[AR] Re: ammonia borane

  • From: "Troy Prideaux" <troy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 11:36:02 +1100

I was under the impression that electrolysis was >80% efficient now. I've
heard some numbers >85%

Regards,

Troy

-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of Henry Spencer
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 11:25 AM
To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [AR] Re: ammonia borane

On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Troy Prideaux wrote:
GH2 from hydrolysis of water by solar cells.
Prohibitively expensive by comparison, for any practical purpose,
except in what are basically tech demos that don't have to make
economic sense. Commercial GH2 is from petroleum.

 How up-to-date is that claim?

As far as I know -- with the caveat that it's an area I don't actively
monitor --
it's still current.  There is lots of hype about solar-powered
electrolysis, but no
reality behind it yet.  Electrolysis is hideously energy-intensive, and
solar cells
are not a particularly cheap energy source (even allowing for the fact
that this
application wouldn't need energy storage).  Making GH2 from petroleum --
usually natural gas -- is
*much* cheaper, and so long as the producers don't have to pay for the
side
effects of the CO2 release, it's likely to stay that way.

Henry


Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2021