Electricity from seawater: New method efficiently produces hydrogen peroxide for fuel cells

May 20, 2016 by Lisa Zyga feature
Credit: Mr. William Folsom, NOAA, NMFS

(Phys.org)—Scientists have used sunlight to turn seawater (H2O) into hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which can then be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. It is the first photocatalytic method of H2O2 production that achieves a high enough efficiency so that the H2O2 can be used in a fuel cell.

The researchers, led by Shunichi Fukuzumi at Osaka University, have published a paper on the new method of the photocatalytic production of in a recent issue of Nature Communications.

"The most earth-abundant resource, seawater, is utilized to produce a solar fuel that is H2O2," Fukuzumi told Phys.org.

The biggest advantage of using liquid H2O2 instead of gaseous hydrogen (H2), as most fuel cells today use, is that the liquid form is much easier to store at high densities. Typically, H2 gas must be either highly compressed, or in certain cases, cooled to its at cryogenic temperatures. In contrast, liquid H2O2 can be stored and transported at high densities much more easily and safely.

The problem is that that, until now, there has been no efficient photocatalytic method of producing liquid H2O2. (There are ways to produce H2O2 that don't use sunlight, but they require so much energy that they are not practical for use in a method whose goal is to produce energy.)

In the new study, the researchers developed a new photoelectrochemical cell, which is basically a solar cell that produces H2O2. When sunlight illuminates the photocatalyst, the photocatalyst absorbs photons and uses the energy to initiate chemical reactions (seawater oxidation and the reduction of O2) in a way that ultimately produces H2O2.

After illuminating the cell for 24 hours, the concentration of H2O2 in the seawater reached about 48 mM, which greatly exceeds previous reported values of about 2 mM in pure water. Investigating the reason for this big difference, the researchers found that the negatively charged chlorine in seawater is mainly responsible for enhancing the photocatalytic activity and yielding the higher concentration.

Overall, the system has a total solar-to-electricity of 0.28%. (The photocatalytic production of H2O2 from seawater has an efficiency of 0.55%, and the has an efficiency of 50%.)

Although the total efficiency compares favorably to that of some other solar-to-electricity sources, such as switchgrass (0.2%), it is still much lower than the efficiency of conventional solar . The researchers expect that the efficiency can be improved in the future by using better materials in the photoelectrochemical cell, and they also plan to find methods to reduce the cost of production.

"In the future, we plan to work on developing a method for the low-cost, large-scale production of H2O2 from ," Fukuzumi said. "This may replace the current high-cost production of H2O2 from H2 (from mainly natural gas) and O2."

Explore further: Research reveals mechanism for direct synthesis of hydrogen peroxide

More information: Kentaro Mase et al. "Seawater usable for production and consumption of hydrogen peroxide as a solar fuel." Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11470

Related Stories

Specific oxidation regulates cellular functions

December 18, 2014

For a long time, hydrogen peroxide has been considered as a dangerous metabolite that can damage cells through oxidation. This, however, is not its only role in the cell. Scientists from the German Cancer Research Center ...

Ferrite boosting photocatalytic hydrogen evolution

March 10, 2016

Photocatalytic hydrogen generation via water splitting has become a hot spot in the field of energy and materials. The goal of this technique is to construct cheap and efficient photocatalytic water splitting systems at an ...

Solar-powered hydrogen production with improved efficiency

December 22, 2015

Hydrogen could potentially provide a readily available, clean form of energy derived from solar power. To achieve this, scientists need to find a highly efficient, low-cost way of splitting water into its constituent parts ...

Recommended for you

Molecular beacon signals low oxygen with ultrasound

December 8, 2017

Areas of hypoxia, or low oxygen in tissue, are hallmarks of fast-growing cancers and of blockages or narrowing in blood vessels, such as stroke or peripheral artery disease. University of Illinois researchers have developed ...

Targeting cancer cells by measuring electric currents

December 8, 2017

EPFL researchers have used electrochemical imaging to take a step forward in mapping the distribution of biomolecules in tissue. This technology, which uses only endogenous markers – rather than contrast agents – could ...

Studying gas mask filters so people can breathe easier

December 8, 2017

In research that could lead to better gas mask filters, scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have been putting the X-ray spotlight on composite materials in respirators ...

132 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sonhouse
2.7 / 5 (7) May 20, 2016
Interesting they tout something with 0.55% as 'efficient'.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (18) May 20, 2016
Interesting they tout something with 0.55% as 'efficient'.

Since the energy is free (sunlight) and the potential area to deploy this is huge (ocean) and there's no trouble with neighbors or wildlife if you decide to build a lot of it (which there isn't) a low efficiency can be OK if the entire system is cheap enough.

Efficiency isn't everything.
gculpex
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2016
After illuminating the cell for 24 hours, the concentration of H2O2


Where on earth are you going to wait for the reactions to occur? the poles?
Otto_Szucks
2.2 / 5 (13) May 20, 2016
The O2 content in seawater is less than that of freshwater, so that the extraction of the O2 from seawater to make H2O2 might not affect fish and other sea life in the oceans as much, but only up to a point.

http://www.fondri...-oxygen/

Too much of a depletion of O2 in ocean waters may produce hypoxia in sea life. There already are too many "dead zones" as it is.
bongiojf
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
The efficiency rate is favorable to a biological system (saltgrass) .28 vs .2 which is quite remarkable! The efficiency is solar-to-electricity which includes the complex catalysis reaction that creates H2O2. Also refer to antialias' comment.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
Where on earth are you going to wait for the reactions to occur? the poles?

Erm...why do you think this needs constant illumination? did you not understand the article?
Forestgnome
1.7 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
Interesting they tout something with 0.55% as 'efficient'.

Since the energy is free (sunlight) and the potential area to deploy this is huge (ocean) and there's no trouble with neighbors or wildlife if you decide to build a lot of it (which there isn't) a low efficiency can be OK if the entire system is cheap enough.

Efficiency isn't everything.


Wow! What rock did you crawl out from under? II don't care if you do it in the deadest part of the ocean, if you're putting something man-made in nature someone's going to stop it.
greenonions
3.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
Forest
if you're putting something man-made in nature someone's going to stop it.
Please explain. Is someone stopping the off shore wind turbines that are popping up all over the world? Ever flown over the gulf of Mexico - and seen the thousands of little dots of light, everyone a multi million dollar oil rig?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2016
Wow! What rock did you crawl out from under? II don't care if you do it in the deadest part of the ocean, if you're putting something man-made in nature someone's going to stop it.


Not really - since you're replacing something on-shore with this (a coal power plant...or maybe even a wind farm that is bothering someone)

In the middle of the oceans these things would make a huge amount of sense. The current record holder for pollution is the shipping industry. Imagine ships that run on hydrogen peroxide (actually you don't need to imagine...that's basically WWII technology)...and which could refuel somewhere WAY off coast. No more dangerous/noxious oil tanks on shore.
gculpex
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2016
Where on earth are you going to wait for the reactions to occur? the poles?

Erm...why do you think this needs constant illumination? did you not understand the article?


They could of said "After running a 24 hour test of the cell yielded...."
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) May 21, 2016
Again utter green B.S. !!!! H2O2 is NOT a storage medium for H2. There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell. Yes, you can create a battery that has a lot of energy potential from aluminum and H202 but the aluminum is turned into an oxide which requires a huge amount of energy to reclaim.

There is something about the Green movement that attracts charlatans and idiots.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell.

Ya might want to google that again. I find plenty of papers to that effect
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
Actually for transportation there are more efficient ways to use the H₂O₂ as a fuel than turning it into electricity at a 50% cost. H₂O₂ is hypergolic or nearly so in combination with several common fuels, opening the way to the use of gas turbines, which are currently pushing 60% efficiency in static installations: http://www.decent...ing.html

But there's a lot of engineering to be done between here and there.
greenonions
4 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
MR166
Again utter green B.S. !!!!
Talk about Dunning Kruger. You recently stated that the average welfare recipient gets $60K per year. When asked to support this fabrication - silence (except for osox - who is clearly on your level - and thought you lie was 'an interesting point'). You also don't know how to use google - http://arc.aiaa.o...Code=jpp
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2016
MR166
Again utter green B.S. !!!!
Talk about Dunning Kruger. You recently stated that the average welfare recipient gets $60K per year.
Is he not Swiss? $1M income is poverty line there
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2016
Efficiency isn't everything.


It is when you have to build the damn thing. Low efficiency is acceptable in the case of plants, since they build themselves, but photocatalytic cells don't.

It's pretty difficult to buid something "cheap enough" when the energy production is on the order of a watt per square meter.

Take for example a 1mm thick meter square of PP plastic for the sheet backing the cell. It embeds about 12 kWh of energy, so it takes 12,000 hours or nearly 1½ years to recoup the energy at 1 Watts net output. Add in everything that goes into making and operating such a cell, and it's a question of whether it will ever pay back in terms of energy.

Even solar PV at around 20% efficiency has an EROEI of about 10:1 which implies that at 2% efficiency it would not produce any net energy.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2016
But there's a lot of engineering to be done between here and there.


The first problem you'll find is that hydrogen peroxide is thermodynamically unstable, which means it self-decomposes at a rate that depends on its temperature, and it needs to be diluted with water to be safe to transport and handle. Straight up 100% hydrogen peroxide will blow up in your face if you sneeze at it.

Plain H2O2 would have energy density around 800 Wh per kg as far as I can find out, but it has to be diluted below 50% to be somewhat safe - it would still eat your flesh to the bones on a spill at that concetration - and that makes the practical energy density no better than lithium batteries.

And it's constantly giving off pure oxygen, which makes things that ordinarily burn with a flame into explosives.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2016
OK, Eikka, now compare it with hydrogen.
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2016
OK, Eikka, now compare it with hydrogen.


For what purpose?

Hydrogen is more suitable for automotive or other mobile applications, and that's not saying much because hydrogen too is nearly completely impractical for just about anything as a fuel. The one place where H2O2 and H2 both excel is as rocket fuel.

The only advantage over hydrogen is that H2O2 doesn't need to be squeezed to ungodly pressures or cooled down to near absolute zero to carry a meaningful amount of energy. Other than that, it's explosive, dangerously incompatible with a lot of materials, makes other stuff expode, it's lower in energy density than other stuff already on the market, and doesn't keep in storage. Hydrogen makes metals brittle and leaks through everything, but that's not half as much the trouble as H2O2 which makes plastics into plastic explosives and eats through metals.

Eikka
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2016
For example, a common terrorist weapon made out of acetone and hydrogen peroxide is called "mother of satan" because it's quite likely to blow up just from handling it. Only suicidal people would even try to manufacture it.

Organic compounds such as lubricant oils in valves, for example some vaseline or WD-40 left on an o-ring or inside a pipe, will react with hydrogen peroxide and form similiar high explosives that are heat, touch, friction, light etc. sensitive.

Otto_Szucks
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
H2O2 makes a great antiseptic after it has been diluted by half (or more) with plain distilled water. However, I question the value of making H2O2 out of seawater when the resulting product requires the reduction of O2, according to my interpretation of the article.

"When sunlight illuminates the photocatalyst, the photocatalyst absorbs photons and uses the energy to initiate chemical reactions (seawater oxidation and the reduction of O2) in a way that ultimately produces H2O2."

What exactly is this photocatalyst? Titanium Dioxide? Also, does the reduction of O2 result in it floating into the atmosphere, or can it be captured for other uses such as in Oxygen tanks?

MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
OK Onions I'll bite. Please show me a link where H2O2 is used as the fuel in a fuel cell and nothing other than the Hydrogen Peroxide is consumed.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
You see H2O2 is an excellent Oxidizer. It, just like O2, contains no energy.
Otto_Szucks
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
According to the article, it is the chlorine in seawater that enables the making of hydrogen peroxide from sunlight. I would like to know how much chlorine is in ordinary seawater. Anyone?

Edit: 3% hydrogen peroxide as an antiseptic.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
Many years back, way before one was considered a terrorist but only a nusance if you dabbled in explosives, an acquaintance created something the size of a firecracker from, I think, citric acid and H2O2. The resulting explosion was so fast and sharp that it managed to put a dent in an iron pipe used to support fences.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
You see H2O2 is an excellent Oxidizer. It, just like O2, contains no energy.


The spontaneous decomposition of hydrogen peroxide is very energetic. Pumping highly concentrated H2O2 through a mesh of silver wires causes a catalytic reaction that is powerful enough to drive a rocket. It shoots out steam and oxygen, and was used as the power source of some attempts at making a jetpack.

an acquaintance created something the size of a firecracker from, I think, citric acid and H2O2.


That's a relative of TATP of the "mother of satan" I was talking of before. Acid catalysis over an organic molecule with hydrogen peroxide makes an organic peroxide explosive. Highly dangerous - some variants are so touch sensitive once the stuff dries and crystallizes that a fly could land on it and set it off.
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (11) May 21, 2016
MR166
Again utter green B.S. !!!!
Talk about Dunning Kruger. You recently stated that the average welfare recipient gets $60K per year. When asked to support this fabrication - silence (except for osox - who is clearly on your level - and thought you lie was 'an interesting point'). You also don't know how to use google - http://arc.aiaa.o...Code=jpp
- grim onions

You scream bloody murder when someone introduces politics or religion into a science thread. But here you are introducing the income of an "average welfare recipient" as $60K per annum into a thread where the topic is H2O2 from seawater. It only makes sense when it is YOU who does it, right?
DO TRY to stay on topic, won't you?

BTW, onions, Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply except in your own mind.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
MR166 said
There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell.
I provided link - http://arc.aiaa.o...Code=jpp Maybe dunning Kruger can't read. Look at the title of the article. Now give us a link to your $60k welfare assertion.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
Sxucks
You scream bloody murder when someone introduces politics or religion into a science thread.
You notice I did discuss the science -and I discussed the blatantly false statement that dunning kruger made - and I used the welfare issue to demonstrate how dunning kruger has a habit of making blatantly false statements - that you then support - without knowing what you are talking about. If you are so offended by people going off topic - don't do it yourself.
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (12) May 21, 2016
I don't, unless a provocation exists that makes it impossible to not "respond in kind" as I have mentioned is my policy.
With regard to "there is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell". Until such a fuel cell is fully operational and 100% efficient, I agree with MR166 that it is not a workable proposal. That is, unless that type of fuel cell is only meant to work at 55% efficiency. Perhaps there may exist some "rubes" who can buy a few dozen and put them all together to run something.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2016
Did a little research. Turns out that losses are on the close order of 2%/year in proper storage; protect from heat and use stainless steel (most types) or aluminum with which peroxide does not react. They also say polyethylene, but that doesn't sound great in a movable platform.

http://h2o2.evoni...ult.aspx
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2016
Also turns out that hydrogen peroxide vapors are high explosive in themselves

https://en.wikipe...peroxide

Distillation is extremely dangerous with hydrogen peroxide; peroxide vapor can ignite or detonate depending on specific combinations of temperature and pressure. In general, any boiling mass of high-concentration hydrogen peroxide at ambient pressure will produce vapor-phase hydrogen peroxide, which can detonate. This hazard is mitigated, but not entirely eliminated, with vacuum distillation.


use stainless steel (most types) or aluminum with which peroxide does not react


That's because both form a thin oxide layer that prevents further reaction. Upon damage to the surface however, or certain chemicals that do away with the layer, they do react.

MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
Onions the fuel cell that your link refers to uses borohydride as the source of H2. Again H2O2 is just the oxidizer.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 21, 2016
Hmmm, a fuel-cell should be able to use peroxide diluted with water. Maybe the gas turbines aren't such a great idea after all.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2016
szucks
I agree with MR166 that it is not a workable proposal.
But that is not what dunning kruger said - is it? Here is the quote again for you
There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell.
Notice it does not say anything about 'workable proposal.' You guys are just idiots. Still waiting for anyone to support the assertion of $60k welfare recipients.
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
szucks
I agree with MR166 that it is not a workable proposal.
But that is not what dunning kruger said - is it? Here is the quote again for you
There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell.
Notice it does not say anything about 'workable proposal.' You guys are just idiots. Still waiting for anyone to support the assertion of $60k welfare recipients.
-grim onions
You are free to think what you want, but the 55% efficacy of their H2O2 "fuel cell" is STILL not a workable proposal. It make LOOK like a fuel cell and behave somewhat like one, but it is NOT a fuel cell UNTIL its efficacy is dramatically increased to 100%. Not 50% - not 80%, I am talking 100% and nothing less than 100%. As it is now, their research is not even a workable proposal, not when they are still seeking different material(s) for it to work at 100% efficiency. Do you not yet comprehend how anything less than 100% is of no value? Do you buy light bulbs that are only half of 60 W?
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (10) May 21, 2016
OK...with regard to $60K per annum welfare recipients of tax dollars legally stolen from American workers -- they get: free health care and emergency room (also eye and dental care; free or heavily discounted food; food stamps; cheap housing; free education and medical for their kids (and free school paraphernalia); free bus transportation on request; clothing allowances; and now, free college tuition whether intelligent or not.

I would say all that is worth way over $60 grand right there.
Now, can we get back to the topic?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 21, 2016
You are free to think what you want,
It has nothing to do with what I think. When someone makes a statement - if that statement is false - they just showed that they do not care about the truth. You want to throw your hat in with dunning kruger - have at it.
I would say all that is worth way over $60 grand right there
You can say what ever you want. Make up what ever you want. Now give us some links to support the fabrication.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (9) May 21, 2016
Why do you think that I would have to provide you with any links? Eikka and MR166 were both correct wrt the H2O2 fuel cell issue. As I have already stated, all the freebies that welfare recips are allowed to have as a result of their lack of employment, whether justified or not, are living better and with better conditions than many who are actually working at earning a salary.
Your bleeding heart desiring of "social justice" for those who have no desire to work, even through multiple generations, is quite irrational. I don't envy you.
greenonions
5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
Eikka and MR166 were both correct wrt the H2O2 fuel cell
MR166 was not correct - either about the fuel cell - or the $60k for welfare. Just saying the same thing over and over does not make it fact. MR said
There is no such thing as a H2O2 fuel cell.
But here is an article about a H202 fuel cell. http://pubs.rsc.o...Abstract The article is discussing "A membraneless hydrogen peroxide fuel cell" So the statement is false.
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
I guess you didn't fully comprehend what I said earlier. The researchers have made something that they regard as a "fuel cell" that is ONLY in the FIRST STAGE of development. It is not at the fully developed stage yet where they can manufacture it "en masse" for commercial use. They are still doing "research" on what is to BE a fuel cell, but is still ONLY at 55% efficiency rating.

"Scientists have used sunlight to turn seawater (H2O) into hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which can then be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. It is the first photocatalytic method of H2O2 production that achieves a high enough efficiency so that the H2O2 can be used in a fuel cell."

"...which can THEN be used" indicates that the research part is not finished yet, and has much to be improved on. Do you imagine that they will patent it "as is", at only 55% when consumers will insist on it being 100% efficient and ready for use with no drop in power and efficiency?
Otto_Szucks
1.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
onions
Re the article:
"The researchers, led by Shunichi Fukuzumi at Osaka University, have published a paper on the new method of the photocatalytic production of hydrogen peroxide in a recent issue of Nature Communications."

Now compare that Japanese name to the ones in the link you just provided above:

"A membraneless hydrogen peroxide fuel cell using Prussian Blue as cathode material"
Seyed Ali Mousavi Shaegh,*ab   Nam-Trung Nguyen,*ab   Seyyed Mohsen Mousavi Ehteshamiab and   Siew Hwa Chanab  

And, did you notice the dates: Received 30 Mar 2012, Accepted 24 May 2012
First published online 30 May 2012

Are you able to tell the differences?
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
The researchers have made something that they regard as a "fuel cell"
Which means that there is such a thing as H202 fuel cell. Which means that MR is wrong. Oh look - here is another one https://www.googl...;cad=rja
Otto_Szucks
1.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
And the date for that .pdf is. . .?

Why, it's from 9 years ago.

Maybe you will notice by the following statement in the article that their research is ongoing and that nothing is yet written in stone...including their pre-emergent version of what is, as yet, to become a full-fledged "fuel cell".
"In the future, we plan to work on developing a method for the low-cost, large-scale production of H2O2 from seawater," Fukuzumi said. "This may replace the current high-cost production of H2O2 from H2 (from mainly natural gas) and O2."

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
Why, it's from 9 years ago.
Which of course is not relevant to anything. MR claimed that something does not exist - but that something clearly does exist. Not sure how many times one should point out the same obvious fact. The more prescient point is - some people have an incessant need to bomb a science site with unsupported assertions - and then go down the rabbit hole - when challenged to provide some support. As you indicated earlier - it is not reasonable to ask you to provide support for assertions - as you prefer to be able to make unsupported - and blatantly false assertions - of course without any support.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 22, 2016
Onions, again, your last link appears to describe a cell where the power is generated by the oxidation of iron. Prove to me that the Prussian blue is not consumed by the process and is merely a catalyst. I know the abstract described the H2O2 as a "fuel" but the whole process was not really described.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
"Overall, the system has a total solar-to-electricity efficiency of 0.28%. (The photocatalytic production of H2O2 from seawater has an efficiency of 0.55%, and the fuel cell has an efficiency of 50%.)"

It would have been nice if the authors stated which type of fuel cell they were using to obtain these figures.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
I know the abstract described the H2O2 as a "fuel" but the whole process was not really described.
MR - it does not matter - your statement is false - that is the point - as is your statement about welfare - and the point I am making is that this is your pattern - post lies - refuse to support them - rinse and repeat - over and over.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
It would have been nice if the authors stated which type of fuel cell they were using to obtain these figures.

They did. From - http://www.nature...470.html
the energy conversion efficiency of the H2O2 fuel cell was determined to be ca 50% by the measurement of output energy as electrical energy versus consumed chemical energy H2O2 gas, which is comparable to the efficiency of an H2 fuel cell

Did you notice the words "the H202 fuel cell?" The one dunning kruger says does not exist.
Eikka
5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2016
Did you notice the words "the H202 fuel cell?" The one dunning kruger says does not exist.

http://link.sprin...4-0694-7
The dual role of hydrogen peroxide in fuel cells

In addition to being an oxidant, hydrogen peroxide can donate electrons in the oxidation reaction to act as a fuel.


MR166
Onions, again, your last link appears to describe a cell where the power is generated by the oxidation of iron.


http://www.rsc.or...74j1.pdf
The electrochemical reaction taking place at the cathode side of the Al and Mg semi-fuel
cells is the electro-reduction of hydrogen peroxide at the Prussian blue electrode.
H2O2 +2H+ + 2e-→ 2H2O; E0=1.77 V

there are some side reactions taking place in the cell which cause a significant
drop in the cell potential. In the case of aluminium, these reactions include the corrosion of
aluminium


The corrosion of the metals is an unwanted side effect

greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
Szucks
Your bleeding heart desiring of "social justice" for those who have no desire to work, even through multiple generations, is quite irrational. I don't envy you.
I would certainly plead guilty to having concern for others in the world. It is interesting that you choose to advertise that you do not care - and in fact deride those who do. This is a big part of why I read science and technology sites. We have to learn to reorganize ourselves. Climate change, pollution, environmental degradation, poverty, famine, drought etc. - are all massive issues that we have the potential to address. Shitty attitudes like yours seem to me the biggest barrier. Here is just one example of what we could be doing http://greenwave.org/ If we did not fight wars like Vietnam, and Iraq - but instead chose a different route. Honestly Szucks - I see you as selfish, hateful, and a barrier to progress.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
IMNVHO, @greenos, the main barrier to research that would make extremely low-cost goods, services, and energy available to most people is the fact that the rich couldn't keep getting richer without making the poor poorer. That's where their money comes from, and they justify it based on Malthusian economics, a discredited hypothesis from a couple centuries ago. This is misrepresented as "sensible economics" and "conservatism," when it is nonsense and is not conservative but greedy and destroyative.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
In all fairness, there are some among the ultra-rich who actually try to use their money to do some good in a big way, but they are the minority, by all appearances. The majority are indifferent to semi-hostile to "the masses" gaining power, and a larger minority than those who try to do some good (again, in a big way) try to take (back, in most historical opinions) "the masses'" power that they have gained since the 18th Century CE (corresponding approximately with "The Enlightenment," as it is usually called in Western cultures).

I tend to make a subjective evaluation of cultural "goodness" based on the extent to which "the masses" have power to affect the extent to which their needs are met. I also include another factor: to what extent do the powerful (both politically and economically) *actually* work (as opposed to using financial tricks and propaganda to maintain their power) to get "the masses" not what they want, but what they need.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
[contd]
In the end, the goal turns out to be a society free of artificial limits like goods and energy, and rich in services and in intellectual advancement. No one goes without goods and energy, because we (collectively-- by this I mean technology available to "the masses") can make any thing (that is, everyone can get any thing made of matter and the energy to manipulate it). This is, after all, the practical goal of science and why "the masses" should support it with their taxes (or, in the US context, insist their politicians do on their behalf).

People who can provide services get extra. That's as it should be; a good service provider makes a patron's (in the US, a customer's or a consumer's) life easier, and lets the patron concentrate on the services *they* can provide.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
[contd]
Good providers get all the "work" (a really good one enjoys doing it, and limits themselves to what they can provide consistent with their quality standards) they care to do; cheaters get the dole. If anyone can have anything, then what remains that is of worth?

Simple answer: cred. Social standing, with extra access to others who are of high quality in *their* service. It's not bankable, it's not based exclusively on either old or new accomplishments, it's not necessary to the acquisition of any material object, it's a social rating that reflects both past and recent accomplishments, and it is not objective, it is subjective and varies from person to person. This is the only thing one can get that cannot be objectively valued, and therefore cannot be made using matter and energy. One chooses a goal in this sphere, and then labors to accomplish it.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
[contd]
The main problem with this is the means by which the greedy and unscrupulous rich corrupt some plurality of "the masses" by deception to support the suppression of "the masses."

The main tools over history for this deception have been propaganda and religion, and often are they combined with one another. Anyone who reads "this book was written by Teh Dog" (heh, yes, @Teh Dog, I understood your mocking handle, and like you because of it) either knows they are reading propaganda or has not realized it; and unfortunately many never will.

The goal of mass education is to reduce the ones who will never figure it out to a minimum, and many agendae of the ultra-rich focus on preventing education as much as they can to increase the number of victims for their religious and propagandous (if I may coin the term) stratagems.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
[contd]
Almost all of the struggles of "the masses" with the stratagems of the greedy sector of the ultra-rich have stemmed from the attempt by the greedy ultra-rich to gain a monopoly on some resource; this pattern is repeated over and over again in history. Another pattern, however, always asserts itself: the pattern of the exhaustion of the resource and the greedy ultra-rich to exploit it to the maximum in order to get all they can gain at the end when the prices enter the exponential phase. In this phase, the most damaging thing that can happen to the greedy ultra-rich is the discovery of a high-availability source of the resource that destroys their monopoly and they do everything they can to prevent it.

This is what we are witnessing with regard to fossil fuels at this time. Anyone who doubts it is invited to examine the statistics on energy company funding of AGW denial.
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
Szucks
Your bleeding heart desiring of "social justice" for those who have no desire to work, even through multiple generations, is quite irrational. I don't envy you.
I would certainly plead guilty to having concern for others in the world. It is interesting that you choose to advertise that you do not care - and in fact deride those who do. This is a big part of why I read science and technology sites. We have to learn to reorganize ourselves. (yada yada yada) If we did not fight wars like Vietnam, and Iraq - but instead chose a different route. Honestly Szucks - I see you as selfish, hateful, and a barrier to progress.
- onions
As I have never said that I do not care, you are presumptuous in your imaginings. Your "concern" will not motivate the welfare recips (through multiple gens) to get off their azzes and get a job so that taxpayers' will not also find themselves in the poorhouse. You don't care about workers who are forced to GIVE to those who only TAKE
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) May 22, 2016
As I have never said that I do not care,
It is a conclusion - derived from your need to insult me - and use the term "bleeding heart" towards me - for recognizing the plight of the poor in our society. You keep using the term lazy. You are so arrogant. Have you ever spent time with people - who work two part time minimum wage jobs - and cannot keep the car they need to retain those jobs running - for lack of funds? I have, and do. They are not all lazy. Motivation is a learned trait. If you are raised in an environment in which you are not inspired - you can lose the will to try. I have to conclude that you know nothing about the lives of poor people - but like Noumenon, Ryggy, MR166 (all self professed conservatives) - you feel compelled to make hateful judgements - such as calling them lazy.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) May 22, 2016
Don't feel bad, @greenos, it called me a "Goody two shoes" as if it were an insult. It's not very bright; hasn't figured out enlightened self-interest. That's why it's so arrogant; it hasn't matured beyond Libertardianism.
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
(cont'd)
- onions
"If we did not fight wars like Vietnam, and Iraq - but instead chose a different route"

Perhaps you believe that to now fight ISIS is a bad thing? Then I am sure that you will embrace their presence in your own country (wherever that is) when they force Sharia law on you and your loved ones. If you resist they will cut off your head with a dull knife, and all those who oppose them.You will almost certainly have only kind words and caring about the poor, huddled masses that ISIS is. You and your kind do the welfare recips a great disservice by not taking the time to explain to them how they have become blood sucking leeches off the fat of the land. They believe that they are entitled to the hard-earned money of American workers. Where is your compassion for those workers? Higher income taxes? Maybe Obama will have another few trillion dollars printed up before he leaves the White House forever?

What route would YOU have taken in the war against ISIS?
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 22, 2016
Thanks for the link Eikka. I stand corrected!!!
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
Perhaps you believe that to now fight ISIS is a bad thing?
It's changing the subject again. Typical destroyative Libertardian. Always trying to shift the goalposts when it gets out-argued.

ISIS is to Muslims what destroyative Libertardians are to Christianity. <-fair since it brought ISIS up.
Otto_Szucks
1.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
As I have never said that I do not care,
It is a conclusion - derived from your need to insult me - and use the term "bleeding heart" towards me -
You keep using the term lazy. You are so arrogant. Have you ever spent time with people - who work two part time minimum wage jobs - and cannot keep the car they need to retain those jobs running - for lack of funds? I have, and do. They are not all lazy. Motivation is a learned trait. If you are raised in an environment in which you are not inspired - you can lose the will to try. I have to conclude that you yada yada(..)hateful judgements - such as calling them lazy.
- o

They ARE lazy, otherwise they would be down at the employment office looking for work on a daily basis. My Dad worked 3 jobs to make ends meet and raise a family. Only ones exempt from finding work are children, the old, the infirmed, and the mentally ill like Theghostofotto.
Motivation comes out of necessity...like eating.
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
IMNVHO, @greenos, the main barrier to research that would make extremely low-cost goods, services, and energy available to most people is the fact that the rich couldn't keep getting richer without making the poor poorer. That's where their money comes from, and they justify it based on Malthusian economics, a discredited hypothesis from a couple centuries ago. This is misrepresented as "sensible economics" and "conservatism," when it is nonsense and is not conservative but greedy and destroyative. ....
- said the Communist to the Liberal-Socialist

Aha...a Communist speaking on the topic of economics is like a blood-sucking leech complaining when it is brushed off the skin of its intended victim.
LOL
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
a Communist
And it tries to change the subject yet again.

The truth is, I'm both more conservative and more libertarian than you are. I don't care if I get rich as long as I get the food and medical care I need; you clearly resent the fact you can't get rich, which means you need to oppress someone so there's someone you can point to that you're "better" than.

Infantile. And pitiful.
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
Don't feel bad, @greenos, it called me a "Goody two shoes" as if it were an insult. It's not very bright; hasn't figured out enlightened self-interest. That's why it's so arrogant; it hasn't matured beyond Libertardianism.


LMAO
:))
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
:))
^double chin reveal
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
"Overall, the system has a total solar-to-electricity efficiency of 0.28%. (The photocatalytic production of H2O2 from seawater has an efficiency of 0.55%, and the fuel cell has an efficiency of 50%.)"

It would have been nice if the authors stated which type of fuel cell they were using to obtain these figures.
- MR166

The point is that there ARE fuel cells in use and on the market already, manufactured by others, and those are very different from the ones that the authors are working on and attempting to improve efficiency in the use of sunlight to convert seawater into energy from H2O2. The authors are still searching for the best type of material to be a part of their fuel cell so that photons will convert the H2O2 into energy more readily, faster and easier. At present, their fuel cell of the future does not hold a charge of 100%. Also, a 24 hour waiting period for a full charge is too long. They have to improve on that also.
Otto_Szucks
1.6 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
Here is a YouTube version of the above article.

https://www.youtu...tyKXFdbs
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
They ARE lazy, otherwise they would be down at the employment office looking for work on a daily basis
And how do you know they are not down at the employment office looking for work? So you see a fundamental difference between your way of thinking and mine. I recognize the challenges we face on this planet - and am interested in solutions. You make assertions out of ignorance - and look at calling people names - when in reality you know nothing about them. You don't care. If you did - you would be looking to understand - not generalizing - and calling people names.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
Da schneib
The truth is, I'm both more conservative and more libertarian than you are.
Interesting point. I too see a lot of sense in the ideas of limited government, high levels of freedom/responsibility, working hard towards creating a better world for self, and community etc. It seems as I watch the political dialogue here in US - that many self identified libertarians - really don't seem to behave in ways that uphold those goals. Seems like so much double speak goes on - really confusing everyone. thanks.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (13) May 22, 2016
Libertarianism is just a code word for "I get to do whatever the fuck I want when I want and nobody else is allowed to stop me". Conservatism is just a code word for "I get to stop those other people from doing whatever the fuck they want because that would interfere with my libertarianism".

There is nothing in the world more illogical, irrational, selfish and self-absorbed than either philosophy. It's nothing more than sociopathic apologia for psychopaths.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
Da schneib
The truth is, I'm both more conservative and more libertarian than you are.
Interesting point. I too see a lot of sense in the ideas of limited government, high levels of freedom/responsibility, working hard towards creating a better world for self, and community etc.
It seems we share a lot of values, @greenos; not that I didn't already notice that. ;)

It seems as I watch the political dialogue here in US - that many self identified libertarians - really don't seem to behave in ways that uphold those goals. Seems like so much double speak goes on - really confusing everyone. thanks.
The big problem is the difference between Libertarians and libertarians. The Libertarians aren't libertarian; this is primarily because they pretend that economic power doesn't equate to political power.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
[contd]
This confusion is due to propaganda promulgated by the greedy antisocial sector of the ultra-rich. They co-opted the US Libertarian Party using this propaganda; it is worthy of note that they have also done this to the Republican Party. The techniques they used were first developed for the Nazis in Germany by Carl Schmitt; I recommend that you review his works in order to understand the enemy. You should also review the establishment of the "Fresh Water" school of economics (driven by the Austrian school of economics) by a program of donations to the University of Chicago in the 1940s and '50s, and the hiring of von Mises and Hayek at that institution. The greedy antisocial ultra rich used the development of this school of economics as a weapon to preserve their ability to gather wealth at the expense of the poor. They are still doing it today.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
Libertarianism is just a code word for "I get to do whatever the fuck I want when I want and nobody else is allowed to stop me". Conservatism is just a code word for "I get to stop those other people from doing whatever the fuck they want because that would interfere with my libertarianism".
Be careful here, @lee, to differentiate between actual libertarianism and the distorted views of the US Libertarian Party as propagandized by the greedy sociopathic ultra rich. Remember always that the Libertarians are not libertarian; they are authoritarian, and wish to use the power of the state driven by economics to "get to do whatever they want" and "stop 'them' from doing whatever they want."

There is nothing in the world more illogical, irrational, selfish and self-absorbed than either philosophy. It's nothing more than sociopathic apologia for psychopaths.
I wouldn't go so far as psychopaths; sociopaths is more appropriate.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (10) May 22, 2016
Yeah, but, the only thing an ideological commitment to "small government" achieves is a lack of regulation designed solely to allow the mega rich to become richer. It's the cry of corporatism and achieves only the goals of corporatism. And unrestrained corporatism is just fascism.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2016
Yeah, but, the only thing an ideological commitment to "small government" achieves is a lack of regulation designed solely to allow the mega rich to become richer. It's the cry of corporatism and achieves only the goals of corporatism.
Actually the manipulation of large government to prevent small government from making laws that prevent exploitation is the real problem here, and that is driven by the money to influence both large and small government. It is, ultimately, the fact that money influences politics that makes this work; and this is fueled also by the dissociation of members of large government bureaucracies from their constituents. When the mayor of a small town lets corporate interests screw everyone, everyone eventually notices; but when a Senator does it, they rationalize it as ideological.

And unrestrained corporatism is just fascism.
I don't think I disagree with this.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 22, 2016
As a bit of a neophyte - here is how I see it Leetennant. The core idea is self responsibility. Very existential. I am fully responsible for everything I do. Bureaucracy is always an impediment to that responsibility. Rand was in a way trying to promote that responsibility. What she missed - is the collective part of things. In being responsible for myself - I must also understand that I share this space with you. You have as much right to the space as i do - so we must find ways to balance our needs. Here is where the modern Libertarian party shits itself. It is all about personal gratification - without the understanding of shared space. Learn a little about psychology - and you see that we have made a shit mess of our world (400% increase in antidepressants in approx 25 yrs) - http://healthland...ly-mean/ The problems are complex - but not solved by Sox's just calling poor people lazy. Cont.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) May 22, 2016
Cont. Da scheib is right on in understanding how the privileged will do anything to maintain their position, and don't give a shit about anyone else in their universe. Again - look at how sox can dismiss a whole segment of our society - with one word - lazy. No understanding of child abuse, poverty, crime, drugs, depression, mental illness, etc. etc. etc. I for sure don't know how we fix the broken mess we have made. Clinton and Trump will perpetuate the system here in the US. Education is clearly an important part of the solution - but first we have to develop the will to really start talking about what is going on.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
It's worth stopping at this point to describe true libertarianism as opposed to the authoritarian creed espoused by US Libertardians.

Libertarianism is practiced personally. One accepts responsibility for one's actions first of all; this means that one acknowledges how one's actions affect one's neighbors, and the world at large. One acts to maximize one's plans, but not at the expense of others whether near or far. One chooses goals, and then chooses a course of action that one feels and thinks will maximize one's potential to achieve those goals.

Pretending that libertarianism is a political ideology ignores the point. It's a personal philosophy; one acts to maximize one's own benefit, but not at the expense of others. Ignoring the effects of one's action on others is actually anti-libertarian. One acts as possible to maximize the ability of others to maximize their benefit, expecting them to do so as well. The outward sensibility is balanced with the personal.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
[contd]
The essential creed is that everyone should be as free as possible to pursue their own happiness, in whatever manner they choose based upon the goals they choose. Government becomes a device for resolving conflicts in the goals and methods each person chooses, where they affect others; what one does for, to, or about oneself is at one's own discretion, as long as it does not affect others' ability to do what they choose to do for, to, or about themselves. This is why small government is chosen over large government.

This breaks down in two places:
1. The influence of money, particularly when used by the greedy and sociopathic to promote their interests at the expense of others, both locally and globally.
2. The influence of ideology, particularly when used to reduce the liberty of individuals.

Both of these are more easily promulgated by the rich, for the rich.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2016
The breakdown of #1 results in the use of propaganda and populism with hidden goals, as well as the co-option of big government, by the greedy sociopathic sector.

The breakdown of #2 results in war, particularly religious war.

The antidotes are to limit the power of individuals, both politically and economically. It is the lack of recognition of the power of money that leads to most of the ills libertarianism is blamed for. And this lack is knowingly promulgated by the sociopathic greedy sector to pervert the US Libertardian Party and the US Republican Party. It reaches into the US Democratic Party as well, but it's harder for them to establish a foothold there because the Democrats attract a lot of the, bringing it back around again, "Goody two shoes" types both in the ranks and among the leaders. The Republicans, being the out-and-out corporatist party, don't tend to attract many of these types of people and the few they get tend to leave when they figure that out.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (5) May 23, 2016
and they justify it based on Malthusian economics, a discredited hypothesis from a couple centuries ago.


It's not so much discredited as simply ignored.

The basic point of the malthusian argument depends on your understanding of what human nature is. Of course if you believe that people are socially programmed robots that can be changed by simply changing the program, then yes - the malthusian catastrophe is a non-issue because you simply reprogram people to not behave that way.

But if you instead see that among "enlightened" self-interested people there will always be by nature those who are not enlightened or "rational" according to your subjective criteria, there will always be a problem of a class of people who evolve and grow to abuse your generosity.

And that in turn forces your hand to institute the same sort of hierarchy or rich and poor - only this time it's made subject to the judgement of a government elite, and guess what sort of people they are?
Eikka
2.5 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
The problem of all sorts of collectivists ideals is that they don't actually get to define what is good and desirable - that's because they have no objective means to do so. Hence it's not actually correct to say that the greedy should not be - it's only correct to say that you don't wish them to be - because that would be of some benefit to you personally, which makes you a greedy.

The antidotes are to limit the power of individuals, both politically and economically.


And should you extend that to yourself as well as an individual, you would be powerless to implement it - or not and become a hypocrit for the cause.

Efforts at social engineering always come down to the point that there is someone or some group of people who thinks they are more right, that their way of thinking has more of a right to exist than others because it's "rational" or "enlightened" according to the group itself, and therefore all other thinking must be suppressed or made powerless.
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
if you believe that people are socially programmed robots
I think that is a bias way of describing reality. I don't think human nature is some fixed entity - but that we are molded by our social experience. Twin studies seem to support this. So many traits seem to be multi-generational. Child abuse is a good example. But cycles can be broken. I have worked a lot with drug and alcohol abuse. The chances of becoming an alcoholic, if your parents are alcoholic - is off the charts. Learned behavior. But of course - not inevitable. Birth rates go down - with improved economics and education.https://www.wefor...rtility/ In my view - this is at the core of why many groups hate education. It threatens their world view, and control withing the system.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
Efforts at social engineering
Depends what you mean by social engineering. Pol Pots re-education camps - sure - big problem. Improving the quality of education - and economic opportunity for impoverished communities - not so much. What about treatment programs for drug and alcohol addiction? Do you see social problems as simple, and easily solveable?
MR166
1.6 / 5 (11) May 23, 2016
"Depends what you mean by social engineering. Pol Pots re-education camps - sure - big problem. Improving the quality of education - and economic opportunity for impoverished communities - not so much. What about treatment programs for drug and alcohol addiction? Do you see social problems as simple, and easily solveable?"

As far as education goes I would venture to guess that more than 50% of the problem is culture and not lack of funds. Some of these schools are not even a safe place to be, so how can one learn? Unfortunately poverty tends to reinforce itself. Also some want to idealize the ghetto culture and claim the others are prejudiced for not wanting it to invade their neighborhoods.
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
As far as education goes I would venture to guess that more than 50% of the problem is culture and not lack of funds.
Ahhh - so we do science now by "venturing to guess"... Your statement is meaningless to me. What does it even mean to say that a problem is "50% culture?"

Just FYI MR. On this - and other threads (eg. 60k welfare) - you show a complete lack of regard for facts, truth, or honest dialogue. You do seem interested in having dialogue - but at some point - I think it becomes clear that there is no point - when the other party has no interest in truth. I doubt what I am saying will matter to you - but it will free up time for me to grow my onions.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
Of course if you believe that people are socially programmed robots that can be changed by simply changing the program, then yes - the malthusian catastrophe is a non-issue because you simply reprogram people to not behave that way.
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. The Malthusian program is population control. One of the major arguments against it is the reduction in birth rate in modern economic systems.

It is the assumption that people would continue breeding large families under all conditions that led to Malthus' catastrophes. This assumption is questionable in the face of the evidence.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
The problem of all sorts of collectivists ideals is that they don't actually get to define what is good and desirable - that's because they have no objective means to do so.
What's objectively good and desirable is that the maximum number of people have the maximum freedom of action. Are you saying you're against this?

Hence it's not actually correct to say that the greedy should not be - it's only correct to say that you don't wish them to be - because that would be of some benefit to you personally, which makes you a greedy.
To the extent they can be greedy sociopaths without affecting others' freedom to do what they want, they're free to- but when they start using propaganda to control others, then those others are not, in fact, free, and their rights have been trampled. And somehow it always turns out that way. In fact it's that way right now.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
[contd]
Meanwhile, it's not greedy to want to be free to the extent possible in a modern society; it's just an assertion of your rights. You're justifying greedy sociopathic behavior by claiming that opposing it is greedy. That's pretty amusing, Eikka. But it's also pretty transparent.

The antidotes are to limit the power of individuals, both politically and economically.
And should you extend that to yourself as well as an individual, you would be powerless to implement it - or not and become a hypocrit for the cause.
The point is, small government limits the political power of any individual politician. You seem to have missed that. Furthermore, every voter has more power, because any given politician has a smaller voter base. If they're bought, and they take actions that affect their constituents badly as a result, they're out quicker.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) May 23, 2016
[contd]
Efforts at social engineering always come down to the point that there is someone or some group of people who thinks they are more right, that their way of thinking has more of a right to exist than others because it's "rational" or "enlightened" according to the group itself, and therefore all other thinking must be suppressed or made powerless.
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Please indicate where you think I advocated social engineering.

I find it amusing that you are arguing against libertarianism when you appear to be a libertarian. I find it even more amusing that you are actually arguing against increased personal liberty for most people by claiming it reduces the liberty of a few.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
[contd]
So let's review:
Eikka doesn't believe individual freedom is an objective good.
Eikka is against small government.
Eikka is for the right of the greedy sociopaths to be greedy sociopaths, and to limit the freedom of others in order to be so.
Eikka thinks the rich should be able to control everyone else.

You're a feudalist, man. And an authoritarian one at that.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Key points to note here:
Socialism is not the opposite of libertarianism, nor is it incompatible with it.
Democracy is not the opposite of libertarianism, nor is it incompatible with it.
Communism is one system that is incompatible with libertarianism.
Free market capitalism is another system that is incompatible with libertarianism.

Draw what conclusions you will. Oh, and stop trying to claim socialism is a system of government; it's not. Democracy is a system of government; socialism is a system of economics. Libertarianism isn't a system of government either; it's a principle of personal freedom.

Democracy is the fairest way to do a dirty job: governing.
Socialism is the fairest way to do a dirty job: distributing economic benefit.
Libertarianism is the only way to keep democracy and socialism from being perverted by various minorities for their benefit at the expense of the majority.

Naturally the greedy sociopaths are against all three of them.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
And if you're looking for the opposite to libertarianism, it's authoritarianism: the idea that a minority of people are better able to determine what people "should do" than the people themselves. It doesn't matter whether that minority is determined by wealth, political power, or some other social engineering scheme; it's anti-libertarian no matter how you slice it.

Nobody wants to be a pawn in someone else's experiment; they want to be the prime mover in their own experiment. That's what real libertarianism is all about, not free market capitalism or the right of the rich to control everything.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
"Free market capitalism is another system that is incompatible with libertarianism."

Da now you have piqued my interest. How can there be libertarianism with out a free market?
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
@MR, you're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "How can there be liberty with a free market? And without liberty, how can there be libertarianism?"

A free market guarantees the right of sociopathic greedy scoundrels to corrupt it. And after they do, they will always act to maximize their economic benefit without reference to the freedom of others; they always have. They are right now. They will every time they get the opportunity.

Minimal regulation that preserves the fair market? Sure, fine; nobody needs extra laws. Deregulation? Bad idea- those regulations were put in to make a fixes for the scams the scoundrels used last time. Take them out and here comes the scam. Bet on it; they remember them all, just like con artists remember all the old scams that they use back to the Romans.

What we need is a fair market, not a free market.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Let's make a change to the list:

Democratic government guaranteeing everybody gets to vote.
Fair market properly regulated to prevent scams.
Libertarian values that are about personal liberty, not economics and not government.

That's what real libertarianism is about; personal freedom to do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect other peoples' liberty. In the presence of oppressive government or oppressive economics, libertarianism is impossible; that's why a fair market, not a free market, is truly libertarian.

The scam now is, pretending that a free market is a fair market. It's not. The existence of sociopathic greedy scoundrels absolutely guarantees it. Don't confuse the US Libertardian Party with real libertarianism. The US Libertardian Party is feudalist authoritarian, not democratic libertarian, and that's due to the propaganda the sociopathic greedy scoundrels have been pumping out in the US since the Nineteenth Century.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) May 23, 2016
I usually ask Libertarians for an example of a Libertarian government.

Most folk say they are economic conservatives and social liberals, meaning they want freedom and all the benefits of government, but do not want to PAY for them.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Now, is a fair market a socialist market? I dunno. US Libertardian Party members seem to think so; I'm not at all sure. I'd think there are a lot of ways to regulate the market so it's fair, but not socialist, and I really don't see any problem with that.

But every time someone tries to regulate the market, a bunch of propaganda-blinded free market radicals start screaming about socialism.

What do you say about it when deregulation actually gets done (1999) and the next thing that happens is a huge stock market crash that costs US$7 trillion (2000)? And the next thing after that, after more deregulation, is a huge housing crash that costs almost twice that much? What do you say to people who watch that happen right in front of them and keep on opposing market regulation?

Whadda ya want, written instructions?
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (11) May 23, 2016
And yet the economic areas of the US (and Australian FYI) that are run by large corporations - agriculture, mining, energy and in our case the media - are all mysteriously subsidised to the eye balls, pay little to no tax and have few regulations. How's that for a "free market". You want to know where climate change came from? An over-subsidised and unregulated energy sector. You want to know where your subprime mortgage crisis came from? An unregulated finance sector that gets bailed out every time it fails due to lack of regulation.

No market is "free". It's a myth.

Because a truly "free" market would leave the majority of people with no infrastructure or basic services, no food, no housing and no work. The question then becomes where the economy get directed. And those decisions are clearly already being made so why shouldn't we suggest it gets directed differently?
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
No market is "free". It's a myth.
Yep. It's either regulated, or captured by the sociopathic greedy sector.

I really don't get what the problem is with these free market radicals; we don't let drug makers dilute their stuff with cyanide, or cheat on the dosage it says on the bottle; we don't let food makers put poisonous plants in their stuff; we don't let toy manufacturers use lead based paint. The market is regulated. Get over it.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
You see many people say that they want "freedom" and are libertarians. But they also want security and do not want to bear the repercussions of their own decisions. The are unwilling to take individual action to oppose others who want to infringe upon their rights. Thus they abandon their freedoms for government controls in the false hope that the government will make their lives better.

leetennant
4.6 / 5 (10) May 23, 2016
That's because this "freedom" that American libertarians bang on about doesn't exist. I bet you can't even define it. There is no "freedom" to an inadequate minimum wage that verges on slavery. There is no freedom in a lack of social support infrastructure. There is nothing "free" about a lack of basic universal health care. There is no freedom without a fully-funded and equal education system.

Freedom comes from being supported. Not from being left to drown.

What libertarians mean by "freedom" is the freedom to enslave others to elevate themselves.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) May 23, 2016
Careful, @lee, that's what US Libertarian Party members believe, not what libertarians believe. Don't confuse the two.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
"Freedom comes from being supported. Not from being left to drown."

Freedom comes from being supported eh. That is really sad. I think you are confusing freedom with dependence.

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) May 23, 2016
"Freedom comes from being supported. Not from being left to drown."

Freedom comes from being supported eh. That is really sad. I think you are confusing freedom with dependence.

I depend on being left alone to pursue my goals... and supported in that pursuit...
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (11) May 24, 2016
"Freedom comes from being supported. Not from being left to drown."

Freedom comes from being supported eh. That is really sad. I think you are confusing freedom with dependence.



Good point. That's how I know you build your own roads, generate all your own electricity, grow all your own food, make all your own tools from scratch and make your own clothes.

Idiot.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) May 24, 2016
That is the difference between the US and Europe. In the US all rights are given to us by God and we as a nation may choose to cede some of these rights to the government for the general good of all. In Europe one has no rights other than those that the government chooses to cede to the populace. The King is still a live and well there. He just goes by a little different name.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) May 24, 2016
@MR Yeah, pay no attention to those guys who maintain the asphalt and concrete. Not to mention the bridges. They do it all for free.

@lee's right, you are definitely an idiot.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) May 24, 2016
In Europe one has no rights other than those that the government chooses to cede to the populace.

Ooookay...seems like you're getting your European history lessons from watching TV shows.
That explains a lot.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) May 24, 2016
Just for reference, the bridges were all falling apart because @MR and its ilk refused to pay taxes for refurbishing them.

Typical Libertardians. Libertardians are like cats; totally dependent, and never willing to admit it.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) May 24, 2016
It never fails to amaze me that all of the rocket scientists at P.org cannot see the master plan and how it is being implemented. Saul Alinsky laid it out plain as day. Create world chaos and the citizens of the world will beg you to take away their freedoms in the name of security and safety. The .1% already have all your power and now they want your freedom.

Have a good day puppets.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2016
"... In the US all rights are given to us by God ..."
I thought you had a constitution, and a bill of rights. I thought those were the work of men.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2016
Oh, you mean those founder guys? They were all hippies: look at their hair. Besides, they owned slaves. And stuff.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2016
It never fails to amaze me that all of the rocket scientists at P.org cannot see the master plan and how it is being implemented. Saul Alinsky laid it out plain as day. Create world chaos and the citizens of the world will beg you to take away their freedoms in the name of security and safety. The .1% already have all your power and now they want your freedom.

Have a good day puppets.


Poe's Law
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2016
Poe's Law
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

What the poser you quoted doesn't get is that creating world chaos is what they already did, and are continuing to do using religion and propaganda. Not to mention hosing the financial system a couple times a decade in order to steal from the marks.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2016
Ooookay...seems like you're getting your European history lessons from watching TV shows.
That explains a lot.
Probably TeleTubbies. I grew up in England - and today live in the U.S. Freedom is an interesting concept. The governments of both countries are highly restrictive. Hard to compare which is the more oppressive. What I would say - is that health care is much more fairly allocated in Europe - and that is a big deal. I grew up in Portsmouth - and never felt any danger in terms of walking the streets. In the U.S. - much less freedom in terms of being able to walk the streets. Turn on the news every night - and count the murders. That is surely a big issue as far as freedom is concerned.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) May 25, 2016
In the US all rights are given to us by God

The US is a theocracy? Really?

The King is still a live and well there.

Which king would that be?
(And FYI: when there were still kings in Europe with any power they had that power, too, 'by the grace of god'. You should be right alongside that by your earlier argument)

Turn on the news every night - and count the murders.

There's the issue of how free one feels (certainly I feel a lot more free/unafraid walking down the streets knowing no one is carrying weapons)...and objectively regrading prison population. Either the US is on average much more criminally minded or it's just a lot less 'free' than anywhere else (The HIGHEST incarceration rate in a european country is less than 1/3 that of the US...the lowest is 1/30)
SLOOHCox
3.4 / 5 (10) May 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2016
My Dad worked 3 jobs to make ends meet and raise a family.


He could have kept his dick in his pants. He did a pretty crap job. He never taught you basic manners or logic.
Otto_Szucks
2.1 / 5 (7) May 25, 2016
"... In the US all rights are given to us by God ..."
I thought you had a constitution, and a bill of rights. I thought those were the work of men.
- TehDog

And men can take away those rights that were originally given by God. Why? Because they can, depending on who has the power and control over the people. To some like Obama, the U.S. Constitution is only a piece of paper with words that he is free to ignore. And he has ignored it many times and will continue to ignore the laws of the land until he leaves office. The American Liberal-Socialist mainstream media loves to see the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Congress ignored by the Liar-in-Chief.
jljenkins
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2016
[error]
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 25, 2016
Too much of a depletion of O2 in ocean waters may produce hypoxia in sea life. There already are too many "dead zones" as it is
This reminds me of the time when you figured that one geyser could melt a major part of the Antarctic ice sheet on the order of 100 cubic miles per year...

This reminds me of the time when you figured that you could stop a supervolcano with geothermal plants...

This reminds me of the time when you figured that lunar mining was a bad idea because it would cause tidal flooding here on earth...

-It would appear that you have a problem conceptualizing scale, eh pussytard? Like how glassy-headed martians in NASA photos would have needed to be 900ft tall and supine.

Understandable for someone who obviously learned science from reading Mad magazine.
Otto_Szucks
2.3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2016
...and it still could if it gets as big as your fat ass.
Nope, never said those things the way you are saying them, pussytardo.
And you seem to be forgetful that I said to you in the other thread that NASA said that the cameras on the MRO turn when the MRO itself is commanded to turn. This makes it possible for the cameras to take oblique pictures of hills and mountainsides. This shows that Pirouette's photos of the life forms on Mars are upright, not laying down and are living creatures.

But we all know that you are here, OTTO, not for the science, but to get attention and show off your skills as a nasty sock puppeteer so that you can lie about other posters. God doesn't like liars, Otto. He has clipped your wings and you have gone into hiding in Physorg.

Now WHERE is your evidence (LINK) to the thread where I, or anyone else had ever originated your 900 foot tall glassy headed martians, pussytardo?
Otto_Szucks
2.3 / 5 (3) May 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2016
My Dad worked 3 jobs to make ends meet and raise a family.


He could have kept his dick in his pants. He did a pretty crap job. He never taught you basic manners or logic.
- SLOOHCox

Your mama.
Otto_Szucks
3 / 5 (4) May 25, 2016
You see many people say that they want "freedom" and are libertarians. But they also want security and do not want to bear the repercussions of their own decisions. The are unwilling to take individual action to oppose(..) infringe upon their rights. Thus they abandon their freedoms for government controls in the false hope that the government will make their lives better.

- MR166
DaSchneibo forgets that even in a 'free market system', there are laws to prohibit any lawlessness wrt the exercise of "Free Enterprise" such as price-fixing to unlawfully enrich one group over another, as well as fraudulent debits and credits where a dishonest accountant could make it so that it appears one company is taking in less or more revenue. "Cooking the books" is also verboten in a "free market system". This is why the U.S. or anywhere else in the world has never had a True Capitalist system...because dishonest people have managed to elude those whose job it is to stop the crimes.
Otto_Szucks
2 / 5 (3) May 25, 2016
That is the difference between the US and Europe. In the US all rights are given to us by God and we as a nation may choose to cede some of these rights to the government for the general good of all. In Europe one has no rights other than those that the government chooses to cede to the populace. The King is still a live and well there. He just goes by a little different name.
- DS
Name calling again? Watch out or you will wind up in Theghostofotto's pocket where he keeps his collection of...!!
TehDog
4 / 5 (4) May 25, 2016
Ghosts comments relate to this thread;
http://phys.org/n...ere.html

Where this is linked to;

" marscritters.blogspot.co.uk "

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) May 25, 2016
Hunh...
The last article related comment was (that I could find)on may 22 by Eikka...
In case anyone was wondering...
Otto_Szucks
2.3 / 5 (3) May 26, 2016
Ghosts comments relate to this thread;
http://phys.org/n...ere.html

Where this is linked to;

" marscritters.blogspot.co.uk "

- TehDog
Thanks for the links.
Actually, I don't recall that Pirouette's website had a co.uk to it. I believe that she's American.
Otto kept posting Pirouette's web address because he tried to make her appear foolish...while making fun of that poor woman for showing her website that contained photos of "life forms" that were humanoid in appearance. She also had other creatures' photos that she had found in the NASA large files which NASA apparently missed. NASA is famous for doing things to photos of Mars from HiRise. I believe that they are following the standard governmental systematic removal of anything that even remotely resembles something alive on Mars, UNLESS they know beforehand that what looks like a creature is, in reality, a rock. e.g. the supposedly sitting woman
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 26, 2016
@Whyde, once a thread has more or less been exhausted, turning it to other subjects seems to me to be at the will of the community. The moderators could turn it back if they desired, but I imagine they figure they'd kill it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.