Using electricity made from only 65% fossil fuels is still a large cut. Off course there is an efficiency loss in burning the hydrogen, but the high fuel efficiency of hybrids suggests the process is far more thermodynamically efficient than burning fiossil fuels directly in internal combustion engines. In addition, internal combustion engines are optimized for a combination of power and efficiency while I'm sure power plants place more emphasis on efficiency. In other words the key is how much energy per lb of fossil fuel gets delivered to the axles. If fuels cells double the value it would still be a good idea even if 100% of our energy came from fossil fuels.

You could end up with a process that is far more than 35 % more efficient in use of fossil fuels or one that is only around 20% more efficient. The reduction should be evaluated in ROI terms taking into account the infrastructure costs. If there is not a quick payback say within 10 years, maybe we should wait for something else, but I tend to think we should accept any significant improvement.

Just as it is short sighted for Republicans, blind supporters of business, and anti-environmentalists to demand perfect simulations before tackling the threat of global warming, it is short sighted for environmentalists to demand perfect solutions or nothing.

Regards,
Mark