Quote Originally Posted by Skyblade View Post
"Republicans will hate it because it's green." - Actually, Republicans hate most green technologies because they are notoriously expensive, incredibly inefficient, and few of them are actually "green" at all. We rarely have a problem with any of the technology itself.
Most republicans in office don't really hate cleaner energy sources because they're expensive and inefficient. I can say this with some degree of certainty since their economic projections of these technologies never factor in the fact that climate change is real and our oceans are slowly dying. Two things which in the long run will either cost us a lot more money and lives than we're saving now, or kill us all. They can't properly evaluate any new form of energy if they reject one of the fundamental and single most damaging negative effects of using what we do now.

Also, it's not necessarily that green of a technology. Hydrocarbons produce Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor when burned. If these emissions are not contained, they'll leak back into the atmosphere. And what atmospheric components are most responsible for the greenhouse effect? Water vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Although this is only a problem if you actually think global warming is a problem. Which I don't.
Water vapour being a contributor to climate change is a red herring. Yes, it is quite a powerful greenhouse gas. But most people seem to forget that it's been evaporating, forming clouds, and falling to the Earth as rain, snow, etc. for pretty much as long as there's been water on Earth. It has no significant net impact on climate change. As for carbon dioxide, the article itself points out that the Ocean soaks up carbon dioxide like a sponge. Which is part of the reason that our oceans are slowly dying. They're saturated with the stuff right now. But at the very least, this form of energy would be fairly carbon neutral, especially compared to using fossil fuels since we're taking carbon dioxide from sea water, most of which will, find it's way back into the ocean once the fuel is burned. And if we could use this method to remove carbon dioxide and store it as fuel, or in some form and place less likely to result in leaks of any greenhouse gasses, then we've also found a way to slowly deal with the level of carbon dioxide in the oceans and in the atmosphere by helping to speed up it's removal while ditching fossil fuels almost entirely.

You can convert seawater to fuel. Fantastic, but what is it going to cost? Not in terms of dollars, but in terms of energy. How much oil do you need to burn to burn in order to convert each gallon of seawater into the corresponding fuel amounts, and how much would you get out of it?
People would have to be idiots to use power generated by fossil fuels to produce this stuff. Luckily we have a pretty simple solution and one which is actually quite safe and a lot less damaging to our environment than coal or oil: nuclear energy. Modern reactor designs have basically eliminated the risk of melt downs and produce almost no waste. In fact, the waste they do produce can readily be stored on site, and quite safely with almost no risk. Too bad there are a lot of ignorant people out there who hear nuclear and think Chernobyl or Fukushima and don't have the first clue that those plants are about as indicative of what modern nuclear power is as a sailing ship is indicative of what the modern day US Navy is capable of.

Then, once you have gotten enough, does the power it supplies produce enough to enable you to extract and convert a greater quantity of water to fuel?
Again, with hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, etc. it doesn't have to produce enough power to convert more water into fuel. This is a fuel source which could potentially be used to continue fueling every day vehicles while we use the centuries worth of nuclear material we have to create it and power our homes. If this stuff is as effective as the story claims, it really is that simple.