[Dog Gone]

It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it. Burning the fuel at the tailpipe of the plant instead of the tailpipe of the car somehow is appealing to the greenies, but it's neither economically nor environmentally sound.

Perhaps if you created the hydrogen from nuclear power it might make sense, but this nation has been traumitized by a Hollywood movie and has quit building them.

[DannyTN]

Well I haven't been traumitized.

I don't care where the fuel get's burnt.

I don't want to be dependent on Muslim oil.
I don't want to be dependent on fuel that might have a fixed supply and therefore is going to get ever more expensive over time.
I think having alternatives is smart.
And somewhere along the way, we might just find some ways to make and/or capture cheap energy.

[Indy Pendance]

We have to start developing alternative fuel sources. We have enough oil in the US (gulf of mexico, alaska) to make a dent in foreign resouces, but the envirnomentalists have a cow everytime it's brought up.

[AmericanVictory]

Right on. Oil Shale, anyone?

[SauronOfMordor]

It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it.

WHat the fuel cell they're talking about does, is convert hydrocarbons like gasoline/propane/whatever directly into electricity, instead of burning it in an engine's pistons.

Fuel cells promise to be be less polluting, and may turn out to be more fuel efficient

[Falcon4.0]

Plus every time you convert energy from one form to another you stand to loose about 50%.

[ScottM1968]

"It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen, even with the CO component, than you'll ever get out of it. Burning the fuel at the tailpipe of the plant instead of the tailpipe of the car somehow is appealing to the greenies, but it's neither economically nor environmentally sound."

Making ethanol does require a large amount of energy - this must be the inefficiency to which you speak - but the recapturing of CO energy should certainly push the "total power required" equation over the edge.

Energy must be made portable and usable. Fuel cells generate electricity from the chemical reactions within them rather as opposed to conventional engines that burn chemicals (such as gas) at a loss of up to 80% of the energy left in its final processed form.

Steps that make a renewable energy source truly cost-effective are a boon for all.

[Smokin' Joe]

Perhaps if you created the hydrogen from nuclear power it might make sense, but this nation has been traumitized by a Hollywood movie and has quit building them.

I was a grad student in uranium geochemistry when the Three Mile Island incident happened. (Actually, I had hired on with a company in the oil industry two weeks before.) I have been in the oil industry since.

"The China Syndrome" wasn't the nail in the nuclear coffin.

IMHO, the industry will eventually make a comeback.

[Optimist]

It still is going to take more energy to create the hydrogen...than you'll ever get out of it.

That isn't true... I saw a CBS/60 Minutes report that you can now get more energy out of something than you put in....they have a memo that did just that. 8-)