Future Fill Ups with Blue Crude?

not so easy:

"Thus, materials for the RSOFC are those commonly used in the SOFC, i.e.yttria

stabilized zirconia (YSZ) for the electrolyte, perovskites (such as lanthanum strontium manganese oxide or LSM, lanthanum strontium cobalt iron oxide or LSCF) for the oxygen electrode, nickel/YSZ cermet for the hydrogen electrode and for stacking, conductive oxides (such as lanthanum strontium chromium perovskite or LSC) or stainless steels for the interconnect (depending on the operating temperature). Like the SOFC, the RSOFC operates in the temperature range of 600-1000 degrees C."

AFAIK, it has never been shown that water can be split (electrolysed) and then the hydrogen and oxygen burned in such a way that the net result is an energy gain.

"AFAIK, it has never been shown that water can be split (electrolysed) and then the hydrogen and oxygen burned in such a way that the net result is an energy gain."

You are correct in that, which is why hydrogen fuel will only ever be an energy currency, never an energy source. Add in all the problems with storage and transport, since there is no container or seal humanity can devise that will completely stop H₂ migration through it, and therefore all containers are 'leaky,' losing H₂ over time.

But what we have here is a bit different, it's cracking H₂O to make H₂ and O₂⁽¹⁾, but it's also cracking CO₂ to make CO and O₂. Then the CO and H₂ are combined to make hydrocarbon molecules. Does this produce a fuel that releases more energy than was consumed in its manufacture? As that one character from the 80's sitcom would say, "Don' be redicales."⁽²⁾ You can NEVER get more energy out of something than was put into it, in fact you can't even get the same amount that was put in, the Three laws of Thermodynamics won't allow it. This Blue Crude is yet another energy currency, then again, EVERY energy 'source' on this planet is actually an energy 'currency,' it's just that we don't actively think of the energy that was used to 'build' the 'source,' or where it came from⁽³⁾. However, if the energy used to 'build' Blue Crude is from a renewable source, say Solar, Wind, or Tidal, or from a non-renewable source with a massive capacity that is normally 'wasted,' such as Geothermal, or Thorium Reactors⁽⁴⁾, then we are taking energy that we normally do not tap, and convert it into a stable currency to use far from the 'generation' site, or use the Blue Crude as feedstock to make plastics and other polymers.

Notes:

1. I'm WAY too busy today to go and work out the ratios of 'result' molecules from 'source' molecules, just roll with it.
2. Okay, Schmart Guy, how would YOU spell out his bizarre, vaguely eastern-European-but-still-somehow-feeling-like-there's-a-hint-of-vaudeville-Yiddish accent?
3. For the record, all energy available on this planet comes from one of four sources:
1. Solar Radiation hitting the planet and either converted into Thermal energy or captured by Photosynthises/Photovoltaics.
2. Thermal energy from the planet's molten core 'leaking' out to the crust.
3. Energy released from decay of Radioactive isotopes on/inside the planet.
4. Kinetic energy from the differential between the speed of the planet's rotation compared to the surrounding atmosphere, and from tidal actions between the Earth and the Moon.
4. I really believe that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have a lot of potential for turning the Thorium 'waste' from Tin and Rare Earth Metal mining into a useful commodity. BUt I'm not going to get on that soapbox here, it's not the time nor place for that.
   

It does seem a little far fetched. 50kWH to make 1 gallon of diesel. From number I find on the web, that would make the process better than 80% efficient. Going from low energy carbon (CO) and hydrogen (water?) compounds to a complex synthetic diesel, 80% just seems too good to be true.

He may be 'fudging' the numbers to get the 'deep pockets, shallow brainpan' investors excited and eager to fund the project. Those are the kind of people who won't care if it turns out the process is only 75%, 60%, or 50% efficient in actual production, as long as they get a decent dividend from it.

It's also going to attract the people Fredski likes to make fun of, you know the ones, the 'fools' who believe the 98% of scientists who say Human-Caused Global Warming is real. If this process can make hydrocarbons while 'consuming' atmospheric CO₂, a known 'greenhouse gas,' you know the 'eco-warriors' will be simply throwing their 'organicaly grown, hemp-fiber wallets' at this guy⁽¹⁾.

Notes:

1. Sometimes sarcasm is hard to get across right in print, was it clear enough that I'm one of those 'Kool-Aid drinking fools,' as "Frack 'em all⁽²⁾" Fredski likes to call us?
2. I'm sure everyone, well, everyone who isn't in the pocket of Big Oil, has noticed the irony of the newest oil extraction craze sharing its name with the 'sci-fi all-purpose swear word' from Battlestar Galactica. It really looks like Big Oil wants to Frack the whole planet in the name of Profit. Which is what Big Coal, Big Lumber, and Big Finance all tried to do or are attempting to do now.
   

50 KWH per gallon of diesel at USD $0.17/KWH where I live = USD $8.50 per gallon which makes sense in europe where such prices are typical, more or less. if true. and would be hugely profitable if a cheaper energy source was available.