Slashdot Mirror
Big Advance In Hydrogen Production Could Change Alternative Energy Landscape
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at Virginia Tech say they've had a genuine breakthrough in alternative energy production that could shake up the world's energy structure. Specifically, they've hit on a way to derive large amounts of hydrogen from any plant source. The method uses renewable natural resources, releases almost no greenhouse gasses, and needs no costly or heavy metals. The key is using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar, to produce a large quantity of hydrogen that previously was attainable only in theory."
At least for use in cars, I believe there's still the problem of storing enough of that hydrogen to get any decent range. Nice to hear we're making progress though. Yay humanity!
If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?
All the difficulties of bringing ethanol to market cheaply added to the engineering problems of fuel cells.
Brilliant!
Meh it sounds nice but unfortunately the big oil companies will bury this so deep no one will think about it for the next 50-60 years minimum.
I find it very hard to believe that they are somehow going to get more energy out of plant matter than biodiesel or simply burning it. Hydrogen may be clean, but it's certainly not convenient. I my area, they can run cars on trash. Trash is burned in a Waste-to-Energy facility, and cars are recharged from the electricty.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
If I'm reading it correctly, it converts xylose energy into hydrogen energy with a net gain, but you'll still need a massive amount of xylose from somewhere for it to be useful. Presumably xylose production needs energy, if only for harvesting+transportation.
How does this solve any problems?
No sig today...
It's HELIUM that we really need. that stuff is going to be pretty scarce in a hundred years.
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Is it just me - or are all these "miracle science" posts today making me feel like it's April Fool's day or something???
What are the people who blow off alternative fuels "because they're mostly made from petroleum so why bother converting to use them" going to bitch about now?
"nothing to see here. move on"
I wonder what happend to the past 20 or so "free hydrogen" breakthroughs posted in Slashdot through the years.
I thought Hydrogen is difficult to contain since it is so tiny(molecularly speaking). Seems like it could be a hassle to facilitate storage and distribution?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/30/0312223/new-catalyst-allows-cheaper-hydrogen-production
Since the university seems dead set on building buildings all over campus at a cost of $1000/sq ft they're gonna need some real big donors to step up for the naming rights!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Generating more energy than what is stored. Something doesn't sound right.
"....this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate. This results in an energy efficiency of more than 100 percent — a net energy gain..."
Read more at http://scienceblog.com/62111/game-changer-in-alternatve-energy/#mbXlPcht0TwS6F0L.99
The article says, "this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate".
Either that is a very poorly written sentence, or the researchers have managed to accomplish the impossible.
*puts on sunglasses* I guess they took "Green" energy a little too literally!
The article alternately says the energy comes from splitting hydrogen and from xylose. Which? The article says it produces no greenhouse gasses. What happens to the carbon then? The article says it produces more energy than the chemical energy of the components. Uh huh.
Hydrogen can be used to create clean electricity....which charges the car's batteries.
on slashdot...a sign of the times.
It's another step towards haversting hydrogen. The biggest issue is making it renewable. This allows for renewability.There's always a cost to getting energy out of something. Even solar has a high cost per KW if you start including the cost of manufacturing the actual panel cost, it's inability to be ported...
Anybody else wonder what almost no zero is?
TFA says "Even more appealing, this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate. This results in an energy efficiency of more than 100 percent â" a net energy gain." Truly we will have to reexamine the laws of thermodynamics in light of this discovery!
It's HELIUM that we really need. that stuff is going to be pretty scarce in a hundred years.
Not to worry, when you want a high-squeaky voice a hundred years hence, you'll just go down to the local PartyTime store and pay someone to kick you in the nads.
P.S. if you are female, also do not worry - in 100 years there will also be a "Nads For a Day" rental store you can visit first.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So we can finally make cars that run on marijuana trimmings! We just need to get enough various, concerted industries to team up and choke off Big Oil. Can't you just smell that paradigm shifting.
The claim "generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate" is interesting, but it is not a true comparison of energy in to energy out. First of all, the reaction does not happen at room temperature but instead at 122 degree Fahrenheit. So that input energy is has not been counted. Second, one has to produce or extract those enzymes and that costs energy. Perhaps one batch can be used repeatedly, but not forever so there is some energy required. Either all these additional sources pushes the efficiency below 100% or it is a fantasy (beyond perpetual motion, infinite energy from a finite source).
Even if you take those additional input sources into account, I am skeptical the situation is a wonderful as the story implies. Let's see some other labs reproduce the result first before getting too excited.
From the article, it seems this is an energy positive process:
Also it is suited for use in a fuel cell. One possible automotive implementation might be: a slurry of plant matter + enzymes => hydrogen + fuel cell => electricity => electric motors. This would avoid the hydrogen storage issues and provide an easily stored (i.e. slurry) energy source.
Hmm....
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Been hearing this for so long that I think I'll be dead long before hydrogen or nuclear fusion is commercially viable.
The problem is not how to get hydrogen out of biomass. The problem is photosynthis has a abmysal bad efficiency of around 0.5%, compared to 15-20% of a PV-module.
Electric cars are a given; they simply have way to many enticing benefits (tremendous power, simplicity).
No matter how much batteries improve, we'll simply not be able to fill them as conveniently we do normal vehicles. Putting plugs everywhere is totally impractical.
Hydrogen solves all of the issues with batteries while still giving us electric cars. Sure there are some issues now but as articles like this show, over time there will be advances in both generating and storing hydrogen. It's only a matter of time before hydrogen cars totally replace electric cars because of simple utility, and (sadly) the ability to have a more normal taxing structure applied to fuel.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While hydrogen can be used as a fuel, it makes more sense for it to be used in ammonia production. The #2 most-produced chemical is ammonia and it is most commonly produced using natural gas which produces CO2 as a by-product.
Ultimately, the true test of this new process is how do the costs compare to steam-reforming of natural gas into hyrdogen?
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
For those dedicated enough to speak Chem (and maybe German!)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ange.201300766/abstract
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The team liberates the high-purity hydrogen under mild reaction conditions at 122 degree Fahrenheit and normal atmospheric pressure. The biocatalysts used to release the hydrogen are a group of enzymes artificially isolated from different microorganisms that thrive at extreme temperatures, some of which could grow at around the boiling point of water.
How much energy will it take to produce the biocatalysts and will that reduce the EROEI to less than 1?
The article says 3 years, but like a vaccine in a banana, things like this seem to disappear.
This will change everything if it makes it out into widespread use.
I thought this stuff should be left up the scientists at big oil to pioneer this research? We don't need no more gubmint funded research at educational institutions. too much big goverment is bad. Bad I say.
But if they think it's a "game changer," I suggest that the researchers quickly engage in a remedial math course. Plants are very inefficient solar collectors, land area is limited, using "natural" sources will quickly lead to the destruction of every natural environment if we were so silly as to try and replace the 160 exajoules per year provided by petroleum.
So, useful for small things. Maybe, one day, if the process is cheap enough and energy positive. Third world countries may benefit. Industrial scale economies, not a chance in hell.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Fuel cells give you a decent range and converting gas stations to also store hydrogen is probably going to be easier than revamping the entire electrical system to support any non trivial amount of charging at home.You could also use large home based fuel cells to generate electricity at source avoidiung transmission losses.
What happens when all the commuters get home and put their cars on charge between 5-7
The idea is that you put in plant matter and X amount of energy, and you get X+Y worth of usable hydrogen energy out of it (due the the conversion of plant matter to hydrogen).
Previously, you put in plant matter and X amount of energy, and you got X-Z worth of usable hydrogen energy.
If you take H away from sugars the carbon has to go somewhere. Does it become charcoal, buckyballs, hydrocarbons, alkenes or an aromatic nasty?
So, you knowI like that there are still breakthrough processes happening for the ‘green’ movement. But really, I want to be empowered by not having to buy something from Shell or Chevron. I want solar and electric cars. I can create energy at my own home and be independent to some degree. This just means that I still need to stop at a gas station forwait for itgas. Hydrogen gas! Even though it might take time to charge an electric car, it still seems better that we are not wasting farm land to harvest corn or plants to just burn in cars.
There is energy in the plant mass. The full equation is
plant mass + input energy = output hydrogen energy + waste plant mass
Entropy is still preserved in the overall system.
Actually we could give them transponders and put electrical infrastructure in the roads for inductive chargers, whereby your car could report your account to the utility company and the utility could charge for your power usage.
Alternately, we could just let the Government do it, but when you renew your registration you have to turn in your mileage, and they forward that to your utility, and bill you.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
...Big Advance In Hydrogen Production Changed Alternative Energy Landscape
Seriously, how many "big advancement" stories come out like this each year, then vanish to never be heard from again?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
So - all we have to do instead of, say, farming three thousand acres of random vegetation, is to build, deploy and maintain a full square mile of solar panels.
Send me your company's portfolio, I can't wait to invest.
I don't think they're claiming to violate the laws of thermodynamics; it appears they're just using an inappropriate reference value. Based on the rest of the quote, it looks like they are using the 100% efficiency energy output from burning the biomass as the reference and comparing it to the net energy output using this method. I base that on the context from the rest of the quote:
...Even more appealing, this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate. This results in an energy efficiency of more than 100 percent — a net energy gain. That means that low-temperature waste heat can be used to produce high-quality chemical energy hydrogen for the first time. Other processes that convert sugar into biofuels such as ethanol and butanol always have energy efficiencies of less than 100 percent, resulting in an energy penalty.
A Hydrogen economy STOPS green house gas emission from transportation, litters our roadways with H2O instead of oil and disrupts power in the Middle East.
SO...
What are we waiting for? We could extract our asses out of the deserts of the world with simple plant processing now
That's because they're giving it 110%.
So, you can extract the hydrogen effectively from the plant material, but now you have the energy in a form which is difficult to store and transport. This still requires producing large amounts of plant material which is an environmentally difficult-to-sustain prospect in order to capture solar energy. In the end, it has nearly all of the problems of ethanol plus a bunch of serious ones for a smallish efficiency gain.
fill the tank with a xylose solution and let the machinery generate hydrogen on demand, so it doesn't need to be stored. burn it to generate electricity and charge batteries, for a plant fuel hybrid
instead of working 24/7.. Can't blame them
Virginia Tech. has a substantial reputation. If the University has released such a statement we have something. If it is just some reporter it is quite another matter.
My greatest concern is whether land traditionally used for food crops would be compromised to make fuel. That is a practice we need to make illegal. With a swelling world population we simply can not afford loss of crop lands for any reason. It is already costing us every time we buy groceries and in places like Mexico we are generating misery by allowing corn to be used to make fuel.
So they're getting the Hydrogen off of the sugar, but what happens to the Carbon left over in this equation?
With sugar, water, and enzymes in your tank, you have a fuel kit for a PEM (proton electrolyte membrane) fuel cell vehicle. An onboard battery provides the instant energy for starting the vehicle while the enzymes get to work on their sugary snack. The fuel cell will recharge the battery later from excess sugar energy. According to Zhang, "Low-temperature PEM fuel cells are used primarily for transportation applications due to their fast startup time, high energy conversion efficiency, low operating temperature (below 180 F), and favorable power-to-weight ratio." Zhang and Mielenz wrote in a review in the Jan. 28, 2011, issue of the journal Energies, "When polysaccharides and water are mixed, no reaction occurs ... When the enzyme cocktail is added, hydrogen and carbon dioxide are generated spontaneously. Our research showed that the gas produced by (synthetic cell-free enzyme pathway biotransformation) contains 67 percent hydrogen and 33 percent carbon dioxide. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide can be separated by membrane technology (or the) mixture can be directly used by PEM fuel cells with approximately 1 percent loss in fuel cell efficiency." The efficiency statement is based on a study by Zhang's lab published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science in 2011.
Zhang wrote in a Perspective column in Energy & Environmental Sciences that the process provides a number of special features suitable for mobile PEM fuel cells: high energy efficiency as a result of extracting all the chemical energy stored in the substrate sugars and some of the low-temperature thermal energy from the fuel cell; high hydrogen storage density; mild reaction conditions, at the same range of those of PEM fuel cells; nearly no costs for product separation; clean products for PEM fuel cells and easy power system configuration; and simple and safe distribution and storage of solid sugars.
"Carbohydrates as a hydrogen carrier would meet the U.S. Department of Energy's ultimate target for useful energy based on the mass of the entire onboard system in a light-duty vehicle (7.5 percent hydrogen by weight or 2.5 kilowatt hour per kilogram)," Zhang says.
Stationary energy sites, such as large fuel cell stacks, can also take delivery of carbohydrate powder from local or distant biorefineries and generate hydrogen by using an enzyme cocktail, says Zhang. It is also possible that satellite hydrogen generation stations could produce hydrogen to refill hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles.
The use of renewable carbohydrate as a hydrogen storage carrier addresses the challenges associated with storage, safety, distribution, and infrastructure, Zhang and Mielenz conclude in the review.
What about miracle four – better fuel cells? It's not his field, but he believes most fuel cell problems, such as cost and lifetime, have been solved. "In the long term, improving energy utilization efficiency through hydrogen-fuel cell electricity systems will be vital for sustainable transportation," he says.
In the meantime, there are still a number of process engineering challenges to overcome to implement sugar-powered cars, says Zhang – such as warm-up of the onboard bioreformer where the sugar and water are converted to gas, shut-down of the bioreformer, temperature control for the coupled bioreformer and fuel cells, mixing and gas release control for the bioreformer, and re-generation of used enzymes in the bioreformer. "But such technical challenges can be solved based on available engineering know-how if the great potential is widely realized," he says. http://rawcell.com
-> Putting plugs everywhere is totally impractical.
Yeah, right, because putting hydrogen storage and fueling facilities everywhere is?
If you look at the article this is based on at virginia tech the OP has missed a critical factor
http://www.vt.edu/spotlight/innovation/2012-02-27-fuels/zhang.html
"Hydrogen storage and distribution
Yes. Zhang is recommending putting E.coli and a form of sugar in your vehicle's tank.
Hydrogen gas is difficult to store and to transport. But not if it is stored in a carbohydrate, something like flour or powdered sugar, enriched with enzymes. You could buy a bag of it from a grocery store or dry goods outlet – an instant mix to fuel a fuel cell. An onboard battery provides immediate energy for starting the vehicle while the enzymes get to work on their sugary snack. The fuel cell will recharge the battery later from excess sugar energy.
Stationary energy sites, such as large fuel cell stacks, can also take delivery of carbohydrate powder from local or distant biorefineries and generate hydrogen by using an enzyme cocktail, Zhang said."
see also "A sweet out-of-the-box solution to the hydrogen economy: is the sugar-powered car science fiction?" by
Y.-H. Percival Zhang Energy Environ. Sci., 2009,2, 272-282 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b818694d
I haven't measured it, but I believe convincingly that Virginia is adjacent to the second largest pool of hydrogen on the planet; the Atlantic Ocean. Combined with that thing in the sky that appears about every 12 hours or so; I reference it as, âoethe Sun.â Once again, I have not measured it, but for we mere mortals, the Sun will still be fully operational when our species becomes something else. Could it be that the movie, âoeDeliveranceâ has had a deeper impact on the educators of Virginia than one could possibly imagine?
I don't know why this seems to elude so many. We already HAVE a high density hydrogen delivery vehicle.
Yeah, right, because putting hydrogen storage and fueling facilities everywhere is?
Why not? All you have to do is add hydrogen tanks at normal gas stations. At first such tanks would be sparse, and the selection of gas stations supporting hydrogen would be limited. But since hydrogen vehicles would have a more traditional range of around 300miles+, that would not matter much.
With electric chargers you cannot just put them at gas stations replacing pumps. Because they take so much longer to charge, you need many more of them at a gas station to handle the same volume of cars filling up - there also would be more cars coming in to fill because the range is more limited, and you have to provide somewhere for all those people to wait too which you didn't before.
But even THAT is not enough, again because of limited range and charge times you have to put charging outlets in every apartment complex, in every parking garage for an office complex. It's plain to see that it would take a HUGE overhaul to every city to have 90% of the cars on the road being electric. You also have to run bigger power lines out to remote places like national parks, meaning more power lines stringing across the landscape...
Hydrogen just acting like a newer form of fuel provides a far more natural migration path, and lets people use cars as they are used to without limitation - only now they have zero emissions and are faster off the line.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hate to be pedantic, but I was reading the article (yes, really) and noticed they said "Zhang is using the second most prevalent sugar in plants to produce this hydrogen".
Summary says "The key is using xylose, the most abundant simple plant sugar"
So which is it?
Does anybody care?
(hello?)
The best thing about this new technology is that no post-apocalyptic movie, book, or short story has EVER started out like this:
Virginia Tech scientists separated a number of enzymes from their native microorganisms to create a customized enzyme cocktail that does not occur in nature.
Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
I have a sugar-burning engine that can slurp sugar and do work. It's called a "horse". It has fairly serious emissions problems though and a bad disposition occasionally. But on the whole it can get you where you need to go.
in the lab you say?
Completely renewable you say?
In three years you say?
hmmm.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Putting plugs everywhere is totally impractical."
we managed to put gas stations everywhere. There was a time you saw a gas station every 50 miles or so. Hell in my life time I remember when there where 2 gas station.
It's very doable.
" to have a more normal taxing structure applied to fuel."
electricity is simple to tax.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In the UK we've already done extensive environment trials with H2O, and let me tell you, it's not all that appealing, unless you're a fish.
Hope the government sweeps this under the rug quickly. Cover it up and take it away from the developers. Or at least come up wih a way to tax us out of our shorts for a piece of the pie.
Of all the comments I've read on here, including the OP I have failed to see one major issue with this. Probably since this site is more for 'computer nerds' than 'energy nerds' like I am ;)
All issues with hydrogen aside, there is another 'issue' with this process, that of course the article fails to mention. They ALWAYS leave something critical out, because this of course has to be as 'exiciting' as possible. They never mention the downsides.
The downside is the bottleneck in this process is not the hydrogen production, but the production of Xylose. They can't simply take biomass and turn it into hydrogen with this process. They must first 'break apart' the cellulose in biomass in order to obtain xylose sugars. THIS is the hard part, and therefore the expensive part. THAT is the part that requires the breakthrough.
It's the same issue that cellulosic ethanol faces. They're both based on the same thing. Making use of sugars from cellulosic biomass. The problem isn't making use of the sugar (the so-called 'breakthrough' here) The REAL issue that needs a breakthrough is actually turning the cellulose into a mixture of sugars. Either using enzymes, heat, acid, etc.
That's where a little bit of literacy on the technology can give a totally different view of these so-called 'AMAZING!!! STUPENDOUS!!' breakthroughs. The news is so dumb sometimes it makes me cringe.
HERE is where a breakthrough is required to make this so-called amazing process viable:
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/jin2/
Cost of breaking down cellulose is the barrier here. With current technology, it would be very expensive hydrogen, but that may change.... but if you can make hydrogen cheaply, you can make ethanol cheaply so why bother???
I can tell from the comments here that most ppl here are computer guys and may be very computer literate but not very 'energy literate'. This news caters to that.
I hate the focus on carbon dioxide. If your producing hydrogen then you also need to produce oxygen because that's what it reacts with when it's burned and turns into water.
Hydrogen is hard and expensive to store and transport. To store it you must expend a lot of energy to liquefy it or to compress it. High pressure containers are heavy and dangerous if damaged. Hydride containers are very expensive because they use expensive materials and require heat to extract the hydrogen. Cryogenic containers are much more expensive to fabricate than the simple metal or plastic tanks used for gasoline. If you want to transport it by pipes you have to build a whole new infrastructure system the current natural gas and oil systems will not work due to hydrogen diffusion rate through seals and into metals. Hydogen if burned is no more efficient than any other fuel used in a heat engine. Water vapor is one of the most powerful green house gases. Making more of it would cause additional global warming. Used in fuel cells it is more efficient however fuel cells are very expensive and have many practical problems like being destroyed by exposure to freezing temperatures. These are tough engineering problems that make a Hydrogen based energy future very unlikely and far in the future.
The only thing holding back solar is cost of generating capacity which is dropping every year. Battery capacity, charge rate and cost are also limiting factors, However great progress is being made in these areas as well. The use of any biofuel will be limited until the magic algae that excretes a finished product can be engineered. The cost of planting, fertilizing, harvesting and converting to fuel is just too great to make it practical at this time. If the process to convert a bio-waste into a sellable product allows a profit to be made it will be and should be done. Just don't create another job killing government subsidy to force it to happen.
If you take plant energy away from the soil, then you need to replenish the soil. Take something away, you gotta put something back. No free lunch here.
In terms of agriculture, we're doing this with oil derived fertilizers. A whole lot of them. Like billions of tons a year kind of quantities.
If you start burning plant fuel in cars instead of in cows and people, then you're back to the same equation. You're either going to have to cut into our forest reserves, which isn't sustainable, or you're going to have to use oil to keep on growing fuel crops.
Solar and nuclear seem like more sensible paths to follow, though, nuclear is kind of out in my opinion, at least until humans can learn how to run plants without being corrupt, shortsighted idiots.
There are already plugs all around you - probably within less than 15 feet from where you're reading this post. The issue is making the existing ubiquitous electrical grid accessible for this new need. Special purpose electrical transformers, aka charging stations, should be fairly easy to mass produce. Tap into the wireless Internet access points for self-service payment options, and you'll have a growth industry in every pod mall in the US. It's just a new type of vending machine with far fewer issues than the tanks for gasoline and diesel fuels. The things can even phone home for service. The tipping point is very close. There's serious private sector investment in battery technology with monthly advances being announced. Every hybrid purchased, puts a little more money into a battery producer that can be used for more R&D.
Every change is not progress, but there is no progress without change.
swapping out batteries for charged ones could possibly be quicker than dispensing liquids.
after reading through all the posts, not one reference to "back to the future"
but seriously, if this is possible, (i work at a sugarmill) there is plenty of waste heat available out there in industry, ("steam" return condensate etc),
and for example with the burning of canefields to reduce leaf mater etc (if indeed they could be used) adds up to quite a bit of tonnage. this is only one industry that disposes of plant matter, there is an incredible amount of industrial plant mater out there.
How much hydrogen and how quickly at what sort of low temperatures? Could we have a system of plant goo actively being converted into a smallish but useful amount of hydrogen at a steady rate within a veh-heecle?
So...is this the beginning of Protoculture?
Surely the Robotech Masters and the Zentraedi are not far behind!
if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
Puitting refueling stations everywhere for gasoline vehicles is equally impractical.
swapping out batteries for charged ones could possibly be quicker than dispensing liquids.
A normal gas station has between 200-300 customers buying gas per day. How do you think they can store them all - and how is it practical to charge that many over a day, in each gas station? And again, you really need MORE than that because with reduced range people would be filling up more often.
The battery packs in electric cars are roughly the size of a small child's mattress. So who is going to swap those in and out?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are already plugs all around you - probably within less than 15 feet from where you're reading this post.
At a house? Yes. But those are the kinds of plugs where you are going to take 12-15 hours to recharge an electric car.
Plugs and wiring that can handle a faster charge in a car are rarer - in your house only the washing area and kitchen are generally rated for that level of current.
But that's just the house, the house is not an issue. The issue is everywhere ELSE that suddenly needs huge power lines. As I said, every apartment complex where no, in fact, there are NOT plugs every 15 feet. The same goes for parking garages at most work places, which have zero plugs generally.
You are totally underestimating the very large amount of infrastructure required to be built out to distribute power everywhere people take cars today. It's simply not practical to have more than a tiny percentage of the population owning electric cars.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Almost as important as "can you do it" is the question, "is it economically viable. There is the molecular sponge for storage, which IIRC can actually hold more than a tank of equal dimensions. The problem with Hydrogen is the low power density compared to hydrocarbons. .