[adrian_b]

Nope.

Splitting water into free hydrogen and oxygen is important because it is an essential step for using electrical energy in the chemical and metallurgic industries.

For long term energy storage, free hydrogen is not a good solution, but it can be used to synthesize hydrocarbons, which are suitable for long term energy storage or for aerospace transportation.

Even with abundant and cheap dihydrogen, using it for energy storage in vehicles is a bad idea.

[foobarbecue]

How does this refute the comment you replied to? That comment was implying that Toyota Mirai et al are ill-advised, so seems like your "nope" should be a "yep."

[adrian_b]

I agree that it was not the best introduction when that would be seen from the perspective of "ill-advised" companies.

What I meant is that for rational companies there would be no reason to be happy about this development, because it does not solve any of the problems that prevent free hydrogen for being suitable for energy storage, especially in vehicles.

It is not the cost of generating hydrogen that makes uncompetitive the cars with hydrogen, but difficulties in its storage and transportation.

Most of the energy used by living beings also passes through splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen, but the hydrogen is never stored as such, but it is immediately used for synthesizing reduced carbon compounds, which are suitable for long storage and easy to carry by mobile beings. This has been proven in practice for billions of years as a suitable solution for long term energy storage.

[ssl-3]

Nope.

It's important to always appear to be argumentative, even when in agreement.

[BoxedEmpathy]

Nope.

I've noticed this too, even when agreeing lots of comments start with a negative.

[ssl-3]

Not really.

Perhaps it's reflexive.

[kshahkshah]

They said “delusional”