no, and this is why. I am assuming that the 'electrolizer' method they talk about on the site is refering to the process whereby you bombard the water molecule with a stream of electrons (aka a current of electricity) in order to excite the atoms enough that they break their moleculer (sp?) bond and form smaller strands of hydrogen (a flammable gas) and oxygen (an element that supports burning). you then are left with a highly flammable mix of gasses.
the catch-22 in this whole mess is that the machine has to get the energy for this process from somewhere, it still is plugged into the wall after all. the power station that is providing your electricity, the means used to generate electricity (coal, fossil fuel, biomass, fission, ect.), and the by products of the process (co2 emissions, sulfur dioxide, tainted heavy water, and all other nasty shit) all have to be taken into account before you can call this a "green" (a dubious term to say the least) energy source. San Francisco, with all its green talk, still has 2 fossil fuel plants (hunters point & potrero hill power station, but the surrounding neighborhoods are relatively poor so there is not much said), and there are plans to build four more in the neighborhood in the coming years.
as far as using this product as a fuel additive, it sounds like that would be the most viable option. more combustion for your gallon right?
I try not to be cynical about this, but the fact is that we havent reached the breaking point yet, at 3.20 a gallon people bitch and moan a lot but they still pull out their wallets and pay up.
but do we really have another option?