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.
That may be, but this was your first post :
The measure is what you put in versus the value of what you get out, and H2 as a transport fuel could have great "value" in the future. Gasoline has been a "great value" for transport fuel, but it would be way too expensive for use in generating electricity for the grid. It's the application of the fuel that determines it's value.
My point was, and still is, that the value (energy) we put into cracking the water (or other feed stock) into H2 is not offset by an equal or larger benefit. If you want to use nuclear energy to do it, then maybe I'll agree.
The point of the original article was that hydrogen will not replace oil, coal or natural gas. Nothing you've said shows that it will. Either nuclear or solar or wind will be needed.
Too many greens say "We need battery powered cars because they don't pollute" not realizing the batteries need to be recharged, most likely with coal generated electricity.
As soon as we have enough extra power from all the new nuke plants we'd need (I'm not holding my breath) then H2 becomes feasible (assuming we can keep the cars from exploding), until then, an H2 economy is a pipe dream.