But how much energy is required to liquefy hydrogen gas? I would not be surprised if it is more than is generated especially when generated on the small scale. It would be great if it is efficient but I doubt it
Why don't you look it up? It's good to be informed. As the OP points out, advances are being made to make the process very efficient.
I did a physics term paper on hydrogen fueled cars in 1980. I can't believe it has taken all this time to find a place in the market.
I imagine infrastructure and generation/extraction have remained an issue. That and the processing cost difference. While advances in battery technology will help with storage of renewable energy, constant energy demand can be met with Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology.
I don't think anyone will call it socialism. However, forcing an early conversion, fining for non-compliance, taxing to fund, that would be the only element of socialism that could occur. No reason to harm people and the economy that way. As it is, I believe Hydrogen will be part of a natural conversion.
this house in jersey has been using it for quite a while... now theres a newer model... http://www.hydrogenhouseproject.org/index.html
I don't believe it's quite that good. But, hydrogen from a bio direction is definitely realistic. There is an energy source (sun) that certainly leads to various biofuel approaches. My own view is that the problems with cars full of hydrogen (or any other transport of hydrogen) has safety factors that aren't likely to be solved. You need a lot of hydrogen and hydrogen is far from being safe. But, there are applications that certainly seem possible.
In this case, hydrogen tanks are being used as a high capacity battery. Cool! One question might be whether it would be more efficient to use panels that product hydrogen directly (as per the OP) rather than producing electricity and then using that power to produce hydrogen. If electric cars are the final objective, the hydrogen would then need to be used to create electricity to charge the cars. Each conversion step includes a reasonably significant loss factor. So, solar panels don't convert all the solar energy to electricity (or hydrogen). The process of electrolysis loses energy. Pressurizing the hydrogen tanks loses energy (as would charging local storage batteries, but undoubtedly not the same amount). Converting hydrogen to electricity loses energy. Charging the car batteries loses energy. One of the big tricks is to try to have as few conversions as possible. So, one starts thinking about how a hydrogen fuel cell could be charged by the OP method and then physically moved to a car - fewer steps!
You'd need a extra-high-pressure hydrogen compressor to store enough hydrogen in a tank to make it worthwhile. Something like a SCUBA air compressor wouldn't be adequate. That's a pricey piece of equipment.
It isn't a matter of finding a place. It is a matter of being cost competitive. It isn't and won't be for a long time. Good intentions don't cause people to change. Price does. The key to alternative energy solutions is the price. As always, follow the money.
I can't see it being a hoax that would end the careers of the engineers and uni academics involved in it's development
a full cost comparison would need to be done, often high cost of install and development is offset by low cost in the long term, fuel wouldn't need to be piped or trucked long distances to the end user.
Many technologies have niches that don't apply to the general market. These solar cells, if they work as claimed, may have a niche as well. Hydrogen has a niche. Iceland has been claiming plans for a true hydrogen economy for over a decade, but I believe that has stalled. They had all the free energy they could use to make hydrogen from geothermal power. But foreign investors are building smelting plants that will take a lot of power, so now they're building dams for more power. Something else I've run into professionally is the dream of hydrogen and other fuel cells. Holy cow! I had a small application in terms of the energy required, where a fuel cell would have been ideal. But when I compared the cost of a fuel cell to that of a generator, Pffffffffftttt!!! The generator would cost about $1,000. A fuel cell that could replace the generator was about $100,000. What this really says is that petroleum has a very high energy density. You get a hell of a bang for the buck. It is very deceptive when thinking about these things qualitatively.
here's another game changer https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/don-sadoway-david-bradwell-battery-invention-1.4945615 even my bro-in-law who has 35yrs in the oil industry says if it works it will be the game changer, a reliable method to store solar and wind energy...promising enough that world's 5th largest petroleum producer is backing it... and technology will only keep improving, the end of carbon fuels is coming
You'll never beat petro on price. The niche would be something where standard technologies are unacceptable for some reason, and justifying the extortionately higher cost.
the Hindenburg safety myth...hydrogen is actually safer than the gasoline we now put in our cars...gasoline pools and the vapors spread along the ground where it ignites consuming everything at ground level,which is also where the vehicles occupants are...hydrogen goes up, the fire is short lived and it isn't on ground level...
They didn't give any specific numbers but it sure sounds like a HUGE breakthrough. We will see if it really prices out. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
But it is also prone to leaks. That is a real weak point and a tough problem to beat. Presumably new materials will make it practical sooner or later.
The solar-electric Noor plant running in Morocco uses molten sodium as a method of extending power production beyond daylight hours. That part is reasonably well known. BUT, I'm not so sure that's particularly necessary here. imho, we've got a LONG ways to go before significantly reducing fossil fuel production of electricity. In a lot of places, peak usage is during daylight hours. Plus, demand for power is growing. If we reached the point where we could slow down fossil fuel plants even just during the day, that would be stupendous progress - progress that could be made without concern about storage. Plus, pricing has been successful at moving consumption toward production hours. I'm sure there are specific uses. But, I'm not so sure batteries are the best solution in most cases in the US.