How would H2 be better suited for cars than gasoline or hybrid engines?
Energy wise I think we all agree that we get more energy out of the oil and its byproducts that we use to refine and distribute it. You agree?
Hydrogen only makes sense if we have sooo much extra energy that we can use it to achieve these other benefits of H2.
These benefits include reduced CO2 (if you think that's a benefit worth spending money to reduce), reduced NOx, SO2, etc, reduced dependence on nasty regimes for oil, reduced oil spills etc etc etc.
These are benefits, I agree. Are they worth what it would cost? Maybe. I think we keep getting mixed up on this thread between people who think H2 will reduce bad side effects of hydrocarbon use without realizing that it will take more energy (and money) to do it.
If you support massive construction of nuke plants to support the generation of H2, and the use of the H2 in cars in order to reduce our need for Arab oil, then we agree.
Solar power satellites would work as well.
If you don't think this transition will require a huge input of external energy, then you don't understand thermodynamics, not to mention economics.
And that is a distinct possibility. Solar and wind energy a jokes as far as sources for a grid. They are not "energy dense" and they can not deliver anywhere near the availability or capacity factors necessary to make a substantial contribution. They only drive up the costs of other forms of electrical generation by taking sales on the margin. Due to "basic physics", they never will be. But, they do churn out MWs when the wind blows and the sun shines and they do that in a "non-polluting" way. Why not consider putting them to use in ways other than grid operations. Building H2 crackers powered by wind farms and/or solar fields where 24/7 availability is not a fundamental requirement as it is in grid operations may be the best use of these technologies. Convert their electrical energy into H2 with zero environmental load, and if the delivered product is "cost competitive" with hydrocarbons, the market will decide. These "alternatives" would no longer be the nuisance to grid operators that they are now, would not drive the marginal price of electricity upward with every additional kwh they produce, but would actually add to a new economy.
Again, I qualify all of this with the note that we still have a ways to go in developing technology that would make an H2 transport system an economically viable option. But the excuse that producing H2 takes more energy input than it can deliver is not a valid reason to stop looking at it. A number of very viable energy sources such as pumped storage and batteries "use more energy than they produce", but for the applications they are used in, they are very efficient and economical.
If you don't think this transition will require a huge input of external energy, then you don't understand thermodynamics, not to mention economics.
I have spent the last 33 years working in the energy industry, 20 of those in nuclear. I know a little bit more about energy economics than you seem to assume.