Re: yes but (@LarsG)
OK, maybe I did wander over the edge when I said "smart arse" and I apologise, but the point still stands.
"I understand the need for invention, but to be realistic there has to be and end result that is of benefit. Invention for inventions sake goes nowhere." This clearly shows that you do not understand the need for invention. As shown in previous examples (electricity and lasers), the original inventions had zero known benefits until decades after the discoveries.
"If it take 20 tonnes of coal or 1000 cubic metres of gas to produce 1 cubic metre of hydrogen then they would be on to a loser." Well, yes. Obviously. Nice strawman there, as the device in the article is ultimately designed to use artificial photosynthesis to get us out of the problems associated with eventually running out of coal or (natural) gas. Whether it will be successful or not, only time and research (you know, that scientific thing that some people do with no guarantees for success, only accumulation of knowledge) will tell.
"Again I refer you to the batteries in the Prius." Um, what? Hate to admit this, but this suggests we may be arguing at cross purposes, as I do not see the link with the points I am trying to make. That marketers have managed to present a "green" image on a vehicle does not invalidate the science, and yes, the overall impact of mining/manufacture/recycling/disposal needs to be looked at. Also sustainability. Ultimately, a battery-powered car still has the potential to keep working as electricity can be sourced a number of ways that do not involve fossil fuels. The Ferrari will have problems when oil runs out - unless the research in the article (or some other lab-work) manages to overcome obstacles and become fully working and scalable technology. Yay, go science!