Your text arkie2: ,,This would definitely be a step in the right direction but there's no mention of the technology or cost of encapsulating the hydrogen. Also, if the primary source of the encapsulated hydrogen is natural gas I don't see how that helps solve the energy crisis."
As there is much more abundance of natural gas than there is of oil (easily available that is) both in the world, and for you guys in the US, it helps to solve the energy crisis big time. Of course it will still pollute CO2 into the athmosphere, though it will not be as much in the cities but where the reforming of the natural gas to hydrogen is made, preferable outside of the major cities.
But the hydrogen can come from other sources, it can be created using energy and water, but we still do not have the renevable power sources to do that (except my country, but not the rest of the world) so in that respect you are correct, the energy crisis is stil not solved. But hydrogen can be created I beliewe by all kinds of biomass, similar to how biofuel can be created.
And there is the trouble, probably it is more rational to use this biomass straigth away as fuel, without the trouble of converting it into hydrogen and store it weather in metal hydrates, in ammoniak pills (did they not say they would use some borehydrat in them also?), liquid or gaseous form.
But then it would not be as energy efficiant, and not as many sources of energy could be used to create the fuel, like Iceland´s reneveable power sources of waterfalls and geothermal energy, or maybe future sources of solar, wind or other sources. But maybe those are just pipe dreams, and MainFrame65 is correct.
Actually, we have a gas shortage in the U.S. as well. That's why the major oil companies have been planning huge LNG vaporization facilities, so that gas can be imported to the U.S. from overseas.
This results largely from refusing to build nuclear or coal-fired power plants.