k wrote:
] As for the article, it wimps out at the end, mostly. I think
] it's obvious that a hydrogen economy is pointless, at best,
] until we're getting our hydrogen from a root fuel which is not
] a hydrocarbon. Which means nuclear, really. Given the
] resistance people have to the word nuclear, I'm concerned.

I strongly disagree. Hydrogen is a transportation and storage medium for power. Switching to it gives us a neutral platform into which we can introduce various power sources without having to re-engineer everything. We could then convert a large percentage of our power production for automobiles from gasoline to natural gas or coal or nuclear or whatever we wanted. Coal is a fossil fuel, but it is a hell of a lot more abundant then oil, and we happen to have a large percentage of the world supply domestically. This flexibility would shelter us from political and scarcity problems with any particular energy source.

We may not solve the "big problem" of how to produce sustainable, renewable, totally clean power in our lifetimes. So what. This does not mean we should continue to operate an infrastructure that is totally dependent on one particular kind of energy source that happens to be very difficult to deal with. There are obvious benefits to having a more flexible infrastructure that can be had without having a total solution to the world's energy problems.

RE: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies