> It's true that high efficiency catalytic electrolysis requires expensive materials.
And "high" here is only 70%.
And this way, you only get around 15 grams per kwh.
And "high" here is only 70%.
And this way, you only get around 15 grams per kwh.
If it doesn't pay for its own existence, it's likely a waste of effort. But if it does, you're adding capabilities & flexibility for zero cost. I don't really see a downside, other than tying up the capital.
Electricity has to get tens of times cheaper for it to beat steam reforming, and you absolutely can't produce hydrogen cheaper than the energy you put into its production, most of which comes from, surprise, hydrocarbons.
And obviously, you can't produce more hydrogen than the energy equivalent in hydrogen you consume. This completely crushes whatever ignoramuses thinking that you can "use hydrogen to produce more hydrogen"