Reply #29: Efficient enough for what? [View All]

[kristopher]

You are endorsing them for personal transport when the fact is that they are not the right tool for that job, not now and not in the near term future. You routinely gloss over the HUGE difference in infrastructure that the difference in efficiency mandates. That isn't a trivial point when you are concerned with rebuilding the entire damned country's generating capacity.

I included the other post linking to the MIT press release to indicate three things 1) the time frame for development of the technology you used was 20 years, not near term; 2) the lack of usable numbers regarding efficiency. The "near 100%" you cite to artificially inflate the efficiency of H2 process is a measure of what input energy? As near as I can determine it is the number referring to sunlight - there is no reference to the initial light>electricity conversion efficiency. Since this is a substitute for solar the cost/benefit of this stage is very relevant to determining whether the number you trumped up is the real number or not. Given these facts (and other unknowns about the process) to make use of this as support for claiming dramatic increases in H2 efficiency is nothing short of dishonest.
The 3rd reason I linked to the MIT original was to demonstrate the way your ee source had bastardized the information in the press release. It sounds like the same idiot wrote the article at the link in post #17 as wrote the article the other day about the palm sized NaS batteries. It borders on gibberish.