[Realism]

But isnt that kind of like saying that hydro electric isn't worth it because the efficiency of the turbine isn't 100%. It's not as if you are using the engine to power just the alternator, its powering many systems. If efficiency was measured in the the unit of “work” it would be quite high. The more you can do using the available power, the greater the efficency.

[thackney]

But isnt that kind of like saying that hydro electric isn't worth it because the efficiency of the turbine isn't 100%.

No, with hydro electric power we didn't have to consume other energy sources to get the water above the dam. Consuming more energy than you produce isn't going to help.

[MortMan]

But isnt that kind of like saying that hydro electric isn't worth it because the efficiency of the turbine isn't 100%.

I don't think so, because (in most cases) the water used to generate hydroelectric power already exists uphill from the turbine. Taking advantage of this positional potential doesn't require the expenditure of energy.

But is does take energy to create the hydrogen, and to run the alternator off of the hydrogen, etc. If hydrogen in an energy-useful form were plentiful, this wouldn't be an efficiency issue, although the safety aspects would remain.

Just my $.02