Goldman Sachs advert

[Marco]

http://www.h2-fuel.nl/en/

Looks too good to be true, but if it's not it may well be a solution.

The performance metrics of the fuel seem realistic enough, it's the claim they can cost effectively recycle the waste into new fuel which has the hallmarks of a scam (or inventor self delusion, maybe he's so proud of his slight tweak of hydrogen reclamation technique that he just considers the recycling something he can solve with a bit more money). No papers, no patents, no pilot plant, no nothing.

From Wikipedia quoting MacDonald :
"Sodium metaborate might be hydrogenated back into sodium borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which might theoretically require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. However, these techniques are still in active development. As of June 30, 2010, many patents claiming to effectively achieve the conversion of sodium metaborate to sodium borohydride have been investigated but none have been confirmed"

Extraordinary claims, zero evidence.

PS. found a patent at least for the recycling process.

PPS. as far as I can see it's all hand waving. He says "The synthesis process requires the input of energy. Dependent on the actual partial processes involved in the synthesis processes, the energy, for instance, may be required as pressure and/or heat to raise the temperature of the reactants or may be inputted in an electrolysis process." ... the actual partial processes and the way energy is added I can't seem to find.

[woody]

There is a pdf on their site

http://www.h2-fuel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/H2Fuel-New-doc_UK_02-11-2016_def-V4.pdf

That explains the processes a bit.

Unfortunately I don't have a clue regarding anything chemical so cannot separate facts from fairy tales.

[Someone]

Renewable generation is already a viable investment.
Energy storage is already a viable investment.

Really?  Other than hydro dams can you provide a single example of energy storage beyond research prototypes that work on an industrial scale?

Seems you pulled the wrong quote given your question, the answers are readily available on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
There are already commercial operations of battery storage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_storage_power_station
Distributed thermal storage is widely used across the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage
And I've worked at sites using compressed air and cryogenic storage. They don't need to be huge grid scale electricity production systems to be energy storage projects, shifting energy use to when its cheapest and storing that energy (or even embodied energy) for future demand is already done routinely and profitably. Looking to oddball projects NZ has a synthetic petroleum plant for energy storage/upcycling (http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/energy/gas-market/nz-gas-sector-history). But even if you narrow down "storage" to things which absorb electricity and release it later back as electricity then batteries are the easy example, as the energy markets have bigger swings in price they will become more and more profitable.

[Marco]

Unfortunately I don't have a clue regarding anything chemical so cannot separate facts from fairy tales.

You just need to learn to spot bullshit :

Reaction formulas s1 and r1 are confirmed by the balance calculation tool for stoichiometric formulas of the WebOC.org website (http://nl.webqc.org/balance.php).

Per kg of hydrogen recovered from the fuel these purely hypothetical reactions are also supposed to be far more efficient than direct electrolysis of water and his economic analysis depends on that fantasy. It's either a scam or an inventor deluding himself and others.

[IanMacdonald]

Well, chemistry isn't my strongest subject either but IIRC the energy needed to split a pair of H-O bonds is well known, as is the smaller amount of energy regained by forming H-H and O-O bonds. If anyone is claiming they can split water without supplying at least the difference, then basically they are making BS claims.

[Marco]

That's a lower bound, actually getting close to it is the problem.

Getting close to the bounds for his reactions will likely be no easier and there is no description of the actual implementation, so it's not likely he can.