As an engineer with 15 years of experience, I find the public communication of engineering to be quite inadequate. Engineering plays a crucial role in shaping our world, yet we struggle to convey its advancements in a way that is both comprehensible and engaging to the public while still being technically accurate. Many writers prioritize excitement over precision, leading to sensationalized and misleading reports.

One area particularly susceptible to this misrepresentation is renewable energy, especially emerging technologies. Articles often present these innovations as miraculous solutions while exaggerating the shortcomings of established technologies and neglecting to address the challenges faced by new options. The allure of groundbreaking advancements can overshadow the steady progress of traditional technologies, which complicates our efforts to achieve zero emissions swiftly.

This type of journalism not only misrepresents facts but may also deter individuals from embracing proven technologies. We already possess the necessary tools to combat climate change, but practical and economic obstacles remain. If we paint current technologies as entirely flawed, it may hinder the urgent action needed to address climate issues. Furthermore, the belief in an ideal, revolutionary technology on the horizon can lead to complacency in adopting existing solutions.

Relying solely on a miraculous new technology is akin to buying a lottery ticket instead of working hard. Worse yet, many so-called "revolutionary" technologies have little chance of success, as they often defy the laws of physics. Examples include perpetual motion machines or "over-unity" motors, which have been proven to be fraudulent schemes, often perpetuated by con artists.

In this discussion, I will focus on perpetual motion scams and offer insights on how non-experts can evaluate new technologies to determine if they adhere to the laws of physics. If they don’t, they are likely scams, and it’s best to avoid investing in them or writing about them.

I am not against new technologies. My role involves innovating and developing new energy solutions, but I approach this with a rational engineering mindset rather than magical thinking. You don't need a PhD to assess whether a new energy technology is a perpetual motion scam. You can rely on two fundamental principles of thermodynamics:

1. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change forms.
2. Systems tend toward disorder; differences in temperature, pressure, and density equilibrate without additional energy input.

These principles, established in the 19th and early 20th centuries, have no known exceptions. Just as we accept gravity as an immutable law, we can apply these thermodynamic principles universally.

The first law (energy cannot be created or destroyed) is straightforward yet powerful. The total energy in the universe remains constant, although its forms can change. For instance, wind energy transforms into mechanical energy when it turns a turbine, which then converts it into electrical energy. All methods of electricity generation involve such energy transformations.

The second law of thermodynamics, which states that systems tend to disorder, is more complex. It explains that energy transformations result in some energy changing to a less usable form. For example, when fossil fuels combust, the heat generated disperses into the environment, making it less accessible. This law means that reversing an energy transformation never yields all the energy back in a usable form. For instance, connecting a generator to a motor does not create energy; instead, usable energy diminishes over time as it converts into less ordered forms like sound and heat.

By applying these thermodynamic principles, we can assess energy technologies effectively. You don’t need to understand every technical detail—just check if the technology claims to create energy from nothing or generates usable energy from disorder.

Let’s examine hydrogen as a case study. Hydrogen is often at the center of both renewable energy scams (like cars powered by water) and legitimate energy sources (like fuel cells). It’s abundant and releases energy when reacting with oxygen, producing only water as a byproduct.

To differentiate legitimate hydrogen technologies from scams, we can apply the first law: energy cannot be created or destroyed. If electrical energy is generated, it must originate from another energy source—this principle is non-negotiable.

While hydrogen (H2) does contain chemical potential energy when it reacts with oxygen, it’s not freely available in the atmosphere; it mostly exists in compounds like water. H2 constitutes only 0.00005% of air, and concentrations exceeding 4% can be hazardous.

Hydrogen can be produced industrially from various sources—natural gas, coal, and water—all requiring energy input. The process of electrolysis, which uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, exemplifies how hydrogen can be obtained.

1. water + electricity ? hydrogen + oxygen
2. hydrogen + oxygen ? water + electricity

A fuel cell car powered by hydrogen from electrolysis can, in a sense, be viewed as a water-as-fuel vehicle. Unlike fraudulent schemes, fuel cell technologies adhere to thermodynamic laws.

The second law informs us that energy transformations create waste energy (e.g., heat), so the processes would be more accurately described as:

1. water + electricity ? hydrogen + oxygen + waste energy
2. hydrogen + oxygen ? water + electricity + waste energy

This leads us to the first law: energy cannot be created. Since some energy is lost in each stage, the total electricity produced in the second process must be less than the electricity consumed in the first, or it would violate the first law.

In the case of hydrogen production through electrolysis, the roundtrip efficiency is approximately 35%. Thus, the majority of the energy is classified as waste.

Many scams try to claim they’ve discovered a breakthrough method for extracting hydrogen from water using minimal energy. While improvements do happen, any new process will still yield energy losses as outlined by the second law of thermodynamics.

This principle applies universally to any reactions where the output of one serves as the input for another. The laws of thermodynamics provide a straightforward framework for evaluating energy technologies, requiring no advanced chemistry knowledge.

Skeptical? That's perfectly fine. Science encourages questioning and testing. Historical investigations into perpetual motion machines have consistently demonstrated adherence to thermodynamic laws, with no verified exceptions.

Now you have the tools to evaluate new energy technologies based on thermodynamics. First, inquire about the energy source, as energy cannot be created. Then, assess whether the technology transforms energy without losses. If answers are unclear, the technology is likely misunderstood or fraudulent. In either case, it’s unlikely to be the next breakthrough in renewable energy, so refrain from writing enthusiastic articles or investing in such ventures.

I am passionate about improving engineering communication! I believe the public can grasp more complex concepts than many media outlets suggest. A better understanding of engineering could lead to more informed decisions regarding climate change action. I even started a YouTube channel to discuss such topics—check it out: Engineering with Rosie.