JXStern wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:18:03 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The downside, of course, is that PRODUCING hydrogen in quantity is not
>> generally a zero-emission process (unless you have substantial hydro- or
>> nuclear-generated electricity available).
>
> If you mean someone is burning coal upstream, I suppose so, but the
> idea is that big centralized power generation is both cleaner and more
> efficient than most vehicles, so if the resulting consumption is
> clean, it's a net winner.

NET winner, perhaps (IN THEORY)... still, the point is, it's not a
"ZERO-emissions" solutions; it's a shifted-emissions setup.

> Y'know, I don't get it, if you asked anybody five years ago what would
> make sense for vehicles when oil reached $100/barrel, they'd have said
> all sorts of alternatives could come online at those prices. Maybe
> even hydrogen.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to see some VIABLE
alternatives to this petroleum-fueled society... it just, I dunno,
amuses me, I guess, to see people tripping over themselves to jump on
various "clean energy" pie-in-the-sky bandwagons, only to ask a dozen
years later, "What ever happened to that idea" because they didn't stop
to think about ALL the implications, requirements, disadvantages, etc.