1) What is done with the O2/CO2 gerenated by the catalyst?
2) How is the hydrogen hydrogen embrittlement issue resolved?
3) Since the cycle is not self starting, the system needs the reserculation & compressor running, where does the startup energy come from?
4) While a minimal economic study was done compairing the proposed system to current systems, how much energy is required to build all the equipment: What is the infrastructure energy consumption vs. a conventionally electrified house?
5) What are the economics of the catalyst? Is it common or rare? Is it energy intensive to create, etc.
These backend questions, "hidden" cost items, trouble me the most about these "green" solutions. They turn out not to be very green at all.
PLUS where does the methanol come from?
I hear this is more difficult than it sounds.
Didn’t they have rooftop hydrogen at Fukushima Daiichi?
save
This gets dredged up on every thread about hydrogen. At low temperatures (around room temp), there "is" no "hydrogen embrittlement problem". The reactions that cause it go so slowly that it would take centuries to weaken iron. And yes, I can quote chapter and verse, and have done so on other threads.
If this device can produce energy cheaper than some other methods; then it will carve out a niche in the market.
If massive government subsidies are required — then that too is all you need to know about the economic viability of the technology.
BTW, storage would not have to be a big problem. First off, you would only need to store a couple of days worth of hydrogen. That's a lot easier to manage than storing fuel for a month or more (as in the propane tanks). Also, hydrogen storage isn't limited to pressure tanks. There are a great many alternatives, including metal hyrdides.
If the hydrogen is derived from methanol why not just use methanol? If methanol is derived from natural gas or coal or wood why not just use natural gas or coal or wood?
Is just powering a generator with methanol a big deal?
If you go to the trouble of generating hydrogen, why not generate ammonia? NH3
Ammonia has about one third of the energy density of hydrocarbons, which is extremely good.
Or why not Methan?
Sabatier won a Nobel prize in chemistry to transform hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methane using a catalyst.
Both are way easier to handle and to transport than hydrogen.
Put up some windmills or solar cells close to water, come with a truck every few weeks to pickup the ammonia/methan.
No grid needed, no need to retrofit infrastructure to hydrogen.
Of course, another conversion step reduces effency, but you save elsewhere.