Well, technically ALL fuels contain more energy than will ever be extracted - that's the second law of thermodynamics in action. Hydrogen fuel is technically perfectly feasible, it simply isn't economical enough yet to compete. European nations have attempted to tack enough taxes onto petroleum fuels to make alternate sources attractive (and have managed to tax the latter as well, blowing the whole scheme) but the real solution, if there is one, will be to reduce the cost of hydrogen fuel to the point where it is competitive. This will include infrastructure investment as well, in the form of adding hydrogen capacities to filling stations nationwide. All of that together makes the prospect of making hydrogen competitive a daunting economic challenge that must be augmented by technology, not the other way around.
It might work, but there are a lot of ricebowls being threatened (which is, in part the point). Myself, I shall suspend judgment.
Bill,
I do not believe that the cost of hydrogen is the problem here. As pointed out in the article the problem is the cost of fuel cells. There was a good article in the Washington Times auto section today dealing specifically with the cost of fuel cell production. At present fuel cells use platinum and need about a 100 grams of the stuff. At $600 an ounce that's $2100 just for the platinum. If these things go into mass production you can expect the price to skyrocket. In short a 70kW (100HP) fuel cell is about $200,000. I'd put money on diesel, check out the Audi A2 TDI and VW Lupo TDI.
Regards,
Boiler Plate