Gal of gas weights 6 pounds and produces 120,000 BTUS
Gal of gas contains about 1 pound of hydrogen C(n)H(2n+2) C=14 H=1.
Assume you can seperate the two for free. (You can't)
Throw away the 5 pounds of carbon and just use the 1 pound of hydrogen.
1 pound of hydrogen generates 61,000 BTUs.
You just doubled your cost, if you could do it at 100% eff.
Feel free to check my math.
Considering there's a finite supply of both, but that hydrocarbons break down into methane later in the process, the more intelligent choice is to break the plentiful number of hydrocarbons available. This would leave plenty of methane available for chemical feedstocks without the threat to quantity of methane available to future generations.
I've wondered if the hydrocarbons weren't actually formed in ancient history by fallen angels or their bodies from some condemnation. It might explain the natural inclination of so many environmentalists to oppose their man made consumption.
No need. Your premises that are the basis for the math are wrong. I say again--go study up on the efficiency comparison of fuel-cell/electric motors vs. thermal cycle motors.
If you burn that gallon of gas (120,000 BTU) in a thermal cycle plant that is 3-10% conversion efficient to mecahnical energy to drive the car vs. direct conversion of the hydrogen released (60,000BTU) in a reformer/fuel-cell/electricity cycle that is 30-50% conversion to mechanical energy efficient, which is better?