Reply #11: Yeah, but one question bugs me. Creating hydrogen fuel takes tremendous energy.

[Selatius]

OK, as far as using engines go, we could use diesel augmented by, for instance, cellulose ethanol, which will prove more economical than corn ethanol in the long-term, but in order to double or quadruple the fuel efficiency of a diesel engine powered by ethanol or grease or any hydrocarbon applicable, that would require the application of hydrogen gas injected into the combustion chamber during combustion to make the combustion more efficient.

That would necessarily mean, according to the article, that you would need only a fraction of a unit of fuel to generate the same amount of power that would have been required without the hydrogen. This is heart of the reason why you double, triple, or quadruple fuel efficiency.

OK, that aside, how do you generate hydrogen usable for cars? With electrolysis. The only problem is electrolysis takes up so much energy that you're better off utilizing that electricity for other purposes, like powering manufacturing plants that make solar panels and wind turbines. Hydrogen, we must remember, is not a fuel source. It should really be more considered as a battery, a medium that holds potential energy that can be converted into kinetic energy.

As far as the turbine goes, I have no issues if there's a strict maintenance regimen to keep it in working order, just like what the Air Force practices with all its turbine engines. If there is no strict maintenance regimen, then I have a problem with safety.

Maybe if you built an electrolysis plant powered by solar and wind, then you could begin generating hydrogen gas in the quantities needed to "boost" a starter fleet of bio-diesel cars, as opposed to using a conventional power grid powered by coal, oil, and some amount of atomic power.