Dude, kw/h is the same as kwh, just I am not a native English speaker so sometimes I don’t know how you write stuff. 
However you write it, it’s a kilowatt for an hour, or 1,000 joules/second for 3,600 seconds.
As for the device, the problem is with the energy spent gathering the air that supplies humidity to the adsorber. It means that the device can’t gather enough water on its own and requires being fed with air, which means it consumes electricity, and comparing that electricity in its tiny scale to the units used in larger scale, it turns that it uses MORE energy than humidifiers. Admittedly it works in conditions where no conventional dehumidifier would work, but once accounted the energy consumed, it’s cheaper to just transport the water from elsewhere. 9.6 kwh per liter are 34,560,000 joules, that’s a little more energy than what a liter of gasoline contains (31,536,00 joules per liter). Assuming a ICE vehicle efficency of 25%, we can estimate how far could we transport 0.25 liters of water with one liter of gasoline.
Let’s say we use a tanker truck, with a capacity of 15,000 liters of water, and our “energy budget” it’s up to 4 liters of gasoline per liter of water transported. How many kilometers could we drive a loaded tanker truck with 60,000 liters of gasoline? According to a internet article I found, a 16 ton truck in India covers about 4 kilometers per liter (of gasoil); that’s half of what they could do in developed country road networks, but let’s load the nubmers in favor of the MIT. So with 60,000 liters of gasoline, the energy equivalent to it, we could transport a liter of water over 240,000 kilometers with the same energy usage as this revolutionary device put together by the MIT.
(Of course, operating a truck to transport water is a lot more expensive than just consuming electricity, but as you might notice the energy proficency of transporting water is miles above that of powering a dehumidifier. Even accounting for actual transportation costs, it’s cheaper to ship water over 300 km than to power a large scale “water from air” device, and this MIT device apparently would use twice that power. So if you’re in a desert and there’s a road and a water source closer than 600 km, transporting the water in a tanker would beat the MIT device)
Why I keep repeating that thermodinamics are a harsh mistress, it’s because I want to stress that technology can’t break the laws of physics, and gathering water from the air it’s very difficult because of physics, not by lack of technical savvy. It’s not something that we don’t do regularly because we don’t know how, but because it’s not practical. It costs a lot of energy and more often than not that energy is better spent just transporting the water.
However, considering how thin the atmosphere is on Mars, if the device was able to pull water out, it would likely not be a useful amount. But, if by the time humankind has a thriving colony on Mars, likely we would by then have access to the asteroid belt, therefore possibly having nearly limitless resources. Terraforming Mars may be possible afterwards, and such devices may eventually be useful on Mars.
