General Chat
Q:
As part of a research project I'm doing, I was wondering what other commercial methods companies are considering to create hydrogen, other than electrolysis, and the interaction with steam and methane gas followed with the pressure swing absorption method. I know some of you know a lot more about this than I do, and it would help me out if you could post here. Thanks
______________________________________________
'82 280zx -- 400+hp 355 sbc / T-56
'72 240zt - T3/T4 hybrid / TEC-II / not much stock
'82 280zxt - Stock...for now
'77 280z 2+2 -- Ongoing battle; currently in the process of "ricing
A:
There are no "new ways" to produce Hydrogen. You always start with something that already has Hydrogen and then use a lot of energy to strip off the Hydrogen and then use a lot of energy to collect and compress the Hydrogen. Basically whatever energy you get from the Hydrogen itself has to be less than what it took to produce it.
Find a CRC Handbook. That is a great place to "research" the elements and their reactions. Nothing is new in Chemistry on the subject, just whether the product is Economically feasible or not to produce. If the end product is Energy, it's a net loss.
Post Edited (Nov 15, 6:08am)
A:
I remember an article fairly recently about a Japanese firm in conjunction with an automanufacturer that made a break through in producing methane from soft biomass. I will try to find the article. I believe they were still cracking the hydrogen in the same manner though.
06 Lemanz Sunset Track Z
Best car I ever bought.
IHI Turbos comming soon.
A:
methane from biomass is more feasable -- guess what happens in swamps. Now burning hydrogen only will be feasable when we will get nuclear fussion
======
'74 2+2 -- MSA sway bars, Illuminas, Eibach Progressive, Energy Suspension
L28 with MN47, 240Z rods, milled down dished pistons (11.6:1 CR) and 240sx tranny
======
committing suicide in small managable payments
A:
Soft Biomass..
_____________________
Me YORGO...You Not
A:
Hydrogen technology is most likely being suppressed by big oil. Watch this fascinating vid: (link below)
This Stan Meyer video is a short segment that was clipped from the British documentary “Equinox: It Runs On Water” which was first broadcast on TV in 1995 in the UK.
The full version of Equinox covers several other alternative energy inventions. Such as Jim Griggs “water hammer”, James Patterson and his strange low-voltage variation of electrolysis that produces heat rather than hydrogen and oxygen as the energy source, Charnetski’s vacuum energy, Tesla and interviews with Dr. Hal Puthoff the Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, TX. The best video on zero-point energy and over unity devices ever produced. A must see.
Equinox: Full length 50 minutes long
Download (Right click and select "Save Target As")
http://ensciro.com/StanMeyer.WMV
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
"Hydrogen technology is most likely being suppressed by big oil"
Actually, it's suppress by The Law of Conservation of Energy. Sorry, but all the hair brained ideas all have to eventually face that irrefutable fact. There are no "over unity" machines.
A:
Hybrid77Z, how do you know that? people used to believe that the world was flat! If you were alive back then I suspect that you would have gone along with the status quo. Tesla made a free energy device years ago, his work is now being re-examined by thinkers who have open minds. How can you, Newton, Einstein or anybody other than God claim to know about ALL of the workings of the universe? A theory can never be proved to be true, it can only remain an assumed truth until such a time as it is disproved. I think that is why they call them theories; not facts. The basis of physics is that if theory allows it, then it happens, until all parts of the theory can be disproved. Look at Dirac's anti-matter predictions, some decades later, we observe anti-matter.
Newton didn't develop theories ( how or why things work the way they do), what he developed were laws (a simple description of WHAT things do). Newton used mathematics to explain much of the natural world, however much of this was disproved by Einstein. I will always keep an open mind, mankind still has a lot to learn, we do not know everything about the workings of the universe, in fact I would bet that we actually know very little.
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
Post Edited (Nov 15, 1:58pm)
A:
Hybrid77Z's view of the world:
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
"we do not know everything about the workings of the universe"
True enough, but we do know damn near everything about Hydrogen at standard conditions on Earth. If he wants Hydrogen gas, he has to start with raw products that contain Hydrogen. That is why there is a net LOSS in using Hydrogen as a power source comes from.
jbond,
PLEASe don't turn in a project report on Hydrogen that starts off anything like "So we can use anti matter generators and a time warp to create free Hydrogen from cold fusion and..."
A:
"but we do know damn near everything about Hydrogen at standard conditions on Earth."
Do you have a source for this quote or did you make it up?
Humans always think we know everything.
This is of course until a free thinking human comes along a proves everyone else wrong.
Remember when people didn't believe little organisms called germs made us sick?
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
I don't see how the Law of Conservation of Energy even applies here. We refine gasoline from crude oil. If it took more energy to extract gasoline from oil then the refined product could provide, we would not be using gas. What is so different about the possibility of "refining" hydrogen from water?
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
Post Edited (Nov 15, 3:01pm)
A:
Actually Blue 2+2, there is a lot more to it than enrgy yield.
It takes quite a bit of natural gas to refine oil.
Also, lots of by-products of the oil refining process go to make plastics and such.
Basically, it's not about energy yield...it's about profit.
So, the statement should be "You yeild more money from refining oil than it costs you"
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
refining petrolium is one thing, but "refining water" is another.
Oil for one thing can and will burn on its own. It is a complex soup of hydrocarbons that once introduced to oxygen and ignition source will become carbon dioxide, water, and energy (did I say water, I did, good). The refining process is about of "sifting" the complex hydrocarbons into groups that are somewhat similar like gasoline (C5 - C10), diesel (C6 - C20), tars (C10-C30), asphalts, etcs. Water on the other hand is a PRODUCT OF COMBUSTION. So to make it into hydrogen gas you will need to unburn it by electrolysis. Say that electrolysis is 100% efficient, you will need to spend energy equal to that of produced by burning hydrogen. But where do you get the energy (from buring oil, fission, etc). and those sources are 40-60 percent efficient. So you will need to spend at least twice amount of energy to produce hydrogen then it will ever produce in its lifetime. (Fussion is only exception)
======
'74 2+2 -- MSA sway bars, Illuminas, Eibach Progressive, Energy Suspension
L28 with MN47, 240Z rods, milled down dished pistons (11.6:1 CR) and 240sx tranny
======
committing suicide in small managable payments
A:
Can't believe I'm siding w/ Hybrid, but I gots no choice!
We're getting "free" energy from "over unity devices" and "zero point energy" about as soon as we are from "cold fusion". I.e., no time soon.
From the linkie above "...he has no former qualifications as a scientist..."
I love how kook "inventors" play this up. Non-scientific thinkers cannot resist the idea of a "loner" from outside the scientific community coming up with an earth-shattering breakthrough. HUNDREDS of scams have been perpetrated by these types. Usually they don't start off as scams, they start out believing their own press releases, but eventually they usually realize their stuff just doesn't work, they overlooked something or completely misunderestimated (pardon my Bushism) the real energy expenditure required to make their "trick" work.
This guy is splitting water into H2 and O2 and recombining it while netting an energy surplus, in a pig's eye.
Don't give these people any money!
Post Edited (Nov 15, 3:31pm)
A:
Hmmm, guess I should take this Stan Meyer guy seriously. Seems the Arabs offered him a billion dollars "cold cash", for him to simply sit on his water-splitting "invention" and not develop it. What a stand-up guy to not take their money! His life has been threatened, but fortunately, he "believes in the power of angels"!
God bless you Stan Meyer!
A:
Very confusing to bring in laws of conservation for this discussion but it still holds true. IF you believe that energy is conserved and that you can never have an increasing energy flow from an enclosed system (i.e. you are scientific in some way), and you understand that you do have energy input in these two cases you can eliminate their similarities by knowing there there is a great amount of energy naturally stored in oil - but that does not hold for water.
It DOES take more energy to extract hydrogen from water than we can derive from the hydrogen afterwards. You do not even have to look up the watts per cc of hydrogen for the process, or the $ per kilowatt for electricity, or the joules of energy per hydrogen atom. You simply need to understand that you need enough energy to break the bonds of the hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms apart, and if you could do that without any waste you would be breaking even just for the first part.
You still have to take the result and making a mechanical engine that is 100% efficient. FYI - Automobiles only get about 1/3 of the energy stored in gas and use it to drive the wheels - the rest escapes as heat.
1993 300zx NA
A:
close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-)
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
The Closed Mind; a mind that is trained to stop short of a new idea. A wall has been erected which says, in effect: This far you may go, and no further.
Sorry, I do not think in this manner, and thankfully others in the past put this this type of thinking off to the side. A good example would be the Wright brothers who certainly went way beyond the realm of conventional thinking in their day to achieve flight which was thought of as only a dream. Yes I have read about the net energy loss in creating hydrogen by the "known methods" on Peak oil websites.
The common belief is that hydrogen is only a good carrier or store for energy much like the battery in your car. However I feel that this should not erect a barrier or wall for new ideas to emerge. Electrolysis is the conventional method used to extract hydrogen from water, currently this method has a net loss of energy. But what if something as common as calcium could be used to unlock the hydrogen from water on a commercial scale. Calcium reacts with water and releases particles of hydrogen gas. It may require an additional input of some substance, radio wave, light beam, element etc. to achieve sufficient quantities of hydrogen, I think the possibilities for new discoveries are endless. never let conventional thinking hold you back..............
what gas is formed when calcium reacts with water? and how do we know?
When calcium reacts with water hydrogen gas is formed. You could figure
this out by testing the PH of the solution using lithmus paper. It should
be a basic solution, since the compound formed was CaOH. The OH on the
back on the compound indicates that it is a base. The gas
and the compound is formed by balancing the chemical equation.
Ca (s) + 2[H20]=> Ca(OH)2 + H2 (g)
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
I was commenting on the laws of conservation introduced in the conversation. Combining the the hydrogen extraction with a renewable or self powering resource is really the key.
Combine a hydroelectric plant with electrolysis and you get a nice hydrogen plant with net energey (not counting the "free" potential energy of the water pressure behind the damn).
Or the most popular method for extracting hyrogen - Methane (CH4). While it has a stronger bond than water that has to be broken Methane (like oil) brings along its own energy to the formula. And it doesn't hurt that it is readily available in the Earth - not to mention some well planned land fills.
1993 300zx NA
A:
Just because anti-mater exists does not mean that we should power our lawnmowers with it. Just because "it's possible" (like landing on the moon) does not mean that it should be incorporated into everyday life. The energy business is all about the least costs, not developing some pan-dimensional gateway to extract Hydrogen from the galactic space....
A:
Ill throw my two cents in just for the hell of it, even though this is turning into a religeon debate, I mean politics debate, I mean abortion debate......etc.
"If you dont have facts, you are just another person with an opinion" - Unknown
"The more you know, the less you know. If you dont understand this then you know nothing and are a waste of my time" - One of my college profs.
"I am often more excited when Im wrong, because I just learned something I didnt know."
First off I am a scientist and that means I believe everything is possible but also understand the mathmatical improbability. Hydrogen is a good fuel source and it will most likely save the world (in conjunction with other things), but it wont come from plain jane H20. The reasons are stated before.
Please do not confuse zero point energy, fusion, and cold fusion with hydrogen fuel. They are completely two types of energy sources. Hydrogens energy comes from a chemical reaction involving the specific energy level of electrons and how excited they are.
ZPE, fusion, and cold fusion all involve the destruction of matter into energy. E=MC^2 Fusion itself is mathmatically increadibly inefficient due to all of the radiation and free radicles which cant be used for power generation. (yet) Cold fusion might happen with heavy water. (which would be neat) Zero point energy, well not in my lifetime.
So to wrap this all up, the difference between a true scientist and a dreamer such as blue, is that the scientist takes the knowledge from the past and uses it to guide him, admitting when hes wrong, but working in the realm of reality to prevent wasting valuable time. An dreamer takes opinion, throws in a little fact here and there, and compiles a fundamentally flawed theory.
06 Lemanz Sunset Track Z
Best car I ever bought.
IHI Turbos comming soon.
A:
If you can't add anything usefull you might as well add crap.
1993 300zx NA
A:
How 'bout some more definitions, they're always helpful!
gull·ible: easily duped or cheated
na·ive: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : CREDULOUS
cred·u·lous: ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence
Seems some of Stan's investors lost faith in him somewhere along the way! This guy was obviously a fraud.
From http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_8_3.html (these guys are apparently also "believers" in such things as "free energy" and "over unity devices", but at least they recognized a scam for what it was)
>>>
"End of Road for Car That Ran on Water," London Sunday Times, 1 Dec. 1996.
An Ohio court ruled against inventor Stanley Meyer, in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors recently.
Meyer had sold "dealerships" and licensing rights in his Water Fuel Cell technology to interested investors, in anticipation of the day when it would power electric vehicles or even aircraft.
That dream was shattered as Meyer was found guilty of fraud when his Water Fuel Cell failed to impress three "expert witnesses" who decided there was nothing revolutionary about it, rather that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.
The Sunday Times article also stated that when one of the court experts went to examine the Water Fuel Cell driven car, it was impossible to evaluate because it was not working.
<<<
Post Edited (Nov 16, 3:03am)
A:
"When calcium reacts with water hydrogen gas is formed. You could figure
this out by testing the PH of the solution using lithmus paper."
You should have also figured by now that making a few days worth of Hydrogen while turning the planets water supply into a caustic soup is NOT a good trade.
"If you can't add anything useful"
Good science is (by definition) skeptical (demanding proof).
Bad science is indistinguishable from a faith healer.
A:
"Newton used mathematics to explain much of the natural world, however much of this was disproved by Einstein"
Einstein did not disprove mathematics.
Einstein did NOT disprove the natural world.
Like it or not, we live in a world of physical laws that can't be dismissed at will. I always get a chuckle when people misunderstand Einstein, Darwin, Feynman,whoever and then argue from their misunderstanding.
So to quote Dick Feynman "Nature cannot be fooled".
A:
"Einstein did not disprove mathematics.
Einstein did NOT disprove the natural world"
Hybrid, you know damn well this is not what he meant.
Man, you piss me off...mostly cause I keep letting myself get dragged into this sh!t.
--------------------------------------
1990 300zx NA
- Custom Exhaust
- JWT Pop Charger
A:
"the destruction of matter into energy"
Matter can not be destroyed, only changed.
A:
>The best video on zero-point energy and over unity devices ever
> produced
Some physics classes will cure you of that belief.
> close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-) adj.
>Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive
> to new ideas.
There is your problem. Science is not about beliefs, it is about evidence and proof backing axioms and theories. There are no new ideas if they are not supported by evidence. Simply providing conjecture that the laws of thermodynamics will one day just bend because we were "enlightened" is not only highly unlikely, it's ignorant.
Perhaps then Blue, it is you who is closed minded.
A:
>what gas is formed when calcium reacts with water? and how do we know?
>When calcium reacts with water hydrogen gas is formed. You could figure
>this out by testing the PH of the solution using lithmus paper. It should
> be a basic solution, since the compound formed was CaOH. The OH on
> the back on the compound indicates that it is a base. The gas
> and the compound is formed by balancing the chemical equation.
> Ca (s) + 2[H20]=> Ca(OH)2 + H2 (g)
And calcium is a reactive metal, so what? I'm still waiting to hear how calcium hydroxide proves anything you are espousing. Are you trying to say this production is free energy? It's not.
A:
I think you guy's are missing my point, just like a politician or lawyer who will seize upon a hypothetical statement just to use it against you. I am not a scientist and only used calcium's interaction with water as an "off the cuff" example to show one of the byproducts of the reaction > hydrogen , that there may be other possibilities to explore. Even salt produces some degree of hydrogen in it's reaction with water, I would think that many other common elements may react in a similar manner. Can anyone give proof that mankind has tried ALL of the possible combinations of elements, frequencies, voltages, substances, compounds etc. to extract or create hydrogen. Adding some other ingredient to the equation may be the key to a new method of extraction???. I am not trying to prove anything about the claims in the movie above, I did not even claim to believe that it works, but to take a defeatist attitude from the start as many of you have is certainly counterproductive to the advancement of mankind. You can now stop shooting at the messanger.
"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see."
Thoreau
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
This thread is made of matter. If it comes into contact with anti matter a horrible explosion will convert the matter and anti matter into pure energy.
seek shelter.
1975 280Z [STOCK]
the answer lies not within the question but rather within the answer itself!
A:
"Can anyone give proof that mankind has tried ALL of the possible combinations of elements, frequencies, voltages, substances, compounds etc. to extract or create hydrogen."
Proof?
LOL, it sounds like you already have "the solution" and are now asking all of mankind to spend their time researching how to work toward YOUR answer.
Hydrogen is Hydrogen and is already available TODAY. No one is really using it for transportation, power generation, not even party ballons. You should investigate why it's not "the answer" even today before demanding people ought to find "new ways" to extract even more of it.
Post Edited (Nov 16, 12:31pm)
A:
So your point is "wouldn't it be nice if there were a cheap easy supply of hydrogen?". Of course it would be.
Believe it or not, a LOT of scientists and engineers who have a much richer understanding of the physical world than you or me are diligently working on this. Which is why it is hard for some of us to take seriously "off-the-cuff" suggestions from the lay public. If you really want to help out, your best bet is getting a good education in physics and chemistry first.
I don't have a defeatist attitude at all, but having at least some education in science and engineering, I can usually detect pseudo-science when I come across it. Like in most everything else, if it sounds too good to be true, it *probably* is.
I'm reminded of a EE friend of mine who was approached by an MBA student who was making a business plan for a class he was taking. It was based on running generators at the front wheels of an electric car to harness what he thought would be free energy to charge batteries which would drive motors at the rear wheels of the car. You'd only need a very small charge in the batteries to "get it going", then it would run nearly forever (he must be given points for not thinking it would actually be a perpetual motion device). He actually thought he was going to make a killing with his idea! When my friend tried to explain to him why it wouldn't work, the guy gets his feelings hurt, saying "you should really try to encourage people more instead of being so negative" or some such.
Too funny!
Post Edited (Nov 16, 12:33pm)
A:
Yes, I apologize, I should've rephrased the opening statement, asking about better ways to separate Hydrogen, other than produce it. 32 posts and nothing but bickering - well at least I tried.
BTW, I ended up going with Sodium Borohydride (short for sodium tetrahydridoborate) as a new way to process hydrogen.
NaBH4 + 2H2O --> NaBO2 + 4H2
You can read about it here:
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/sodium_boro_hydride.htm
______________________________________________
'82 280zx -- 400+hp 355 sbc / T-56
'72 240zt - T3/T4 hybrid / TEC-II / not much stock
'82 280zxt - Stock...for now
'77 280z 2+2 -- Ongoing battle; currently in the process of "ricing
Post Edited (Nov 16, 12:57pm)
A:
"NaBH4 + 2H2O --> NaBO2 + 4H2"
That's the easy equation, but you left out the real equation for how many trillions of tons of NaBH4 we would need every day if we switched to this method.
A:
Yes, but the paper didn't ask me to solve the world's energy crisis. Personally, I'd rather see us stick with the internal combustion engine. I'm sure we have the oil out there to do it for god knows how many centuries. However, I was just instructed to find an alternative production method - not necessarily a practicle one, just a possible one.
______________________________________________
'82 280zx -- 400+hp 355 sbc / T-56
'72 240zt - T3/T4 hybrid / TEC-II / not much stock
'82 280zxt - Stock...for now
'77 280z 2+2 -- Ongoing battle; currently in the process of "ricing
A:
If you need energy to produce hydrogen, who says you need to burn oil? We do have that huge burning ball of "free" energy only 93 million miles away...
Or the wind...
Or the tides...
I doubt a solar, wind, or tide powered car would be very effective, but we could use these "free" energy sources to make the hydrogen to burn as a fuel in cars and planes and all that jazz.
We don't need any nuclear fusion or fission or any of that, just some people in power to realise that we're destroying the world we live in...
_____________________________________________________
'76 280Z w/Shaved Head and Illuminas
'83 280zxt w/RUST
A:
"BTW, I ended up going with Sodium Borohydride (short for sodium tetrahydridoborate) as a new way to process hydrogen.
NaBH4 + 2H2O --> NaBO2 + 4H2
You can read about it here:"
http://www.batteriesdigest.com/sodium_boro_hydride.htm
Nice find Jbond, mankind is inventive and still has a lot to discover.
Gee, who would have thunk?? Science adding some new ingredients together to get one step closer to a viable use of hydrogen, .... I must digress.
In keeping with the positive attitude theory there may be an even simple answer:
If we could somehow bottle all of the hot air spewed by Hybrid77Z on this web site, America's future energy problems would be solved :-).
ps, Nothing personal hybirdZ, you just remind me a lot of one of my best friends who also likes to butt heads..........
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
Ireland Declares War on France
Jacques Chirac, The French President, is sitting in his office when his
telephone rings
"Hallo, Mr. Chirac!" a heavily accented voice said. "This is Paddy Down at the Harp Pub in County Clare, Ireland. I am ringing to inform you that
we are officially declaring war on you!"
"Well, Paddy," Chirac replied, "This is indeed important news! How big
is your army?"
"Right now," says Paddy, after a moment's calculation, "there is meself,
me Cousin Sean, me next door neighbour Seamus, and the entire darts tepm
from the pub. That makes eight!"
Chirac paused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 100,000 men in my army
waiting to move on my command." "Begorra!" says Paddy. "I'll have to ring you back.
Sure enough, the next day, Paddy calls again. "Mr. Chirac, the war is
still on We have managed to get us some infantry equipment!"
"And what equipment would that be Paddy?" Chirac asks.
"Well, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Marphy's farm tractor."
Chirac sighs amused. "I must tell you, Paddy, that I have 6,000 tanks
and 5,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I have increased my army to
150,000 since we last spoke.""Saints preserve us!" says Paddy. "I'll have
to get back to you."
Sure enough, Paddy rings again the next day. "Mr. Chirac, the war is
still on! We have managed to get ourselves airborne! We have modified Jackie
McLaughlin's ultra-light with a couple of shotguns in the cockpit, and
four boys from the Shamrock Bar have joined us as well!"
Chirac was silent for a minute and then cleared his throat. "I must tell
you, Paddy, that I have 100 bombers and 200 fighter planes. My military
bases are surrounded by laser-guided, surface-to-air missile sites. And
since we last spoke, I have increased my army to 200,000!"
"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" says Paddy, "I will have to ring you back."
Sure enough, Paddy calls again the next day. "Top o' the mornin', Mr.
Chirac! I am sorry to inform you that we have had to call off the war."
"Really? I am sorry to hear that," says Chirac. "Why the sudden change
of heart?"
"Well," says Paddy, "we had a long chat over a few pints of Guinness and
decided there is no fookin' way we can feed 200,000 French prisoners."
"YES I will finish what I sta"
.
1977 280Z blue 2+2,
1973 240z
1977 280Z coupe in restoration progress
A:
>"BTW, I ended up going with Sodium Borohydride (short for sodium
>tetrahydridoborate) as a new way to process hydrogen
>Gee, who would have thunk?? Science adding some new ingredients
> together to get one step closer to a viable use of hydrogen, .... I must
> digress.
I don't think things are quite as random as you are making them out to be. We don't "stumble" over reactions anymore like we did a hundred years ago. Sodium borohydride has been known for 65+ years. They could have used any of hundreds of chemicals for energy storage. And any chemical that has mutable structure with bonds can store energy.
You don't really "make" hydrogen, you bind it with enegy, use it like a battery, and free the energy when you oxidize it. Gasoline is the same deal, it just happens to be pre-stored sunlight.
A:
"Yes, but the paper didn't ask me to solve the world's energy crisis."
YOU said the paper was on "commercial methods". Commercial means profitable. Since we are talking about profits then you have to consider the market. There is no market for $50/"gallon" Hydrogen produced from exotic methods. There is barely a market for purified Hydrogen gas right now even using cheaper methods.
Take this chance to write a realistic paper on just how bad it would have to get in the real world before anyone would be desperate enough to even consider using exotic methods to strip Hydrogen from other atoms just to recombine it with others for a net energy loss.
Post Edited (Nov 17, 7:47am)