Your Questions About Green Living

How many find this discovery as a cheap way to make fuel for vehicles?

Do you think this will be taken farther and actually find a way to use this for the replacement of gasoline?

Water burns!
Man looking for cancer cure hopes to solve energy crisis

——————————————————————————–

Posted: May 30, 2007
5:00 p.m. Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Is the solution to America’s energy needs as simple as a trip to the beach?
The idea is a fascinating one as a Florida man searching for a cancer cure may have stumbled onto a virtually limitless source of energy: salt water.
John Kanzius, 63, is a broadcast engineer who formerly owned several TV and radio stations, before retiring in Sanibel Island, Fla.
Five years ago, he was diagnosed with a severe form of leukemia, and began a quest to find a kinder, gentler way to treat the disease compared to harsh chemotherapy.
In October 2003, he had an epiphany: kill cancer with radio waves. He then devised a machine that emits radio waves in an attempt to slay cancerous cells, while leaving healthy cells unharmed.
His experiments in fighting cancer have become so successful, one physician was quoted as saying, “We could be getting close to grabbing the Holy Grail.”
But in the midst of his experiments as he was trying to take salt out of water, Kanzius discovered his machine could do what some may have thought was impossible: making water burn.
“On our way to try to do desalinization, we came up with something that burns, and it looks in this case that salt water perhaps could be used as a fuel to replace the carbon footsteps that we’ve been using all these years, i.e., fossil fuels,” Kanzius said.
The possible ramifications of the discovery are almost mind-boggling, as cars could be fueled by salt water instead of gasoline, hydroelectric plants could be built along the shore, and homes could be heated without worrying about supplies of oil.
“It doesn’t have to be ocean salt water,” Kanzius said. “It burns just as well when we add salt to tap water.”
Kanzius has partnered with Charles Rutkowski, general manager of Industrial Sales and Manufacturing, a Millcreek, Pa., company that builds the radio-wave generators.
“I’ve done this [burning experiment] countless times and it still amazes me,” Rutkowski told the Erie Times-News. “Here we are paying $3 a gallon for gas, and this is a device that seems to turn salt water into an alternative fuel.”
Kanzius has been told it’s actually hydrogen that’s burning, as his machine generates enough heat to break down the chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen that makes up water.
“I have never heard of such a thing,” Alice Deckert, Ph.D., chairwoman of Allegheny College’s chemistry department, told the Times-News. “There doesn’t seem to be enough energy in radio waves to break the chemical bonds and cause that kind of reaction.”
Thus far, Kanzius’ discovery has not received extensive national publicity, but has been featured on several local television news programs, including WPBF-TV in West Palm Beach, Fla., WSEE-TV in Erie, Pa., and WKYC-TV in Cleveland.
“We discovered that if you use a piece of paper towel as a wick, it lights every single time and you can start it and stop it at will by turning the radio waves on and off,” Kanzius told the Times-News as he watched a test tube of salt water burn.
“And look, the paper itself doesn’t burn,” he added. “Well, it burns but the paper is not consumed.”
Kanzius said he hasn’t decided whether to share his fuel discovery with government or private business, though he’d prefer a federal grant to develop it.
“I’m afraid that if I join up with some big energy company, they will say it doesn’t work and shelve it, even if it does work,” Kanzius told the paper.
Video of TV news reports of water burning can be seen from these affiliates:
WPBF-TV in West Palm Beach, Fla.
WSEE-TV in Erie, Pa.
WKYC-TV in Cleveland

What is the “do nothing” Congress doing now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_co/congress_energy

Dems manage to get an energy bill pass, all while having to contend with the GOP, who has damn near the same amount of seats as the Dems.

What did our Republican friends do before passing this bill through?

They refused to pass it unless Dems dropped the added tax on oil companies. WTG Republicans! Looking out for us as usual I see.

“Earlier in the day Reid could not hide his displeasure as Republicans blocked one of the Democrats’ top priorities, a $32 billion tax package aimed at boosting renewable fuels, energy efficiency and clean energy programs. The Republicans didn’t like the $29 billion in additional taxes on oil companies that the plan required to pay for the new alternative energy subsidies.

“Big Oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill,” Reid told reporters, making no effort to hide his sarcasm.

How typical. Wonder how much soft money it took to make that happen?
If the Republicans in the Senate gave up their 49 seats, Congress could get a lot more done.

oil company welfare?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080221/pl_nm/energy_congress_legislation_dc;_ylt=AqRbUgIBEVPn4iTqjOqt1msPLBIF
your opinions please.
My own is that the present system is not improving and not moving fast enough w/ regards to alternative energy research (the $18 billion might be better spent on alternative energy tax break for everyone)….my own personal opinion is that any money given to oil companies is not guaranteed to be invested in oil/gas production or alternative power and is simply a political reward

Are emissions reductions a bit like a band-aid on a bullet wound?

If CO2 is the main driver of climate change should the focus of current research be focused on simply reducing emissions by developing alternative energy?

I haven’t seen much in the news about new sequestration technologies and can’t help but think that taking potentially drastic measures to reduce emissions is a bit of a tame if the problem is dire as often stated.

So in your opinion what is more important, emissions reductions or sequestration?

I know doing both is the most logical, but which is more important?
Dana – that’s an interesting idea about carbon sequestering trees. And I agree that both are probably needed

K – thanks for the answer it was algal blooms that inspired this question

JimZ – You have stated a fundamental thought that I agree with, that natural systems are more robust than they are really given credit for.

Andy – thanks for your answer, I agree with you especially regarding fusion power

Stable, long lasting career path?

I plan to major in Computer Science/Engineering one day, and go into that field…
But life got me to thinking, what could be a good back-up plan?

I mean…. You always hear in the news about how we’re limited on energy and electricity and fuel. I know there is alternative energy and people are working to develop renewable sources, but I still think of worst case scenario and think that one day all that energy will just stop flowing. Plus, I feel working with electronics is not environmentally friendly.

So what’s a good back up plan to all this? Something that you know would be a LONG LASTING career path?
I’m guessing probably zoology or international affairs. I don’t know, I just want opinions on all this. o.o