Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.


A Massive String of Double and Triple-Digit Winners

A Massive String of Double and Triple-Digit WinnersThe cash keeps pouring in for Profit Catalyst Alert readers. In the past few weeks, they’ve seen gains of 31%… 135%… and even 250%. More incredibly, those profits came on the heels of another string of winners sporting gains of 56%… 100% (twice!)… and 110%. We’re letting a limited number of additional people get access to these trades. Go here for the details.



One More ‘Free Lunch’ in Energy

By Robert Rapier on April 14, 2014

 The Next Holy Grail

Over the years, I have probably been asked more often about the possibility of using water or air as a fuel source than any other topic. Could a car run on water? How about air? The public is perpetually infatuated by promises of cheap, abundant energy. Those who make such claims capture the imagination, and often the media headlines. The goal is usually to attract investment dollars, and these claims often go hand in hand with a solicitation for money.

A year and a half ago a British company called Air Fuel Synthesis (AFS) announced that it was producing gasoline from thin air. The media lapped it up, proclaiming it “the holy grail of the emerging green economy” and incorrectly claiming that burning the fuel produces “no emissions whatsoever.” I received a number of inquiries on this particular company, and I addressed these claims in Investors Beware of Fuel from Thin Air.

This past week I started to receive a number of inquiries about another press release that hinted at cheap, abundant energy. When I see a lot of interest in a particular story, I try to address the claims in a post as I am going to do here today.

These due diligence forays should be of interest to energy investors, because I detail how to dig past the press releases to find the truth underneath the hype. The purpose of these types of press releases is to garner attention and draw funding, and you, as an investor, want to know whether it is the opportunity of a lifetime or a fast way to lose your money. Of course you also want to know if this is a legitimate competitor to fossil fuels, in which case you may want to start thinking about shifting some money around.

Fueling Up With Seawater?

This time the proclaimed fuel source isn’t thin air, but rather something else that is exceedingly abundant: seawater. I started to get inquiries about this story right after it came out last week to sensational headlines such as this: Goodbye, Oil: US Navy Cracks New Renewable Energy Technology To Turn Seawater Into Fuel:

After decades of experiments, US Navy scientists believe they may have solved one of the world’s great challenges: how to turn seawater into fuel.

The development of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel could one day relieve the military’s dependence on oil-based fuels and is being heralded as a “game changer” because it could allow military ships to develop their own fuel and stay operational 100 percent of the time, rather than having to refuel at sea.

First of all, turning seawater into fuel is something I can do with a battery and two pieces of wire. An electrical current breaks down the water into hydrogen (a fuel) and oxygen. Scientists have been doing this since 1800, and the process was used commercially throughout the 1800’s to produce hydrogen. But that doesn’t necessarily mean this is a viable process for producing transportation fuel.

Very Basic Thermodynamics

Most people aren’t familiar with thermodynamics, but they are very important for understanding these sorts of claims. Water is the product of combustion, as is carbon dioxide. They represent the products of energy use, and are not suitable as fuel unless modified. When someone refers to water as a fuel, that’s like saying that the spent ashes in your fireplace are fuel. No, they were fuel, and with a large amount of effort and energy could be converted back to fuel. But the large amount of energy required is the catch.

When natural gas, biomass, coal, oil, etc., are burned, the products are heat plus carbon dioxide and water. For the combustion of methane — the principal component of natural gas — the reaction is:

CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O + heat

Or, in plain English:

Methane + 2 Oxygen → Carbon Dioxide + 2 Water + heat

The heat in this reaction can be used to produce work, in an engine for example.

We can reverse those reactions to produce a fuel from carbon dioxide and water that we can then burn again, but the laws of thermodynamics say that this will always require a greater input of energy than is generated from burning the fuel. This is important.

In other words, to produce 1 British thermal unit (Btu) of a liquid fuel from carbon dioxide and water could require the input of 3 or 5 or 10 Btus of external energy. Another way to think about it is that the heat that is produced in the above reaction will always be insufficient to drive the reaction completely back to methane. If this wasn’t true, then perpetual motion machines could exist.

So this much we can say without further investigation: Whatever the US Navy is claiming, we know the energy it is producing from seawater requires a greater outside input of energy. No ifs, ands, or buts. No catalyst can get around this fundamental issue. Yet none of the press releases I have seen discuss this very important bit of information.

The question then becomes “When might it make sense to consume more energy than you create?” The answer to that is that even though it might not make sense thermodynamically, it might make sense economically. If natural gas is $5 per million Btu (MMBtu) and gasoline is $25/MMBtu, then consuming 3 Btus of natural gas to make 1 Btu of gasoline is a winner economically.

The implications of producing fuel from a combustion product like water are that you need to have a cheap source of energy input, and the output has to be valuable. Imagine for a moment that the Navy had access to extremely cheap electricity, and that what it really needed was a gaseous or liquid fuel. In that case, the electrolysis of water may be economically viable. But it will always be a loser in a thermodynamic sense.

So with that in mind, let’s look beyond the “game-changing” hype and see what the Navy actually accomplished.

The Navy’s Claims

It took a bit of digging through press releases before I could identify the researchers involved, which then provided me enough information to go to the patents and scientific literature. If you really want to get past the hype, you have to drill down into the scientific publications.

For example, one of the patents related to this work is Extraction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and hydrocarbon production therefrom. That patent confirms that carbon dioxide and hydrogen are being extracted from the sea water via electrolysis. Notably, it estimates the electrical current efficiency of 70-90 percent. In other words, 1 unit of electricity input can be turned into 0.7 to 0.9 units of hydrogen output.

But there are still two steps to go. Once the Navy has hydrogen and carbon dioxide, it can react these over an iron catalyst (adding more energy) to produce light olefins like ethylene.

These light olefins in turn can be processed into longer-chain hydrocarbons in the range of diesel fuel. However, there are also lots of hydrocarbons produced that aren’t suitable for diesel production, and these have to be separated out (at additional energy expense).

What I would say is that this is a technically feasible process (so far it has produced enough fuel to run a model airplane), but quite energy intensive and expensive. Nowhere have I seen an overall energy balance, but it’s going to be very unfavorable. If I had to guess, the process is going to require 5-10 Btus minimum of energy inputs for each Btu of liquid fuel produced.

The Navy’s own press release says the following on the technology claims:

The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years.

The phrase “with sufficient funding” is often the reason these sorts of press releases are concocted. Yes, they can achieve these things, as long as the government allocates them more money. But when I see a predicted cost range like this, my experience is that the higher number is probably the best case number. In reality, I doubt this process could achieve a cost below $6/gallon. Of course with a nuclear reactor on board, maybe the Navy can produce electricity cheaply enough to make the process viable. But it certainly won’t be a panacea, and it’s certainly not going to threaten oil as the dominant transportation fuel.

None of this is meant to denigrate the Navy’s accomplishments here. It is an interesting bit of science and engineering. But there is a vast gulf between what the patents and scientific papers describe, and the hype of the press releases.   


Claims such as the one I have addressed today pop up often in the popular media, aided by ignorance of basic thermodynamics. When it comes to energy, there is no free lunch, and you should be very skeptical about claims that so much as hint that the lunch will be cheap.

In this case, the invention is an energy carrier, like electricity. An energy source must be used to produce it. Oil is an energy source. Journalists aren’t normally scientists, and critical details can be lost in communicating a story such as this to the general public. The result is that the public is led to believe that a new technology has been invented so we can now fuel up with air or water. That’s never going to be the case, as long as the laws of thermodynamics are in effect.  

(Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)

You might also enjoy…


Forget Buy and Hold. Here’s how to retire faster…

I’m not a fan of “buy and hold.” Gurus like to tell you that patience is the key, but I call horse puckey.

We’ve discovered an investing technique that consistently pays out easy-to-repeat profits.

One that’s proven to beat the market 2,082% in head-to-head testing.

And one that’s generated over 488 winners since 2011.

This method is so powerful, in fact, some of the investors we’ve let use it reported back to us saying they’ve made $71,425… $82,371… and even as much as $151,000 in a single year thanks to this “trick.”

That’s how powerful this investing technique is!

What what exactly is this mysterious method? I’ve put all the details together here.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    sweerek Reply August 11, 2014 at 2:15 PM EDT

    The net energy balance is about 2 units of electricity for 1 unit of fuel. Thus you need a whole lotta power (likely nuclear at sea) to generate fuel. The nuclear – electricity – fuel system would create a tremendous amount of waste heat (4x that of the fuel created).

    See Navy’s full report at .

  2. Robert Rapier
    Robert Rapier Reply April 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM EDT

    “As a matter of fact, mainstream media IS NOT covering this, because they have ties to big oil.”

    Just a quick Google search, on the first two page of the results, shows stories on this in USA Today, Yahoo News, Discover, Reuters, Washington Times, International Business Times, CNN, and CNBC. So you are misinformed right out of the gate. You also felt the need to explain to me that they created a hydrocarbon fuel, which should be evident from my article as I actually discussed the steps to get to that hydrocarbon (in my “attempts” to understand this), and you posted a link that actually appeared in the article as if you were supplying new information.

    So you post a comment that is demonstrably wrong on facts and then adds nothing to the discussion, but you want to tell me I’m wrong? OK…

  3. Robert Rapier
    Robert Rapier Reply April 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM EDT

    “As a matter of fact, mainstream media IS NOT covering this, because they have ties to big oil.”

    Will, there were numerous reports on this in the mainstream media, with sensationalistic headlines that had little connection to what was actually accomplished.

    “They’ve created a hydrocarbon fuel. Its not just hydrogen.”

    Yes, I think I made that quite clear in the story.

    “I’m sure this link will be destroyed by such a site, but here goes:”

    I actually have that link in the story Will.

    The Navy themselves referred to the invention as a “game changer” in their press release, and then the media extrapolated that into “the end of oil.” The point is that an energy carrier that requires lots of energy inputs isn’t going to replace a major energy source. This is where the media misread the implications.

  4. avatar
    Bill Marquis Reply April 15, 2014 at 6:57 AM EDT

    there’s too many naysayers and negative, regressive cynics surrounding this energy debate, we need positivity and a desire to evolve and progress. we DON’T need to be finding excuses and reasons for staying STUCK, exactly where we are now!

  5. avatar
    Bill Marquis Reply April 15, 2014 at 6:56 AM EDT

    we have energy all around us, we just have to reach out and grab it. every second the sun shines, every second the wind blows, every tiny movement the sea makes, this is all free energy, we just have to reach out and grab it. for example, if we use a wind turbine to crack water, sure, it’s ‘costing’ energy to make hydrogen from water, but did WE make the energy or are we just piggy-backing the wind energy that is already there? what about the sun, what if we have solar powered water cracking plants by the coast, that suck up seawater then turn it into hydrogen and oxygen? yes, there WILL be more energy used to make the energy we get out of it, but what has it cost us? the sun is shining anyway?

    “In 1986, in the wake of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he was searching for a potential alternative source of clean energy and arrived at the following remarkable conclusion: in just six hours, the world’s deserts receive more energy from the sun than humankind consumes in a year.”

    • Robert Rapier
      Robert Rapier Reply April 25, 2014 at 2:24 PM EDT

      “yes, there WILL be more energy used to make the energy we get out of it, but what has it cost us? the sun is shining anyway?”

      I thought I made it pretty clear that there were cases in which it might make economic sense to pursue such a process. My goal here is to put some perspective around this story, to address the ridiculous media sensationalism.

    • avatar
      Guest User Reply April 19, 2014 at 2:01 PM EDT

      More importantly, the Navy has *lots* of energy sitting in the aircraft carrier reactors. Using that to make jet fuel solves one more logistics problem.