This sound interesting. I would make H2 and O2 using the sun and some solar PV electricity and use the O2 for gasification of biomass and the H2 to increase the yield.

“I would make ...”

In your pixie dust world.

“Professor Spiccia said the efficiency of the system needed to be improved, but that it had potential for the clean generation of hydrogen on a large scale.”

And I have the potential for winning the US Open. I did play a few rounds of golf 40 years ago. Now all I have to do is get those who are better at golf to not play.

It may be that my strategy is not very practical. I know you naysayers will suggest I keep my day job.

I do have many years of practical experience with H2. SJC should learn what 'detonate' means before thinking about what he would do with H2.

Generating H2 and O2 without the intermediate step of obtaining electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, as the MIT process proposes, is a key distinction between the two processes. When further developed, eliminating one step as this one does will almost always result in greater overall efficiency for the installed solar collecting area and also costs, since the PV panels alone represent a substantial cost.

A lot of the time I disagree with what KitP has to say, but this time he hit it on the head.

They aren't even quoting any numbers for efficiency at all - they just say that it could stand to be improved. What does that tell you?

These sorts of announcements are always somewhat interesting, I guess, but they have a lot more work to do before I would consider it relevant.

Kit P,

If you do not have something constructive to say, so not say anything at all. This is a time tested phrase that you should remember.

Interesting development though with efficiency below a quotable number probably not near term. IF they could make this more efficient the cells would need to be located in high sunlight areas e.g. southwest desert. If the H2 is not burned on site it would need transport, which always raises efficiency flags.

There is a measurable growth in these low temp electrolysis findings. Which indicates various new approaches to low cost, on-demand CHP-type systems. The biggest energy change coming is not just conversion to non-fossil, it is the replacement of grid connects with residential power units.

"in your pixie dust world"

Kit P sure is fascinated with pixies...maybe some hom,ose,xual tendencies?

"I did play a few rounds of golf 40 years ago"

Sounds like this geezer Kit P is going senile.

This experiment is incomplete. What they have to do is install some of these solar panels in a ficticious retail outlet and look if it can serve as a car hydrogen refueling station and at what cost the hydrogen
is produce. So how it cost and how much quantity it do. This is the future of hydrogen for me, hydrogen made at the point of sale for cars and trucks.

Stupid GM compagny two mounth ago said that they were ready to begin the sale of hydrogen fuelcell cars but were asking the goverment and oil compagnies to start build an hydrogen infrastructure. Gm and other automakers will be better serve by themself and they can start this hydrogen infrastructure, just install some cheap hydrogen production machine at some grocery store, this is the way.

Stupid GM compagny two mounth ago said that they were ready to begin the sale of hydrogen fuelcell cars but were asking the goverment and oil compagnies to start build an hydrogen infrastructure.

I am quite sure they said no such thing. Fuel cells are still far too expensive.

No efficiency figures for sure, but still running 3 days out.
Personally I find hearing about this (type of) progress is a valuable learning aid.

Kit P misses the point entirely. The breakthrough is there.
Learning from all the hype about swim suits that copy shark skin and adhesive that mimics geckos, these academic entrepreneurs say we have solar electrolysis that mimics plant life. The breakthrough is there; but it’s in public relations.
Next comes the science.
“The efficiency of the system needs to be improved” – improved to equal normal electrolysis?
No efficiency figures for a process that is supposed to incrrease efficiency. Sorry.

Direct solar electrolysis for H2 production is more practical in the setting wherein the H2 is consumed locally or onsite. To receive wide-spread acceptance, the efficiency per unit of surface area should be somewhat comparable to that of a typical PV panel (12-15%) for much less cost than a PV panel installation that includes generous battery storage capacity. Even though using H2 to generate electricity is only a ~50%-efficient process (and H2 to thermal energy or Combined heat and power generation is 95-100% efficient) whereas battery electricity is 85-95% efficient round trip, overall cost per kWh of generatable electricity or thermal energy will be a more important judging criteria.

Total installation cost is the most important predictor of commercial success, and currently, a PV panel with battery storage solution is very expensive. If one can do it cheaply with direct solar H2 generation onsite for local consumption, then this solar energy solution will be THE solution for our energy problem. How about H2-Vehicle to be fueled up at home, Everyone?

Please people Please listen. Do not help this technology.

This process DESTROYS WATER and is an EXTREMLY BAD IDEA!!!!! Planet Earth has the exact same amount of water today that it had 10 mil years ago. All living things use water but none destroyed it until now. If this catches on and we attemted to replace oil with water, the affects would be catastrophic. Please do some calculations, this is one of the most frightning things I can imagine. Hydrogen is the future, fine, FIND SOME OTHER WAY TO GET IT.

@Joseph,

Is it OK to use the water that comes from the tailpipe of a hydrogen powered car?

:-)

@Joseph

Chill. Poverty in food and water these days is all wrapped up in distribution and politics.

The only thing people plan to do with the water is split it and then recombine it in other locations ... other earthbound locations. There will be no "destroying" of water.

Besides, with the way the oceans are supposed to rise under the worst case of sudden global warming, we need something to do with all the extra moisture.

PAUL F. The news abouth gm ready to start selling fuelcell cars is here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/01/larry-burns-says-h2-cars-are-ready-calls-on-government-and-ener/

OK....lets think this through. The oceans are expected to rise because all the Glaciers melt right. Well when the Glaciers in Rocky Mountain State Park melt, guess what goes away. The Colorado River, you know that little thing that supplies water to 60+ million people in the western US. Exactly how precious do you think water will be when the rivers start drying up?

By far, most of the hydrogen produced will be recombined to H2O and rain down back on earth. Only a very small part may escape to space. Though that is no problem, since we have been dumping gigatons of 'fossil hydrogen' into the atmosphere since we started using fossil fuels. Crude, natural gas and even coal contain a lot of hydrogen (appart from carbon of course), which has been locked away for eons, and released by us. It has combined with our precious ogygen to become water, of which we have already more than we need. So if you are scared of loosing something essential for terrestrial life, I would be more scared of loosing our oxygen, than loosing our hydrogen. A little calculation shows that the total amount of free oxygen (O2) on our planet is about 2 meters at the density of water : The column of air above our head has the same weight as 10 meters of water. At 21% ogygen, that amounts for about 2 meters of 'liquid' oxygen. Compare that with an average of 3km of water.
Appart from that, a lot of hydrogen is still falling on our planet from outer space. Secondly nuclear decay in the planet produces a lot of protons and electrons, which will eventually be released to the atmosphere (probably under high pressure).
Thirdly, by the time (should be many, many thousands of years in the future) we would be 'out of hydrogen', we can always import some from jupiter.

About the colorado river (and about any other glacier-fed river) The greenhouse effect will cause MORE rain, not LESS. The glaciers will melt, and there will be less snow and more rain, so there will be more water when there is already too much, and there will be less water when there is already too less. So, what do we need ? : a dam.
Glaciers are of course very cheap water storage systems. Though, if we are willing to invest something, the greenhouse effect can give us more water than we have today. (that does not mean I want more greenhouse effect, it only means we can fix the water-problem if we want to)

It seems to me that the 'O2 release part' of the reaction and the 'H2 release part' can be done at separate places. I could do the 'O2 release' on my roof, and do the 'H2 release' in my garage. You only need a simple water tube for the 'transport' of the protons and an electric wire for the transport of the electrons.
I wonder what would be the effect on the efficiency of the hydrogen was produced under high-pressure. (eliminating the extra H2 pressurising step)

This has to be the strangest thread I've read around here in a long time. Trolls and all.

Very interesting thread. Very.