Wow, that is impressive. Nothing like a toaster run essentially on air.

It does bode well though, that improvements may make it a more viable source of significant energy in the future.

Thank you for reminding everyone that the real key to hydrogen fuels is developing an alternative method of generating hydrogen without using carbon based materials first. As a "denier" I really don't mind it, but to our AGW friends, they need reminded of that from time to time.

Also, thanks for commenting on how solar and, wind for that matter, if I may interject, are not a real good energy source from an efficiency standpoint. That always seems to be lost in translation. Maybe someday, but just not right at this time in technology.

We all know that H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas that CO2, how is this supposed to help?

We all know that H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas that CO2, how is this supposed to help?

I don't know whether the H20 produced by a cell like this is emitted as vapor or liquid. If it is vapor, it is readily condensed into liquid form. It certainly would not, nor should not, be directly released to the atmosphere.

The reduction of fresh water is one of the more pressing negative consequences of AGW. An energy economy that eliminates the emission of carbon and simultaneously produces potable fresh water is a win on both sides of the equation.

As exciting as this research is, the key to having a hydrogen economy, from a climate change perspective, is to be able to produce hydrogen without using fossil fuels. Nuclear power is certainly an option. Solar is currently far too inefficient to be useful.

I agree that nuclear is certainly an option. I disagree that solar is "currently far too inefficient to be useful." The context is using solar to electrolyze water into hydrogen, and using hydrogen as an energy storage medium. The solar collection can done in areas like oceans and deserts that are not hospitable to humans and in which there is far more insolation than needed. Since, in this context, the solar-produced energy need only be converted to hydrogen, then the "efficiency" is far less important. Meanwhile, economies of scale would surely benefit the solar conversion technology.

While nuclear generation must certainly be considered as an immediate option, it's costs must be carefully considered. Those costs include both the direct costs of safely generating it and dealing with the resulting waste products, as well as the indirect costs associated with the security implictions (witness the current dispute with Iran and North Korea) of nuclear power generation.

I think it's far too early to rule either nuclear or solar power generation in or out.

BT:

Not sure it matters whether the "exhaust" is liquid or vapor. Either way, at some point it is libal to become vapor. That said, big whoop. Certainly would not let that hold us up. Besides, we will definitely need that H2O greenhouse gas in 10 or so years when it gets cold again, Newsweek writes about the coming ice age, and we are having energy shortages due to the cold. I figure the vapor will help to keep us all warm. LOL, just funning with you.

I for one would love to get a fuel-cell generator for my home electric as long as it is reliable. Would probably cutdown on outages and such.

With solar, I think you have a great idea in putting cells out in ocean. Logistically challenging but good use of space. The efficiency comment is what it is. Cells today are greatly more efficient than they were say 10 or 20 years ago. That said, they still are not very efficient compared to other methods. Even if just used for electrolysis. Someday, I fully believe they will be.

BrooklineTom - I based my efficiency comment on something I saw in a documentary on hydrogen powered cars. It was on Honda's hydrogen fueling station. Details can be found here:
http://www.ieahia.org/pdfs/honda.pdf
This self-contained hydrogen production station produces enough hydrogen per year (5,700 liters) on solar power alone to fuel one car. Given the size of the solar array, it seems unlikely that solar alone can produce an adequate amount of hydrogen to power a hydrogen economy. Yes, areas like deserts and oceans aren't hospitable to human life, but they are filled with life. What would be the consequences of constructing giant solar arrays over the ocean surface?

I believe that the program I saw this hydrogen station on was Thomas Friedman's Green: The New Red, White and Blue, which will be shown on the Discovery Channel this Saturday at 9:00 Eastern time. Lots of interesting information there.

I didn't see the specs for the solar array in the link you offered, but I appreciate the issues involved with scaling the area of the collectors. Another approach to build the collectors in space, and ship the hydrogen back and forth in (presumably reusable) spacecraft of some sort. In our lifetime, satellite orbit insertion has gone from exotic and expensive research to commercial venture.

There are various biological approaches for synthesizing hydrogen (including the thread-starter) that all, in one way or another, involve using hydrogen as a temporary storage medium for solar energy. A living plant cell performing photosynthesis is, after all, a remarkably efficient solar energy converter.

I remain convinced that we should keep all our technology options open. Of all the weakness of US culture, technology development is one of the things we are, historically, very good at.

BT - I completely agree, and did not mean to imply that solar should be trash-heaped as a potential electricity source. I'm sure the efficiency will continue to improve as more research is done.

well if you want to know the cost of solar power see yahoo news today.... http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070418/tc_usatoday/airforceembracessolarpower...a prime example of wasting tax payers dollars to be green...touted as saving $1,000,000 year, the initial capital cost to set up a 140 acre (wonder how many desert tortoises they are going to kill?) solar array costs $100,000,000...guess who is going to pay the bill...taxpayers...that is a 100 year payout without any cost overruns or discounted for time value of money...nice economics.. how would u invest $100,000,000?

I would take the 100 mill, put it on New York to flood in 4 years and make a gazillion dollars. See other thread for the odds.

LOL

Good point though SAMMY. Seems that if we put that 100 mil into either nuke plants or more efficient, and less polluting by the way, refineries, it might be better spent.

I think a pilot plant with solar might be a great idea though to scale up the ideas we currently have. But maybe not up to 100 mil.