According to Bob Eoin O'Carroll is "someone rather ignorant about
physics, chemistry and solar power". As a philosopher, O'Carroll may
well indeed be ignorant of technicalities concerning such things. And
is probably also the case for Anne Trafton, who wrote 'Major
discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution' on July 31.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

But it's not O'Carroll or Trafton's credibility which is being
challenged here. It's Daniel Nocera, Professor of Energy at MIT,
who's paper describing the work was published in the August 1 issue of
Science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5889/710b/DC1

Hydrogen fuel cells are already in use in US hospitals as back up
during black outs and to cut over all electricty costs. They're also
being used to run Perth's buses. I agree they're currently too heavy
for cars. Although Japanese researchers claim they've developed a
platinum free hydrogen fuel cell which is cheap and light enough for
cars. Time will tell.

Also according to Bob "gaseous or liquified hydrogen has too many
problems to be potentially useful". I'm not sure if such inaccurate
comments are deliberate ignorance or motivated by some latent agenda,
but liquified hydrogen and metal hydrides for storage of gaseous
hydrogen is already in use for transport applications and becoming
more commonly utilised as we debate.

Personally I'd rate the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Department of Chemistry as far more credible than someone has poo
pooed hydrogen as a practicle motor fuel in the past, while advocating
ditching aeroplanes in favour of helium balloons for long distance
travel, but couldn't answer whether the helium would be supplied
though compressing 4 hydrogen atoms to make 1 helium atom, through
decay of radioactive materials, or extraction from natural/petroleum
gas, and clearly doesn't know the difference between Amps and Watts.





--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich
<bobrich@...> wrote:
>
> I've read about this process elsewhere, Peter. This particular
> article is obviously written by someone rather ignorant about
> physics, chemistry and solar power.
> Certainly, storage of solar power is the bottleneck, and the lead
> acid battery is a monster for this. It's very close to useless,
> really, but it's the most cost-effective except for grid-interactive.
> That in turn has the problem of all grid connection, e.g., the large
> losses during long distance transmission.
> A process has been developed at UNSW years ago, but still not in
> commercial use. This relies on storage in a liquid that exists in two
> energy states, and needs a pump to keep it going. The trouble is
> initial cost, and sheer size to store significant amounts of power.
> If hydrogen can be produced cheaply and efficiently, and then used
> in fuel cells, that could power fixed installations, and large
> vehicles like ships, buses, trucks etc. But at least for the present,
> they are too large and heavy for cars.
> And gaseous or liquified hydrogen has too many problems to be
> potentially useful, even if cost and efficiency of production can be
> reduced.
> :)
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>