[mission9]

This article was written by someone who has never experimented with Hydrogen, and is not even very well read on the subject. His proposal to rely on coal for electrolysis is supposed to scare you off. Coal can be more directly converted to hydrogen by a refining process, the energy used and the chemicals made in the process add value to the refiner. Most serious hydrogen experimenters do not store the hydrogen in pressure tanks.
Gasoline is an attractive fuel no doubt. But don't hold your breath for the politicians to release the dogs of production. Even Jeb Bush opposes offshore drilling, as does every Republican of Stature in the State of Florida.

[pillbox_girl]

Coal can be more directly converted to hydrogen by a refining process, the energy used and the chemicals made in the process add value to the refiner.

With all its inefficiencies, the only real advantage of using hydrogen as a fuel source is that it can be burned without producing waste carbon to eneter the atmosphere. But extracting hyrogen directly from coal, by any process and regardless of other coproducts, still releases trapped carbon. And that defeats the only real point of moving to a "hydrogen economy".

The other stated purpose of the "hydrogen economy", energy independence, simply doesn't make sense for coal sourced hydrogen. Again, hydrogen's inefficiencies mean it would make more sense to make cars that burn coal directly. A coal driven car would release less carbon and yield more usefull energy than a car fueled by coal sourced hydrogen.