Scientists predict green energy revolution after new graphene discoveries

This may well be a very important and interesting discovery but I cringed a few times at the poor explanation of some of the science.<p>Example: &quot;a million times thinner than human hair, yet more than 200 times stronger than steel&quot; the word &quot;yet&quot; suggests that it is very strong in an absolute sense <i>despite</i> being so thin. Yet in reality the comparison is to an atom-thick sheet of steel, which is not very strong at all. This strength doesn&#x27;t easily scale, as evidenced by the fact that graphite (lots of graphene layers) is not 200 times stronger that steel. (note that my explanation of the science may not be perfect but it is better than this article)

Materials-science articles about a modest advance in surface chemistry (which is usually called &quot;nanotechnology&quot;) are regularly being hyped into &quot;big commercial breakthrough real soon now&quot; articles. Nature and MIT Technology Review (which, despite the name, is a commercial company) are the big offenders. Super-battery or fuel cell articles appear frequently, but never seem to result in actual products.<p>Hydrogen isn&#x27;t an &quot;energy source&quot;, anyway. You have to crack it out of water or pull it out of hydrocarbons. Those processes are uphill energetically. At best, hydrogen is a storage medium.

The article goes on about the idea of collecting hydrogen from the atmosphere using a graphene filter. There is no appreciable amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere.

A bit OT but this reminded me of Maxwell&#x27;s demon: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell&#x27;s_demon" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Maxwell&#x27;s_demon</a>

Oops the site says &quot;you&#x27;ve been hacked by the sirian electronic army (sea)&quot;

No surprise there, they always hook it onto the cause de jour