smkettner said:
It would seem to me storing energy in a lithium battery is more efficient than hydrogen.
Not for every application. Perhaps when we're talking about ICEs vs. BEVs it makes sense, but where high heat is a desired and necessary ingredient and not a "waste factor," such as in running a kiln, smelter, or forge, etc., or for heating a building (or even the interior of your Leaf), a combustion process can be far more efficient than an electrical or solar system for producing prodigious amounts of heat quickly and continuously.
Besides we need that solar to take the edge off the day's peak grid demand instead of splitting water.
There is plenty of sunshine to go around. No one is talking about diverting existing PV efforts from supplementing the grid to producing hydrogen here. This is pointing at a future technology that may allow efficient production of a flammable fuel from sunlight and water (a much more prevalent source than fossil fuel deposits), to be used in industrial processes that currently require natural gas, oil, or coal.
Why do we need hydrogen again? Mass distribution to all homes, cars and industry does not seem practical.
Again, I think you need to be thinking outside the "transportation" box and look at the overall energy use picture. Why does there need to be a "mass distribution system" for this kind of idea to be useful in an overall strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, our dependence on foreign oil, and the eventual depletion of fossil fuel resources? It seems to me to be pointing towards a "non-centralized" model very similar to PV, where self-contained production and storage systems could be co-located at industrial sites that depend on piped-in natural gas to fire their equipment, perhaps even at the utility that currently produces the electrical power to charge your batteries and light your home from gas-powered turbines.
Obviously, this research is only at the "proof of concept" stage anyway, and is far from showing any kind of economic viability in large-scale production, just as is the case for algae and other biofuels at the moment. But it is certainly less of a "centralized" process than that of the "holy grail" of hydrogen production, the fusion reactor, which has had a ton of money and time thrown at it over the years with far less productive results to date. And the most interesting part of this effort is the eventual goal of artificial photosynthesis, where it might also capture CO2 from the atmosphere in the process, reducing carbon emissions while producing a hydrocarbon fuel. "“We are trying to mimic what the plant does to convert sunlight to energy,” said Sun. “We are hoping in the near future our ‘nanotree’ structure can eventually be part of an efficient device that functions like a real tree for photosynthesis."
It may turn out to be another theoretical but impractical pipedream, but I am just saying "never" is a very long time, and discounts the human propensity for ingenuity and innovation. I am surprised to hear the same kind of "flat-lander" attitude expressed here, among forward-thinking EV enthusiasts, that is currently being used by conservatives to bash the whole alternative fuels strategy of the President and his administration and protect the status quo for vested interests.
TT
