Indirectly. The hydrogen involved here would be used to produce electricity at the point of use (vehicles, i.e.).
The batteries alone which have to be replaced quite frequently cost as much as most small IC cars.
I guess you missed the paragraph where I said "Batteries have been the major stumbling blocks for electric vehicles since the first Baker rolled off the assembly line in 1908: Batteries are just too heavy, expensive, low powered, and take too long to recharge: Even the most advanced batteries." ? That's why I went on to the use of fuel cells. Batteries are just no good for vehicles (submarines maybe, but not vehicles). BTW, there is also the consideration of all the total energy used to produce and operate the two types of vehicles, not just the micro scale look at the final energy use in driving the finished vehicles around town.
Electrics are far simpler, have only a fraction of the parts, weigh significantly less (making them more energy efficient and tearing up roads less) and last substantially longer without repair or maintenance (how often do you need to change the oil in your car, or lawnmower, and have it maintained vs how often do you even bother to think about that motor in your furnace blower as a practical example). Since fuel cells aren't being used currently, the overall evaluation of the energy used in it's production and lifespan is not avaialble to discuss.
Second law says that it will always take more fossil fuel to run a H2 car than you would use burning the fossil fuel directly.
I don't consider corn, waste straw, other agricultural and farm waste to be fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are only being considered in my statement in their possible use in fuel cells (natural gas, gasoline) where they would be used about three or four times as efficiently as in IC engines. And I'm no scientist, but I've never heard of fossil fuels being mentioned in the second law. I was under impression that the second law was the one about everything moving to a lower, not higher, state. Are fossil fuels somehow not subject to the same laws, depending on how they are being used, as everything else and therefore specifically mentioned? Do you also oppose the conversion of fossil fuels into electricity for the same reasons?
Nope I read it. I guess you missed where I said You can't ignore the power source since the vehicle functions as a system.
Electrics ... weigh significantly less (making them more energy efficient and tearing up roads less)
Absolutely false. Electric motors are much heavier per hp produced than IC motors. I have a 7.5 hp electric motor 3ph that I had to replace a bearing on. The motor was nearly 200 lb. I helped a friend take his lawn tractor motor out (8hp I think) and I could lift it without much trouble, but I had to have help with the electric motor.
I don't consider corn, waste straw, other agricultural and farm waste to be fossil fuels.
These things require fossil fuel to produce so they are just another unnecessary step on the way from fossil fuel to work done (transportation)
And I'm no scientist, but I've never heard of fossil fuels being mentioned in the second law.
2nd law applies to everything. It boils down that every time you convert from one form of energy to another you lose some energy to entropy. 1000 kcal of diesel converts to less than 1000 kcal of ethanol even with the sunlight adding energy to the system. Say 800 kcal. The 800 will necessarily convert to less than 800 of H2 say 80% efficient so you're down to 640 kcal. The fuel cell will convert it to electricity at say at 80% efficiency. Now you're down to 512 kcal. Your electricity won't go 100% into work done by the motor, let's us 80% again even though I'm fairly certain that the efficiency isn't this high. now you're down to 410 kcal of useful work. It's nothing new. This concept was explored in the '70s and even published in Science magazine. It's just that political hog feeding has totally distorted the reality on this one. Sort of like global warming. junk science, but lots of plundered taxpayer money for the hogs.