Yes. The science in this article is accurate. Essentially all the hydrogen is combined with oxygen in water.
Separating the two takes energy, more energy than is obtained when the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined in the burning process.
There is no easy solution to the energy problem. Whatever the solution is, I don't know of any politician able to say anything sensible about the subject. Eventually the free market will solve the problem.
Nukes.
Perhaps none of these is THE solution. But I can think of at least 5 energy sources which are nowhere near fully exploited.:
(1) Oil (of which there is absolutely no shortage, merely a shortage of refining facilities to meet demand)
(2) Nuclear Power, the potential of which has only just begun to be realized.
(3) Coal
(4) Hydroelectric Generation (Rivers, Tides, Local Streams)
(5) Natural Gas, most of which is now wasted, or perhaps better said, allowed to escape, or is burned off.
We use a "water welder" to braze with on the production floor. It's far less expensive than acetylene and oxygen.
One of the engineers at the company that sold us the unit has a 12v prototype in his Ford Escort wagon. He has been using it for some time with no problems.
Distilled water is all it takes.
Yeah,....so now add to that the trillion or multi-trillion dollar cost of transforming our liquid fuel economy over to a liquid pressurized gas economy for hydrogen! And never mind the fact that it still can't be safely stored.
THE ONLY way I could ever see that it would be beneficial to take the plunge and loose more energy by extracting hydrogen from water, would be if petroleum became so scarce it couldn't be used to supply critical chemical feed-stocks. In that case, we'd have to preserve the petroleum for the chemical and other critical industries. And so to obtain the hydrogen with the least loss of energy, we would then have to resort to nuclear power (either to create electricity to electrolyze the hydrogen off water, or to use the intense heat to directly crack it off of the water).