, and at the same time get a storable fuel. Compared to wind on land, the net benefit is even greater, as off-shore wind energy is much more robust and reliable PLUS you have a big heat-sink for use in converting to liquid PLUS you have the much lower cost of ocean transport to get the fuel from way out in the ocean to land. All in all, there are many potential benefits. Jones
