Originally posted by sonhouse
You have a point there. The middle east should go back to the 10th century where it properly belongs🙂
Still, you don't get much climate wise to use coal to make aluminum to make H2. I think you could even use solar energy for the production of bacterial H2, needing only 80 degrees C, that is not a big stretch for solar energy, representing a concentration ...[text shortened]... 1. Any way you look at it, the energy input requirements are majorly less than making aluminum.
The point is also not to get more energy out than you put in; that's impossible. The point is to transport and store energy in a usable manner. If you have H2 farms with bacteria:
1) How much bacteria can you fit in an acre?
2) How do you heat it?
3) How do you grow/transport the cellulose?
4) How do you transport and store the final H2 product?
#4 is the issue solved by the Al/Ga alloy.
The thing about fossil fuels right now is that the Billions and Billions of Megawatts of energy it took to create those fuels had already been expended millions of years ago; we're still not getting out more than we put in -- it just happens to be in a usable, transportable form.
I think the benefit of the Al/Ga idea is that it could be mass produced easily. As stated in the article, it could be done on site at a dedicated nuclear power plant.
The downside with a lot of those "oh look, we get hydrogen naturally and for free" concepts lies in scalability -- it'd work great for a few hundred or thousand vehicles, but to supply the entire world/continent/country is simply not feasable.