[Wonder Warthog]

"Huh? Anytime I see folks start to talk about "MORE than 100% (electrically) efficient", "

Yes, MORE THAN 100% ELECTRICALLY EFFICIENT---NOT, PLEASE, MORE THAN 100% THERMODYNAMICALLY EFFICIENT. There IS a difference, folks, which is why I DESCRIBED THE MECHANISM in the post. Until you guys actually learn the fundamentals of thermodynamics, it is useless to try to have a discussion.

[FreedomPoster]

Your original post did *not* describe the mechanism except in the most general, hand-waving sort of way. Most statements of this nature end up in violations of the 1st and 2nd Law. If that is not the case, I apologize, but as of right now, vague assertions of "more than 100% electrically efficient" due to "high temp electrolyzers" don't mean much to me, and I suspect others as well. And I'll hang with you on as much thermodynamics/heat transfer/fluid mechanics/energy system analysis (technical and economic) as you care to discuss....

Show me a system diagram and appropriate 1st Law analysis of that system, and a testbed that has done something useful, with the the slightest remote possibility of commercial scaling. And oh, yeah, it would be nice if some independant peer review were involved, and not a bunch of greenie wishing.

And BTW, you're still side-stepping the energy density issues of hydrogen for automotive use.

When folks start typing primarily all-caps when challenged about one of their statements, I find that discussion tends to head immediately far downhill. Here's hoping that's not the case here.