No one is disagreeing that production of H2 requires energy input. I disagree with the notion that the only way to supply this energy input is waste heat from a reactor.
I'm not claiming H2 is a fuel source in any of those applications at all. I'm claiming that all those other methods can be used to produce H2 and any one of them could become economically feasible in the future.
Of course catalysts are produced, and that production takes energy. Catalysts are not used in a reaction but they lower the energy thresholds which govern them normally. So H2O could be split using less energy than is typical.
I'm not sure what you mean by "source of the energy to make the system run is not hydrogen, it's in the nanocatalyst". A catalyst does not run a fuel cell, H2 runs it. A catalyst does not run an ICE engine, H2 or some other fuel does. I'm not sure why you would think a catalyst would run anything. It facilitates a chemical reaction, in this example breaking apart H2O.
point is youll need nonhydrogen fuel to create the catalyst and when it breaks down, your app doesnt work. Hydrogen isnt adding any energy into the system, its just storing it. its like running a car on electricity where the electricity is produced by fuel burning. its not any cleaner or more energetic, its just using a different medium to store the energy instead of directly burning the fuel in the car.
Catalysts are not used in a reaction (bing.com). I understand how H2 is "stored energy".
(post is archived)