The author was referencing the use of wind power or other alternatives to the grid; still it takes nothing from the piece. I disagree. When a technical article starts out with false claims that sounds like wishful thinking, I doubt any other claims he makes.
It may be all great stuff and from the 3rd paragraph on perfectly true. But it did not start out that way.
I believe you are still missing the significance of the author's point, the focus of the importance of the study itself of a promising technology is that it begin with the restriction that any new process be carbon-neutral or carbon reducing in nature; this aspect of the feasibility and the relevancy was an aside to the true advantages, powerwise, of what seems to be a removal of a long-standing barrier to efficient electrolysis - namely diffusion at the cathodes and loss of volume with increasing voltage applied.
What was meant is that new advances in turbine efficiency and availability could make such a scheme more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly (important considerations in these worrisome times) as seen by those who might consider investing and adopting their findings.
I'm not certain of patent status but they do seem to have originality in the critical structure of the scheme.