Hydrogen generated in the way they state is not an energy source. It’s a method of energy storage, essentially a kind of battery.
You generate hydrogen by splitting water molecules using electricity, then you can burn that hydrogen in a fuel cell or internal (or external) combustion engine to produce work.
Problem is that the work you get is quite a bit less than by just running the initial electricity through a motor.
How much less I’m unclear. Would be nice to know.
You also have to generate this original electricity some way, with most electricity at the present time being generated using fossil fuels.
So the cycle is fossil fuel to electricity to hydrogen to work.
Anybody want to bet burning fossil fuel directly to generate work wouldn’t be more efficient?
“So the cycle is fossil fuel to electricity to hydrogen to work.
Anybody want to bet burning fossil fuel directly to generate work wouldn’t be more efficient?”
There you go again, throwing reality in to destroy another enviral wet dream.
What is the EPA estimate for miles per AAA cell?
Or is it inches?
Typical internal combustion vehicle is about 10% efficient and they take very expensive fuel.
Fuel cells are between 40 and 60% efficient and PEM cells take extremely expensive fuel, hydrogen. This is just about changing that from extremely expensive to very expensive.
Down the line, solid oxide fuel cells, the type that can be 60% efficient ,will be shrunk down to fit vehicles. They will require fuel of lower quality and expense than internal combustion engines.
Hydrogen is a passing fad.