This article has no more information than my high school freshman chemistry class demonstration of electrolysis. Arguably less, since at least my teacher told me what her catalyst was made of (platinum mesh).
Basically, it sounds like he's talking about efficient electrolytic catalysts. As a home owner, I have quite a few questions.
Some things we didn't get from this article:
1) A citation to a journal
2) the chemistry of his catalyst
3) The efficiency of the forward and reverse reactions with his catalyst or others.
4) Total solar power available per square foot in Earth's temperate zones, in each season.
These are just some of the first order questions that weren't addressed.
Also,
> within 10 years homes will no longer be powered using electricity-by-wire from a central source.
Perhaps, but please don't take me off the grid.
And, finally, why is it that MSM journalists are apparently the only ones who don't have to cite sources in their articles?
Am I missing it here or is this just using the electricity from solar cells to split water with electrolysis and then burning the hydrogen as fuel? Fuel cell aside, we've been able to do this since the early 40's.
Additionally, solar thermal is probably a more efficient way to store energy, though this might be a more efficient way to produce hydrogen, which is more portable.
"Unlimited" is clearly misleading, as "only" 751,296,000 TWh of energy are absorbed by the Earth every year, which means it cannot be more than that. So unless basically mathematics has changed on me, that's not "unlimited". Say "a lot" or make up some number that doesn't exist, but don't say something that people who don't know any better will believe. Flagged as offensive to intelligent life.
