WATER REFINERY?: A new catalyst and polymer might prove key in delivering cost-effective--and plentiful--hydrogen from water.
Image: MIT/NSF
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The fuel of the future could be hydrogen—if it can be made cheaply enough. Currently, electrolyzers (machines that split water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen) need a catalyst, namely platinum, to run; ditto fuel cells to recombine that hydrogen with oxygen, which produces electricity. The problem is that the precious metal costs about $1,700 to $2,000 per ounce, which means that hydrogen would be an uneconomical fuel source unless a less costly catalyst can be found. But researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) and Monash University in Australia report in Science today that they may have a cost-effective solution.
Chemist Daniel Nocera, head of the M.I.T.'s Solar Revolution Project, focused on one side of the equation: splitting water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen molecules. This can be done well, but it remains difficult to actually separate the molecules. But Nocera and postdoctoral fellow Matthew Kanan discovered it could be accomplished by simply adding the metals cobalt and phosphate to water and running a current through it. In contrast to platinum, cobalt and phosphate cost roughly $2.25 an ounce and $.05 an ounce, respectively.
"We [have] figured out a way just using a glass of water at room temperature, under atmospheric pressure," Nocera says. "This thing [a thin film of cobalt and phosphate on an electrode] just churns away making [oxygen] from water."
Inspiration for the new catalyst came from nature; Nocera studied the chain of processes that take place during photosynthesis, such as how plants use the energy from sunlight to rearrange water's chemical bonds. In a future hydrogen economy, he imagines, a house would function much like a leaf does, using the sun to power household electricity and to break down water into fuel—a sort of artificial photosynthesis.
According to John Turner, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., who was not involved in the research, the discovery could reduce the need for platinum in a conventional electrolyzer. He believes it could also play a role in a future large-scale hydrogen generator, which would collect the energy from sunlight in huge fields and then run that electric current through water to produce vast amounts of hydrogen to meet, for example, the demand from a future fleet of hydrogen-powered vehicles. "That's what his advance is pointing towards," he says, "finding an alternative catalyst that will allow us to do oxygen evolution (breaking the bonds of water or H2O and forming oxygen) in concert with hydrogen" on a grand scale.
But that still leaves plenty of platinum in the other side of the equation: the fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen back into water to harvest electricity. Chemist Bjorn Winther-Jensen of Monash University in Australia and his colleagues addressed that problem by developing new electrodes for fuel cells made from a special conducting polymer, that costs around $57 per counce.
During experiments, the polymer proved just as effective as platinum at harvesting electricity—and the work could prove immediately relevant in mini fuel cells, such as the kind that are being designed for computers.
In order for this to work on the grand scale of a fuel cell stack for a hydrogen vehicle or power plant "we need to develop a more three-dimensional structure to get thicker electrodes and a higher current per square centimeter," says Winther-Jensen. Regardless, by reducing or eliminating platinum, the two studies help pave the way for a future hydrogen economy.
See what we're tweeting about
54 Comments
Add Comment>>simply adding the metals cobalt and phosphate to water
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes it mean,that phosphate is a metal? If not, phosphate of WHAT then?
I am amazed to read this article. Surely it is common knowledge that to produce H2 & O2 from water, all you need is: water, preferably distilled, some potassium hydroxide (an electrolyte) , some stainless steel electrodes, and lastly, a supply of electricity. Plug into a car battery, and hey presto, the gas bubbles off and can be easily collected. Pipe the mixed gases to the air intake of your car, and boost your mileage. Take a look on You Tube!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just wrote a comment, then had to register, and I think my comment disappeared. How annoying. I hate typing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEliminating platinum as a catalyst is always good news. This is an important milestone for making renewables a base load energy source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEliminating platinum as a catalyst is always good news! These universities have reached an important milestone in making renewables a potential source of base load energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems like hydrogen will be too explosive to load into cars in a big way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBack in the '20s we could easily have distilled organic matter into alchohol fuel but instead we went towards mining oil. Wonder why. Still wondering why we don't simply distill alcohol for our driving needs? Easy and cheap. I dont get it.
'Cause we make alcohol from stuff we eat. More fuel - less food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiodiesel boosted food prices already.
No kidding kiteman. SA should remove science from their magazine for truth in advertising purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo crack water all you need is a salt, electrodes and electricity.
It is really a good news for humanbeings especially for moving houses wifes in the wild area !!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is really a good news for future life especially in wild area without worriing about no power!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking the electrolyzer and fuel cell cheaper does not make hydrogen that much cheaper, there is still the energy cost. Electrolyzers are 70% efficient, compressing the hydrogen to store it uses 20% of the energy in the hydrogen (80% efficient) and fuel cells, after parasitic loads (pumps, compressors, fans) are 60% efficient. 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.6 = 0.336. Using hydrogen increases the cost of energy by a factor of almost 3! Batteries cost you only 10% of the energy stored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile it might be nice to have cheaper electrodes, that whole area has been carefully researched for decades. The issue remains: why is it better to store and carry electrical energy as hydrogen, then release that energy in a fuel cell to make it back into electricity in the car? Overall efficiency is sure to be better if the electricity is stored in a battery. As the power density of batteries continues to improve, that approach is more likely to prevail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas i understand it ... with the cobalt and phosphate there's no electricity... it is a catalytic reaction... unlike the potassium hydroxide (an electrolyte) , stainless steel electrodes, and lastly, and electricity method... the idea here is to make hydrogen WITHOUT expending energy... right?????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regards to ethanol as a fuel source, it isn't as energy dense as gasoline or diesel. Couple that with the amount of energy and resources it takes to make ethanol versus petroleum fuels, and there's the answer as to why it isn't widespread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith regards to the garden-variety electrolysis we learned of in high school, what is instead needed is something that is more efficient at producing hydrogen and oxygen per unit of energy input. Hence the exotic catalysts to date. And this is why Nocera's findings would be exiting - cheap catalysts.
The right catalyst should boost the efficiency of the reaction, which I would guess Nocera has found a great catalyst. Bart Hibbs is correct when he sums up the total energy conversion budget however - look at the whole picture. Still, I believe that the fuel cells are becoming more efficient (less of the moving parts, more of the catalysts on the cell side, as well). And If I'm not mistaken, there's been success at reducing the amount of energy necessary to get hydrogen into high density.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, for grins let's say they're shooting for 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.8 -> 65% ... Getting closer to batteries. And the thing about batteries is that they take a while to charge (can't just pull into a "charge-station" and drive away), and they're fairly heavy (granted, there's the weight of the fuel cell plant to counter here).
So ... those are the likely "pros" for hydrogen powered cars. It'll be interesting to see how these two technologies - batteries and fuel-cell - could complement each other in a hybrid.
Is there any proof to the production of HHO by low amps and acid based electrolytes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy doesn't the government move on hydrogen on demand power units big time???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater for drink, bath, irrigation... and for power! It's like magic! It remember me the Aesop fable "the Man and de Satyr". In that the Man visiting the Satyr home said: "My hands are numb with the cold, and May breath warms them". And a little later: "the porridge is too hot, and my breath will cool it". The Satyr replied: "Out you go! I will have naught to do with a man who can blow hot and cold with the same breath".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish they wrote about the efficencies and costs. It is all good in principle but the devil is in the detail. Typically the sun give us an annual average of 200 watts per square metre and there will be losses with the transformations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an elementary chemistry student knows, catalysts make an chemical reaction less power consuming and therefore this is important. It will cost less to produce hydrogen by using this catalysts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you need energy, but less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what the electrolysis innovation they are referring to in this article is more hydrogen produced per kilowatt of electricity. I would be interested to know just how much more efficient in terms of (energy out)/(energy in) the new cobalt+phosphate is compared to electrolyzing just water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDitto Kiteman. This not news. DUH
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDitto Kiteman. This is nothing new. DUH
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not as easy as it seems. They've been trying for decades with limited results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello to all, this is no fun, it is dead serious and for me, working since 15 years to implement hydrogen and fuel cells into "real life", the only way to get awy from oil, coal, nuclear and other dirty primary energies, which we should better leave alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRenwable hydrogen, smartly produced in "one shot", decentralised made and used in smart fuel cells, that is the future for all of us - and for our next generations!
Arno A. Evers, Starnberg, Germany, founder of the Group Exhibit Hydrogen and Fuel Cells at the annual Hannover Fair since 1995.
http://www.fair-pr.com/background/facts.php
A good point, but its the same for oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit has to be pumped transported refined.
and still we use it.
i believe the feul itself isnt the problem we could run a hydrogen economy use fuel cells or bateries. But the current feul energy componies have a monopoly; and they are not planing to stop their fabrics.
As they spend less then 0.1% on new green energy research.
Personaly i hope some profesor will publish a good green alternative under GNU licenses; so without having the oil companies patending such ideas away from us. As they usualy do that. (for example thats why we dont drive electric)
Its al about monopoly, the current market for energy rather stays in place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey wont give up their multi milions projects; just because there is a greener alternative. Instead they would gladly pattend it and then keep producing energy the old way. Their pattend keep them in place.
If you think that's strange, well look at it in another way; those multi miliard dollar industry have their own budget for green research. And altough they know their current market is ending. They only spend less then 0.1% on research; always telling the news that it is not ready yet. Or that it is x% improvement but still not y%.
So (always) wonder who is fooling who
There are no secret patents or patents hidden away. Everyone can access them on espacenet website. Patents last for only 20 years and after that period anyone can use the inventions freely without having to pay copyright fees to anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what about getting pure water afterwards? The source of water is not unlimited, and it is too expensive and unreliable to filter it and make it drinkable from the ocean, isn't it? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm no scientist, just an intrigued person. I've seen the YouTube and other articles about this process you describe. If it is that easy, why haven't the MIT brains pounced on that process? Or why hasn't Scientific American cited this in some articles....perhaps they have I've just missed them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this that process called HHO? Has anyone been able to prove its real?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe arguement made by "Nemesis" is a very good and VERY IMPORTANT point; oil companies will and HAVE monopolize(d) alternative fuel, including buying/tying up alt fuel patents. While I AM NOT a big fan of government regulation (Ask yourself why {American} oil companies have been allowed to continue legal racketeering and anti-trust practices and record-breaking profits, even during a recession...could it have something to do with our President, Vice President, and the majority of our Senate and House being "Oil People"?!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's all about money, people. Unless we DEMAND GNU or other open license type alternative technology/energy, we are doomed to continue down this path for a while. Being an election year, we could strike while the iron is hot, and the iron is RED HOT now my friends. Still, I believe sooner or later, alt fuel will prevail; It took a while to bring down the evil tabaco industry, which was every bit as powerful as the oil industry is now. It will take an educated and properly informed constituency to make it sooner, so I'm guessing it will be later. Even in this post, people are concerned about the explosive component of hydrogen. Don't get me wrong, under the right conditions, hydrogen, like many efficient fuel sources IS explosive; it is in fact the very reason it is a source of fuel. Hydrogen DOES have to follow the laws of physics, however, and many fail-safes can easily be put into place to keep hydrogen from exploding in places where you don't want it to. (Combustion chambers/ pistion chambers = "good explosions"; unplanned explosive atmospheres can = "bad explosions") An example is an in-line flash-back/flash-over arrestor. In simplistic terms, a device, often a one-way valve, that prevents hydrogen from "going the wrong way". In other words, from a physical point of view, if the amount of energy it takes for a hydrogen "bad explosion" is less than the amount of energy needed to over come a fail-safe (flash-over arrestor), the fail-safe will win; hydrogen must follow the rules of physics. The "hydrogen explosion fear factor" has been one of the many cogs in the wheel of perpetual anti-alternative fuel propaganda promoted by the BIG BUSINESS of oil.
Research for yourself; don't fall prey to those greed-mongers who only want our money, no matter what the cost to our livelihood, environment, or health. The time is NOW!
To "Loxosceles" and "Geraldova" The component of getting hydrogen from water is known as "electrolysis (of water)". You can Google it for a more succinct and accurate description than I could describe here. The good news is that separating hydrogen and oxygen by running an electrical current through water will most certainly, in almost every case, end up in re-constituted water when the wanted end result is energy in the form of electricity. The reason that simple water electrolysis is not a common household form of electricity is a bit more complicated; in a nutshell, from a very simplistic point of view, it basically takes more energy to separate plain water into hydrogen and oxygen than it does to recombine them back into water...It's the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen back into water that creates the electricity that we would be using in the alt. fuel realm of powering our worldly gagets. The electrolysis of water has been around since about 1800; other forms of hydrolysis and electrolysis of metals and electrolytes (see aluminum and sodium hydroxide/lye produce hydrogen and aluminum salts on you-tube and many other places on the web) have been around soon after. I think what "Geraldova" is referring to is a bit more towards the hydrolysis end of chemistry; basically that under most (chemical) circumstances, water separates into an oxygen (O+) atom and a hydroxy (OH-) compound... While technically accurate with most chemical reactions, the hydrolysis of water isn't applicable under the simple rules of water separation (electrolysis via electrical current) that's discussed in this particular forum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater cannot be separated into its components without adding energy; with perfect efficiency it would take exactly as much energy to separate as the energy you can get out in a fuel cell because the fuel cell is just the reverse of electrolysis. Catalysts are not magic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf hydrogen is to be the way that energy is transported from a source to the wheels of a vehicle, there has to be a new national infrastructure assembled at great cost to transport it to where it is needed. We already have a national power grid, although it must be upgraded.
By the way, huge amounts of hydrogen are already made and used in the space, petrochemical and food industries, almost all from fossil fuels. Electrolyzers have been available off-the-shelf for decades but are used only in special situations because the fossil fuel routes, which necessarily produce CO2, are cheaper.
The point of this technology--and why this seemingly simple invention ranks with the wheel as a clever solution to a huge range of problems--is that it means we will have cheap, clean energy that can be used "off the grid." Homes, cars, boats, farms (including labor-saving, production-enhancing farm machinery that is currently too expensive for millions of people) . . . by using this cheap technology they will greatly reduce if not eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels or expensive and risky nuclear power and the cost will drop so dramatically that it will in time become affordable in even the poorest parts of the globe. By replacing the burning of fossil fuels with efficient solar power systems, the worst effects of climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases should be averted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore important, it has been known for decades that we have the basic technological know-how to eliminate poverty and hunger, to provide shelter, clothing and food to the world's hungry. The key is abundant cheap, clean energy. Solar has been the dream energy resource, but until now it remained too inefficient and too expensive. This cheap, clean catalyst is the answer, and it will get better as it is developed over the next few years, especially coupled with other improvements in collectors and energy storage as hydrogen or in batteries. Need water to drink or for irrigation? Use this catalytic system to provide energy to clean and recycle contaminated water, convert seawater to freshwater, pump it through pipelines or aquaducts to wherever it is needed. Too poor to buy fuel for cooking? Run your house, your hut or even your hovel off a cheap solar power system with battery and hydrogen back-up for nights or cloudy days. Want power for your business? Ditto. Hot where you live? Go ahead and run that fan or air conditioner--the energy's cheap and produced right at home. The same if you get lots of sunlight in a cold environment--you'll have all the power required for an efficient home heating system.
This is the beginning of a true energy revolution. Energy independence at every level, from the individual family to the nations of the world. Revolutionary changes in the infrastructure and economics of energy. Decoupling of national and international politics from oil, coal and nuclear. This is the beginning of the end of the world as we know, and none too soon.
Oops, I mistyped a portion of my last statement. Hydrolysis -as in say a pre-oxidation or reduction reaction is separated into Hydrogen (H+) and a hydroxyl (OH-), not Oxygen and a hydroxyl. Sorry, sleep deprevation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven under the best of conditions as can be done with present know-how, energy is lost as heat (and other factors), creating the energy imbalance in the energy to create vs. the energy to use equation. With a cheap, easy and environmentally friendly virtually endless energy source -as you have all stated so well- the world will change for the better. It's a very exciting possibility, and it looks within reach...If the oil companies (via Big Brother) don't quash it all in some way. Call me paranoid, but the past and present history or rather, LACK of history of alt. fuel technology development says it all. I hope that I'm wrong.
I think neither oil companies nor utilities will succeed in stifling this. Entrepreneurs will see the vast amounts of money they can earn by selling a huge volume of smaller, relatively inexpensive systems directly to homes, farms, small businesses. Governments (not all, but many) will help by pushing and subsidizing mass conversion to localized solar in order to meet (and exceed) target levels for greenhouse emissions. A convergence of environmental crisis and economic opportunity will drive the adoption of this technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKiteman the net energy transfer is negative and will not boost anything except the mass of our car! The electric energy used is greater than the hydrogen produces when it's burned! The people on YouTube might like to buy my perpetual motion device!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing significant in this "discovery". Commercial scale water electrolyzers using nickel electrodes that have been on the market for over 50 years from several suppliers including Norsk Hydro are 70% efficient. They use an alkaline solution, but the alkali is not consumed. Dr Nocera's electrodes are capable of only very low current densities, a significant drawback. Additionally, anyone who thinks that it's a good idea for the average homeowner to produce, compress, store and use hydrogen in his home needs psychiatric intervention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElementary chemistry students know, if they have paid attention in Thermodynamics class, that catalysts can speed up reactions but they can't reduce the amount of energy consumed in an endothermic reaction, which the electrolysis of water is. When water is formed by burning hydrogen, that's an exothermic reaction. Energy in the form of heat is given off. Or if you react hydrogen with oxygen in a fuel cell you get that energy in the form of electricity, as well as some heat. If you want to reverse the reaction and make hydrogen and oxygen from water you have to supply the same amount of energy as that given off when water is formed. There is no way to change that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps your readers would be interested in watching a 10-minute video about the Nocera-Kanan discovery. Its the pilot for a project called Chemical Explorers, a series of Internet videos about interesting developments in modern chemistry. Because its intended for a general audience, the video doesnt go into the kind of technical detail that some of the earlier posts do. But it does allow viewers to hear directly from the two chemists behind this discovery, it shows the cobalt catalyst in action, and it tells the interesting story of how the discovery came about. The video can be watched at the following site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://chemicalexplorers.blip.tv/#1150780
Steve Lyons
Perhaps your readers would be interested in watching a 10-minute video about the Nocera-Kanan discovery. It’s the pilot for a project called Chemical Explorers, a series of Internet videos about interesting developments in modern chemistry. Because it’s intended for a general audience, the video doesn’t go into the kind of technical detail that some of the earlier posts do. But it does allow viewers to hear directly from the two chemists behind this discovery, it shows the cobalt catalyst in action, and it tells the interesting story of how the discovery came about. The video can be watched at the following site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://chemicalexplorers.blip.tv/#1150780
Steve Lyons
At last
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLast month I downloaded some free domain plans for the vehicle "onboard hydrogen generator. I was planning to modify our small truck fleet, however, at the end of the plans was a caution regarding the caustiv impact on internel engine parts and the exhaust system. IF SOMEONE KNOWS THE FACTS, ON THIS POTENTIAL PROBLEM, PLEASE PUT A COMMENT ON MY BLOG at { moonandson2.blogspot.com } thanks. this is Moonbeams, signing off!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy grade 4's make hydrogen and oxygen using two test tubes, copper wire, aluminum a nine volt battery and sodium bicarbonate. They get a great thrill out of the pop they get when I bring a lit match near it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch of the corn is still available as distillers grain, which is a high protein food supplement with many uses. In the near future we will be using cellulosic ethanol . The cellulose can be grown on wasteland. Grasses, trees, and sewage can be made into ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDaaaang fellas, is der a patent numbah to dis hear kcitin' deevelapment? Shorely if it wuhz mow dan jess empty-headed bleeting or jackass braying there would be at least a patent application on file, no? Is this yet another nauseous bit of techohype designed to cause anger and ressentiment?! I think it is, and as a previous commentator has pointed out, there can be no such thing as "phospate" when one is referring to chemicals. Ah aint neva agin tak sirius dis kinda jiwiz bushit from dis hear publikashun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing is easier than producing hydrogen at home. All that is required is a charcoal-making oven, correctly called a Pyrolisis retort. Load it with biomass and you generate hydrogen which you then use to generate electricity using a Stirling engine. So there is no need for fuel cells or hydrogen storage. Unfortunately there are no longer any 'Gazogens' made to operate at the scale of a home or car. But there were in the fifties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne poster noted that we should be using alcohol, and another poster noted that we get that from food stuffs thus causing adverse competition between fuel and food for the raw materials. However, tens of thousands of acres world wide are used for tobacco which could be used for say sugar beets or sugar cane. The resulting sugars can then be combined with common yeast and water to produce alcohol in whatever percentage you want. That would give farmers who complain about government regulation of tobacco or are negatively affected by public smoking bans in many countries an alternative product to grow which can be for either food or fuel but is not at this time being produced at all. In addition, since tobacco and refined sugars are both products we should reduce consumption of for simple health reasons, an increase in the price of these would not in my opinion be a negative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not use the ocean as a hydrogen farm. Use the hydrogen within an external combustion engine to produce electricity. Also, look into electrifying the highways, high speed rail and use the auto for local travel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis can be done within the near future and does not produce any greenhouse gases.
The problem with a hydrogen technology is the fact that there is no quick way of making am lot of hydrogen cheaply.But ,a process has been developed to seperate hydrogen instantly from any liquid cheaply.A patten has been aplied for that should finally give us a way to make energy that can replace fossil fules.The company named [Alternate Energy Conversions Inc.,has solved all the problems associated with creating and storing hydrogen.The process can be initiated with a very low charge of a dry cell battery and create as much hydrogen as needed.There is no need to store hydrogen if you can produce it as you need it.This cartrage is inert and can be handeled without safety issues.So,for all you nay sayers sayers that keep spouting off about how the technology hasnt yet cought up so that we can make this transition to a hydrogen based energy grid,you need to invest in these companys because this is the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with a hydrogen technology is the fact that there is no quick way of making a lot of hydrogen cheaply.But ,a process has been developed to seperate hydrogen instantly from any liquid cheaply.A patten has been aplied for that should finally give us a way to make energy that can replace fossil fules.The company named [Alternate Energy Conversions Inc.,has solved all the problems associated with creating and storing hydrogen.The process can be initiated with a very low charge of a dry cell battery and create as much hydrogen as needed.There is no need to store hydrogen if you can produce it as you need it.This cartrage is inert and can be handeled without safety issues.So,for all you nay sayers sayers that keep spouting off about how the technology hasnt yet cought up so that we can make this transition to a hydrogen based energy grid,you need to invest in these companys because this is the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishello ! I've been interested in hydrogen for a while my reaseach can be found at http://bestbusinessonline.ws for those who would like to see!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this