No problem with the idea of hydrogen as an energy carrier (since that's what it is).

However have they solved the issues with storing it ?

The best way to store hydrogen is to bolt 4 atoms around a carbon atom. (You get the idea).

You, sir, are a genius!

That will use up all those pesky carbon atoms so they don't combine with two (or occasionally just one) oxygen atoms and venting into the atmosphere.

Just one teeny tiny problem. What do we then do with this CH 4 to release the stored energy?

(spoilt for choice on the icon with this one -->)

It never ceases to amaze me how far backwards we have gone! We used to store coal gas and even pipe it to heart out homes and yet now we can do that because apparently H2 is leaky. Coal gas was 50% h2!!!!

have they solved the issues with storing it ?

First thing I thought of. Recent criticisms of NASA around using H2+O2 fuel for Artemis point out that SpaceX uses a hydrocarbon fuel which makes for smaller (and safer?) rockets.

I would LOVE to use fuel cells to power an electric car. Self-contained (does not need "the grid" to charge) and could theoretically be refueled as fast as a gasoline car.

However, no safe+effective storage available for the H2.

I dare say that you've already noticed that Toyota seems to have managed it.

https://www.toyota.com/mirai/

Distribution is the problem (for the moment), not storage.

-A.

It's horses for courses with rocket fuels. The higher density of kerosene is offset by the lower specific impulse; whilst hydrogen is much more efficient but has a ridiculously low density. In an idea world NASA would have designed a kerolox first stage and hydrogen upper stage - but they were never given that option by Congress who ordered them to reuse the Shuttle's technology.

As for safe storage of hydrogen - when I was a kid it was always going to be in metal hydrides, did that not work out?

I will readily offer my CH4 production as long as I can get a tax credit for beans.

...or, even better, join three hydrogens up with one nitrogen to give ammonia which can be very easily transported across the planet since that infrastructure already exists. Also, it's very easy to tell when you have a leak.

Or, just capture the water as it is produced in oxidation ...

We have made fuels from atmospheric gasses (both water and hydrocarbon) for years and at much larger scales. Literally flown airplanes on them. That's not really the problem. It's that you need large amounts of power to convert the stuff in bulk. In addition, you pay for your inefficiencies at both ends. While a static generator could try to recapture it's own exhaust, a moving vehicle probably shouldn't try, as it will fall to the same cruel laws that prevent every perpetual motion machine from working.

So I can add this papers optimistic blather to the pile of excess verbiage and distill it down to a sentence:

Someone invented an acid based cell that can absorb trace moisture from the air that can be cracked to hydrogen by conventional electrolysis, once some else provides sufficient surplus power to justify it.

So the good news is they have plenty of time to solve the corrosion problems while someone else solve the global electricity problem for them. Which is harsh, as this might actually be a usable step in a larger process, but no less true. And as posters have pointed out, if you have massive amounts of cheap clean power, why stop at cracking H2? Run it up to a mid chain alcohol, or some other longer chain hydrocarbon. At that point the output fuel is neutral relative to the last stage of re-combustion, so aside from peripheral emissions venting the exhaust from them back to atmosphere isn't problematic, and conventional high duty cycle engines like turbines and turbofans can happily use them. So for the narrow cases of things like planes and rockets, this would make sense. Hopefully there will still be enough left for a few vintage motoring enthusiasts to take the old fire breathers out for a spin on Sunday.

From a quick read through of the advertorial..

However, the melamine sponge gradually degrades in the H2SO4 solution after a week

So there'll be a bit of a consumables cost. Although they did also try with a platinum sponge, because platinum is so affordable. I guess this will permit catalytic convertor thieves to diversify, once those have solved the H2SO4 handling challenge.

But hey, it doesn't require water! Well, it kinda does given how sulphuric acid is produced. And that also kinda needs fossil fuels, which ecofreaks are trying to ban. And sulphuric acid is a popular drying agent that just loves water, but obviously that dilutes it, so it'll need a process to re-process the water, and then be electrolysed to produce a few mols of H2.

So seems like a bunch of expensive hoops to jump through to get to a point where you could electrolyse H2O. Which we're not exactly short of. But like most of these 'green' scams, it's all fine, until you look at costs, efficiency, practicality etc.

There is a strong possibility that the battery supply chain will hit bottlenecks as it is expanded to power cars, powerwalls, and provide backup storage for power stations - i.e., do everything. Increased R&D into hydrogen from electricity is a great way to hedge bets.

Increased R&D into hydrogen from electricity is a great way to hedge bets.

Err.. have you looked at your electricity bill lately? We're not exactly flush with cheap electricity any more, thanks to our 'renewables' scumbags. Plus thanks to our political scumbags, we're heading for 'Net Zero', which means banning domestic gas, and converting everyone from ICEs to EVs.

Soo.. where's the market for very expensive H2? Forcing our kleptocrats and green idiots to switch from flying private jets to flying in Zeppelins again?

The point would be to generate the H2 from solar power in desert regions where solar power is effective and cheap but electricity storage/transport is troublesome. However the infrastructure to support this tech would also be a problem.

If you find electricity storage and transportation beyond your means, won't H2 storage and transportation also be in that category.

However the infrastructure to support this tech would also be a problem.

That's.. something of an understatement. The paper talks about how they managed to produce a few ml of H2. So it needs just a bit of scaling up. So pick a desert, cover it in solar panels. That'll need infrastructure to get panels, parts and materials in place. It'll need to keep panels clean. It'll need consumables, like the sponges, acid and water. It'll need infrastructure to store, compress and maybe liquify the H2. It'll need a method to transport that H2 to market. It'll need facilities for staff.

So good'ol CH4 is generally sold by the million or billion cubic feet. How much would it cost to produce say, 100mbcf, and get that to say, Germany? How would that compare to say, CH4 produced by the UK, if our idiots in charge actually do something to allow more gas production? Which if we absolutely had to, could be cracked to turn CH4 into twice as much H2.. And don't forget the energy density of H2 is lower than CH4, so on a like-for-like energy replacement, we'd need a lot more H2.

And the Greens of course ignore all the other uses for CH4, like producing ammonia, which is an important chemical needed in huge quantities for fertiliser. Especially as those ecofreaks also want to force veganism, which reduces supply of organic fertiliser. And by banning 'chemical' fertilisers, they reduce crop yields and quality.. Which is kind of a problem given to replace meat with veg, you need a lot more quality farmland, and a way to replace all the nutrients you're removing.

On the plus side, Green's ideas of 'organic' vegan farming will end up creating more deserts.

That's a very strange way to spell "Vladimir Putin".

-A.

That's a very strange way to spell "Vladimir Putin".

I'm.. oretty sure he wasn't the person who decided to ban Nord Stream 2. Or ban Russian oil & gas. Or even ban Keystone Xl. As for renewables scumbags, see-

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/09/07/windfall-profits-for-generators-running-at-43-billion-a-year/

At a price of £382/MWh, compared to a historic price level of around £50/MWh, these generators are raking in an incredible £43 billion. It is true that some generators may have Power Purchase Agreements in place at less than current prices – but this simply means that the purchaser is making the windfall instead. Either way electricity consumers are paying the cost of this on their bills.

That's.. quite the windfall. S'funny the Bbc doesn't mention this issue. Also-

Based on my earlier calculations, the current Carbon Price of £92.65/tonne is adding £35/MWh to the cost of gas generation, and hence onto the wholesale electricity price. This translates to nearly £5 billion of windfall profit for non-gas generators.

ISTR even though nuclear power is zero carbon, they may still have to pay a carbon tax. But it explains why the 'renewables' scumbags can afford to do so much lobbying.

Yes, I have.

About 26 euros for the past two months. But I write this from a part of Europe where almost all electricity is from a renewable source.

-A.

@captai veg

Ertu kannski að tala um Ísland eða lítur þú á kjarnorku sem endurnýjanlega orku?

If they're going to pull water from the (relatively) dry atmosphere rather than take what little groundwater there is there to support the locals, won't that affect how much water ends up in the ground for those locals?

I'm not a hydrologist, but it seems reasonable that taking the water from either land or air affects the total amount of water available there.

Now, if they're planning to do this in totally uninhabited locales, that's a different story, but will it all be operated by solar-powered robots that need very little maintenance?

Yep, I read "the most arid environments...a system which extracts water from airborne vapour"

If the place is so arid there's little ground water because it almost never rains, how much effect will taking even more water out of the local atmosphere have? The concept is interesting, but I suspect the practice and stated aims will not be achievable. On the other hand, they may develop some stuff chasing this rainbow that can be used in other areas. It all feels a bit "blue sky" at this stage, so not necessarily a bad use of time, but odds aren't great for success.

On the other hand, look at some of the great "accidental" discoveries such as Penicillate or Teflon :-)

H2 is only "eco" because its clean at the point you burn it (in a poluted city) not because its cheap in energy terms to make it.

So the notion that because its h2 it green and clean makes no sense. Especially in the middle of a desert, where shipping out solar cells and leaving them lying around is in itself pollution.

If only we had a simple way of transporting electricity quickly and easily over large distances to where seawater is, so it can be cracked into hydrogen and oxygen. I mean we can't possibly have some form of wizardry to move electricity around the place?

No thin air in my house, thick air or just air at best.