To be honest, I'm not overly keen on the idea of thousands of cars running around with tanks full of Hydrogen, consider the road-toll, and think Zeppelin, get the picture?
It would seem to me to be we need a better "battery", some way to safely store large amounts of electricity with little weight, given THAT, the generation becomes incidental, we can do that already.

As I said in my previous post - hydrogen cars
are still at the experimental stage and to work
out all the hiccups will take time. As for electric-
generating source alternatives these are being investigated,
think of the perpetual-motion machine.

The website that I quoted previously - is an indication
that car manufacturers are interested in hydrogen
technology - and are pursuing it. Look up the site I
quoted.

Of course there's always other alternatives - mine
was merely one suggestion due to the TV programmes that
I've viewed recently.

At the moment hydrogen is a joke/scam technology. It takes far, far more electrical energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen than what you get back by burning the gases. It's far more efficient to just use the electricity directly to power whatever it is you're powering. The rules of thermodynamics can be a real bitch sometimes.

Unless someone can come up with a way of splitting water by use of solar heat and a catalyst that doesn't require huge amounts of energy to produce more efficiently than currently, hydrogen is a waist of time and junk technology!

The reason that people are interested in hydrogen is that it is an efficient store of energy derived from electricity which generates water vapour when burnt, and don't have tons of lead to dispose of later.

The negatives are that it requires a lot of electricity to make, can only be stored as a compressed gas, and is extremely explosive. (far more so than LPG)

However the potential is there to use green power which is generally generated off peak to make fuel.

Rusty is correct, the biggest saving is to be found in more efficient cars. I have a small 5 door (5 seater) petrol car that does 6.5litres/100km and if the public would accept smaller cars for getting around 3litres/100km for a small diesel engine is perfectly possible today.

For a large SUV at 18litres/100km the cost of fuel is still relatively low considering all other costs. Increasing fuel costs to $2/l would encourage savings available today.

I too have reservations regarding hydrogen as a fuel.
The point of what I was saying thatthe plug in car doesn't *necessarily* mean that the grid needs to be over burdoned nor does the base power stations need to be dramatically enlarged.
To follow my original thoughts consider that if every one was allocated ammount of power enough to run reasonable appliances(to be determined). Excess power would without permit would be progressively expensive and forced reductions be applied (simular water in Qld).
However , if you want more power you must generate it your self.
As suggested if We could combine existing technologies who amongst us wouldn't be prepared to accept say a $50 per week loan untill paid off in lui of petrol. Once paid off free fuel for the life of the home power generation suorce? After say 12-18 months free fuel.
No one has talked about that yet

Yes, Foxy, think of the perpetual motion machine. Glad You're on the problem.

There is thinking outside the box, but there are known real-world limitations and abandoning them is not constructive.

A windmill that works all day long is helpful. Better batteries are helpful. Innovations that assist economy are helpful. In my opinion, lifestyle changes that many will find draconian will be necessary.

I want to see fitness clubs with dynamos attached to their exercise machines. It might help power the lights and stuff.

Examinator: power pricing is a good place to start. Why should there be bulk *discounts*. Perhaps, as you say, the price should go up the more you use. Doesn't need to be a ration plus extra either. with modern computers doing the bills a formula could apply that makes each and every bit more a little bit more expensive, thereby eliminating people who nudge up to just under the next bracket (as with taxes).

I'm very dubious about underground sequestration of CO2 when it forms part of the most efficient energy capture systems to be found. Instead, sequester it in trees or other biomass grown in (say) long greenhouses, with more CO2 being injected near the seedlings and all the plants (in pots, say) gradually progressing to the far end as quite advanced plants, having grown very rapidly and captured a lot of CO2, now usable as fuel, furniture, advanced plantings etc.

Cheers,

Rusty.