I don't really have much understanding of chemistry. So possibly the most helpful part for me is the diagram with little trucks, the cost chart, and the paragr

I don't really have much understanding of chemistry. So possibly the most helpful part for me is the diagram with little trucks, the cost chart, and the paragraph below that says: "The electrochemical regeneration is not optimized...If the cell voltage could be reduced to 2 V and the faradaic efficiency raised to 80%, the total cost of hydrogen would be nearly cut in half...if the regeneration and reaction could be performed at 8 M rather than 3 M concentration along with an improved process and discounted electricity...the cost of hydrogen could drop to just over $3 per kg...[which is] below the cost of on-site electrolysis with full-priced electricity" Why formate? Can't you get hydrogen from any acid, because that's literally the definition of an acid? "If the cell voltage could be reduced" sounds super fishy to me; isn't that just a useless wish that the elements / molecules you're working with have different properties than they actually do? "If the regeneration and reaction could be performed at 8 M rather than 3 M concentration...", why can't they? Doesn't a reaction usually proceed faster in more concentrated solutions? It seems like several breakthroughs that are needed, some of which possibly stretch the laws of physics. But once you have that. But even with those improvements, they still compare formate+discounted electricity to electrolysis+fullprice electricity? Isn't that doing an apples-to-oranges comparison, blatantly putting your thumb on the scale in favor of formate? For that matter, what's wrong with electrolysis for making hydrogen for bulk energy storage? Isn't water electrolysis super well-understood, cheap, simple, scalable, as safe as anything involving bulk quantities of hydrogen gas can be, and only requires water and electricity for inputs?