There are only two ways in which hydrogen can be anywhere near as green as electric cars:

1) Biohydrogen

2)Hydrogen as a waste product being used to fuel cars

Ross: I'm nt exactly sure what you mean by "biohydrogen". Hydrogen can be used as a energy storage technology the same as a battery. In our physics department, we have a very small scale solar -> hydrogen -> power demonstration. They use one cell to convert 2HOH + energy -> 2H2+O2, and then they use a second cell to convert H2 + O2 -> HOH + energy (HOH is also known as H2O).

As you can use whatever technology you want to power the hydrogen conversion, it can be as green or not as you want, the same as electric power.

But "conventional" hydrogen cars are electric cars, only with additional, energy consuming steps involved. Especially when natural gas is involved, they are not environmentally friendly at all.

"Biohydrogen" might not be its real name. As I understand it, it is hydrogen produced as a bioproduct of the metabolism of certain bacteria, and it is much more efficient than any other means of producing hydrogen. I first heard about it on NPR's Science Friday.

Its all PR. The industry is fighting higher emissions standards. These vehicles are a desperate attempt to avoid regulation and to convince the public to not worry and keep on driving.

The solutions are rail, public transit and cycling, not so called greener vehicles. They are the light low tar cigarettes of the automobile industry.

Prototypes -- UUUgggggghhh!! Blechh!!!!

If and when I can buy one for under $20,000 at my local dealership, then I'll get excited.

Ross: You can take that same argument for electric cars. They are most certainly not enviromentally friendly when the electricity used to power them comes from coal plants, and you have these batteries to clean up when you get rid of the car (or whenever the batteries stop working well, 500-1000 charges).

Light train and buses are a better answer in the city, but once yuo get so far out into the country you need a car or truck. You can't arrange for the train to pass by every single farm between sand deigo and new york (or even have several trains pass by those locations).

I am also partial to hydrogen power, as one method of this involves splitting water and then remaking water in the end which pretty much says that so long as we are not pants on head stupid, we will always have something to power the car with. (Also, if we have no more water to power said car, we have much greater problems)

Look, hydrogen cars are electric cars, but they use hydrogen to carry their energy. The way the car industry is pursuing hydrogen, they are making it very inefficient compared to battery electric vehicles.

Battery electric vehicles are the best alternative we have right now, even though there are definite negatives to them.

Also, keep these things in mind - 1) coal is a more efficient fuel than gasoline, meaning that cars running on electricity generated from coal plants are still better than ICE ones
2) currently, hydrogen is being made from natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel

Would like to see it mass produced first...

Much of the "clean energy" movement worries me. More than anything else, it seems like the search for a "miracle fuel" is done primarily with the intentions of allowing people to continue leading their current lifestyle, only in a way that is marginally better for the environment. As I see it, the lifestyles adopted by society-at-large are unhealthy, and therefore we should be worried about continuing on the path we're on almost unaltered.

But on the upside, at least environmental causes aren't labeled as "extreme" as much as they have been in the past.

^ it wont be because its greenwashing

Hows the process of extracting hydrogen from pure sea water as opposed to fresh water (the one we drink) Is there a big difference?

With such low levels of precipitation in the previous year its not looking so good for the freshwater department.

I wrote to treehugger a few months ago about this. But GM accidentally released information to settle thier union problems that show production of the Chevy Volt will begin in 09 in Detroit. They ARE making that car. How much like the concept it will be like will be seen.

Back in 1999 GM intoduced the all electric EV1 in response to California's zero emission standards. It was offered on a lease basis and was an over-whelming sucsess. Although leasers begged to purchase the cars, GM ended the program and scrapped the cars. If GM was interested in the environment I would think it wouldn't take long to resume production.

Gold Digger, please get the facts straight. It was 1996, not 99, when the EV1 went into production. GM never offered the EV1 for public sale. It was only available to consumers under a lease program that had "no purchase" clause disallowing the vehicle's re-purchase at the conclusion of the lease. The program was not an overwhelming success, as it was just a small scale project for research purposes. The program was also plagued with issues towards the end, including a recall of the charge port cables that could potentially overheat and catch fire. The cars were scrapped in the end as they were just prototype vehicles, and all prototype vehicles get destroyed from all companies, weather its GM, Ford, Chrysler, or even Toyota.

Speaking of Toyota, they also had an all electric RAV4 program at the same time as GM's EV1, but on a much smaller scale. What happened to that? They discontinued it 1 DAY after CARB changed the ZEV mandate. GM is very interested in the environment, more so than Toyota. GM has several zero waste factories, and is investing in many different forms of alternative fuels. Also think about this, the Chevy Volt is picking up where the EV1 left off.