If you want a zero-emission vehicle with MeOH or DME, you have to capture and hold your CO2. That requires a tank capable of ~80 bar, and your volume of CO2 (not fuel) determines your range. It would be cheaper with the manganese hydride based on volume * pressure. This really might be one of the missing miracles required to make hypedrogen more than just hype.

A cubic decameter is known by the (obscure, I admit) name of "liter".

It's worth comparing this to the energy storage density of methanol. Reforming methanol to hydrogen plus CO2 (CH3OH + H20 -> CO2 + 3 H2) yields 6 grams H2 from every 32 grams MeOH, or 148.5 g H2 per liter of MeOH at ρ=0.792. Hmmm. This is actually BETTER for storage density than methanol! Tankage will still cost a lot more, though.

This is irksome: Has 300% the energy density This device has NO energy density. It does not store energy. It has 300% of the POWER density of the previous version. People writing this copy ought to know the difference.

If that's 77% energy efficiency (vs. Coulomb efficiency), conversion to methane beats most hydrogen electrolyzers while producing a fuel with much higher energy density. Further, it's storable in geological reservoirs which are not suitable for e.g. hypedrogen. This is something to keep an eye on.

These "better controlled electrolysers" will have minimum power set points which will have to be added to the base load. You know, the load that wind and solar CANNOT service? Plays well with nukes, though.

I'm surprised to find no mention of ammonia in this piece. It is a carbon-free fuel which cannot generate particulate emissions. One solution to the problem of long-haul truck energy supplies is to get rid of the long-haul trucks. Electrified rail is emissions-free at the point of use and has the potential to run faster than trucks can safely go. It requires some solutions for the first and last mile, but that's amenable to electric vehicles.

"current is always inside a predetermined range." This sounds like the flexibility for balancing purposes is at odds with stack lifespan.

It's easy to make ethanol from starch. It's hard enough to make ethanol from corn stover that DuPont gave up on it. And that's with cellulosic ethanol worth $4.33/gallon in California. If you can't make money on your biofuel at $4.33/gallon, you just don't have a winning formula.

This looks suspiciously like the route taken by the failed company Range Fuels. They just weren't able to convert enough feedstock into product to make the process pay. 30,000 hours of operation won't help if that little thing isn't done right.

LH2 is 70 g/liter. CH2 at 700 bar is not much less. 11.9 g/liter is pathetic.

Pablum like this always makes me snicker. it is impossible to make enough renewable fuels at the scale that the world will ultimately need without unlocking the massive resource of cellulosic sugars. It's impossible to make "renewable" fuels at such scale without eliminating the losses of fermentation (which is the only reason to break cellulose into sugars) and making full use of lignin as well. The Plantrose process will do neither of these things; it is a dead end.

While flourides are toxic, I still wish these guys heaps of success.

This is bad news for advocates of "renewables"; maybe their energy isn't as renewable as they thought it was.

If this scheme is true to form, the "bio-LNG" will be "made" by pumping purified biogas into the natural gas pipeline network at the points of production, and NG will be taken and liquefied elsewhere for vehicle fuel. There will be no direct connection between the alleged bio-source and the end use. Since there is no direct connection, there could be massive accounting fraud in the production and no one would be the wiser. This would make it not just greenwashing, but fake greenwashing.

The solution is obvious: nuclear power.

It would be nice if these press releases mentioned whose vehicles are compatible with their chargers.

Then prepare to live in a collapsing civilization, because if you won't defer to the expertise required to keep it going and instead vote for whatever sounds good or suits your prejudices, it won't.

Flaring has been a persistent problem for years. These pages have seen all kinds of GTL schemes to make it unnecessary, from micro-FT plants to direct oxidation of methane to methanol. Well? Where the heck are these concepts when we need them? Are they just not economic because they become superfluous as soon as the gas pipelines are run? It would be nice to see some analysis of that.

At a mere 3 kWh apiece, it's going to take stacks of them to be able to handle even a single Tesla let alone streams or spates of them. They really should be aiming at a larger unit size.

Large batteries, installed in 2+ billion electrified vehicles, will progressively become the biggest energy storage media for the world to use and manage properly. Even E-P will eventually benefit and use that stored energy. You are innumerate, Harvey, which makes you incompetent in this arena (and so many others). Let me demonstrate this to all who are able to grasp it. 2 billion EVs times a Tesla-class battery of 100 kWh each equals 200 TWh of storage. Assuming world electric consumption of 3x the 2017 figure of roughly 22,000 TWh, total electric usage would be 66,000 TWh. Total vehicular storage capacity would be 1/330 of annual consumption, or slightly over 1 day's worth. Harvey the innumerate ideologue believes that this tiny amount of storage could not only drive vehicles across multi-day or -week slumps in "renewable" generation, but satisfy demand from non-vehicular uses as well. This is plainly ridiculous. It is physically impossible, and any society which insists that it can and must be done signs its own death warrant. While I allow the right of people such as Harvey to sign their own personal death warrants, I deny that they have any right to do so for third parties. That means they have no right to vote for policies which have that effect for their host societies. We will learn how to capture and store Sun/Wind energy more efficiently and at much lower cost, as we did with Hydro/Water and with nuclear many decades ago. Nuclear power is not stored by humans. Nuclear energy was stored by some primordial supernova or merger of neutron stars. Actinides ARE the energy storage; humans have learned to release this energy in a controllable fashion. Uranium and thorium are literally stockpiles of energy, the very stockpiles our society needs to survive. Trying to fake it with pinwheels and hypedrogen is hopeless.

With all the hydro in Quebec I can't imagine there ever being much surplus wind and solar anyways as the different sources should be able to manage in an inter-changeable fashion. When the hydro reservoirs are full in the spring and the turbines have to run full-steam to avoid dumping water over spillways and killing fish from the nitrogen bubbles, you won't be able to back them down just because the wind is blowing too. When the hydro empties out toward the fall you won't be able to conjure up either rainfall or wind to bridge the gap. Industrial society requires large stockpiles of energy. Harvey is not capable of understanding this. That the hydro reservoirs are inadequate to the task is an idea he cannot fathom.

E-P just didn't catch it. I caught that you were an innumerate ideologue years ago. The general idea is to use current/future PHEVs/BEVs/Electrolysers/FCEVs, with SMART automated chargers and/or load regulators, to effectively store (use) surplus e-energy, during over supply periods. Exactly one thing on that list is capable of storing energy over the weeks and seasons required to manage the unreliable supply, and it's too expensive. The majority of future electrified vehicles, with 50 to 150 kWh batteries, will recharge every 3 to 7 days And when your renewables decide to take a 2-week vacation, what becomes of the people who have to recharge at least every 3 days? Do you shut down your factories and offices until the weather cooperates? Send all the hospital patients home... to homes without heat and sewage backing up in the basements because the lift pumps have no power? Something you still haven't caught, despite me throwing it at you literally for years, is that wind and solar are unfit for purpose. Nobody was able to build an industrial society on them because they cannot run one. It doesn't matter how cheap "energy" is if you can't get it when you need it. If you have an application that remains profitable despite having major periods of downtime due to the electric generators not generating, well, GREAT! So far that "killer app" remains elusive. If you truly have something to offer, work on THAT instead of prattling here. Energy storage is more an energy usage management, to match variable production. The purpose of energy production isn't to follow romantic delusions of "greenness". It is to enable humans to live, work, produce and enjoy that production. Wind and solar are unfit for purpose.

Carbon is carbon, and when forest burns a lot of carbon-uptake capacity is destroyed and takes many years to replace.

Twelve THOUSAND Newton-meters at 300 km/hr?! What are they driving with this thing, high-speed rail cars?