In http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?article...,
the economics and the efficiency of this process are described:
"In fact, with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen."
This is definitely more efficient than the existing electrolysis, as the theoretical maximum efficiency of current electrolysis process is about 80%-94% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis).
I'm not sure what you mean by whether it's more efficient than charging and discharging a battery. But the lifespan of a fuel cell is potentially indefinite and it does not require recharge(add in Oxygen and H+ any time and electricity starts to flow). Further, with each battery cycle, the efficiency of a dry cell decreases.
I think this electrolysis process can definitely make a cheaper form of energy storage than, say, batteries. Even though each anode requires small amount of Platinum, but considering the long lifespan of fuel cell storage, this form of energy storage costs much less than traditional batteries in the long run (all the toxic disposal!) And even for the purposes of propulsion, fuel cell discharge is much more efficient than internal combustion engines.
This PISA test is ridiculous as a standard to measure the general intelligence. 400,000 is not a very big sample size in certain countries. It seems that this method measures more of the homogeneity of the education level of a country rather than the smartness of its students.
I'm curious about the sampling method of this test, it's really hard to select a representative sample among diversity such as U.S.
That being said, I do agree with the way a lot of classes are taught in American public schools. Especially the projects where students "glue things on a poster for an hour", mindless things like that really waste time and energy better used in something else.
And I cant help but think that Finnish kids really dont have much to do compared to people at other countries? They might as well do really well in their studies!
I'm not sure what you mean by whether it's more efficient than charging and discharging a battery. But the lifespan of a fuel cell is potentially indefinite and it does not require recharge(add in Oxygen and H+ any time and electricity starts to flow). Further, with each battery cycle, the efficiency of a dry cell decreases.
I think this electrolysis process can definitely make a cheaper form of energy storage than, say, batteries. Even though each anode requires small amount of Platinum, but considering the long lifespan of fuel cell storage, this form of energy storage costs much less than traditional batteries in the long run (all the toxic disposal!) And even for the purposes of propulsion, fuel cell discharge is much more efficient than internal combustion engines.