Currently hydrogen generates 9.3 kgCO2 compared to gasoline's 9.1 kgCO2, so it's only 2% less efficient. But that efficiency might be improved by 2% or more is irrelevant. Even if it was 50% more efficient, extending reliance on fossil fuel for transportation is unacceptable, period.

I get the feeling many don't know, or don't understand, or don't appreciate what's at stake: the extinction of 70% of species alive on Earth today; the loss of all coastal cities - London, New York, New Orleans, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo - and all of their history; the extinction of 95% of sea life from ocean acidification; global temperatures up to 18°F hotter than they are today; equatorial high temperatures of 150-180°F, for the next 100,000 years - these conditions are not only possible, but likely if we don't  eliminate fossil fuel extraction by 2100.

Not efficiency, nor "net-zero", nor "cleaner than gasoline" are remotely good enough.

"It is silly to think that we would use Natural Gas as a feed stock, convert it to Hydrogen and then use the Hydrogen as a fuel."

From an environmental perspective, yes - it would be silly. From a marketing / profit perspective, however, it was gold.

The idea of using a hydrogen as an automotive fuel was born in the 1990s as a way to market natural gas. Tens of $millions were invested in fuel cell research by oil companies after they recognized the threat electric vehicles posed to their profit stream. With the introduction of General Motors' EV1 in 1997, and growing concerns about global warming, they knew gasoline's days were numbered - that  50,000 U.S. service stations would be rendered extinct unless there was another liquid, hydrocarbon fuel they could sell.

Liquified hydrogen, manufactured from their abundant supply of natural gas, was the obvious choice. It would be marketed as a climate-friendly "clean" fuel by showing potential customers all that comes out of the exhaust pipe is...water! (that millions of tons of CO and CO2 are emitted during the fuel's manufacture somehow escaped mention).

In 2003, oil companies and car manufacturers banded together as the California Fuel Cell Partnership to hype fuel cell vehicles and the "clean" hydrogen fuel that powers them, and they're still doing it to this day. Note the carefully-parsed sales pitch on the group's homepage:

"Zero Emissions...just a puff of water vapor. No pollution or greenhouse gases from the tailpipe. No petroleum in the tank. Doing your share to lighten the planet's load..."

Thanks Joe. When talking to people about nuclear energy I find it helps to start by asking questions: "What are your concerns? Why do you think nuclear waste is dangerous?" etc.

Many people are terrified of nuclear energy. To them, their fears are real, whether based in fact or not, and discounting or trivializing them will get you nowhere.

By listening and asking the right questions, however, you often come to a point where your listener begins asking you questions. At that point it's possible to help them gain some perspective on the real benefits and dangers of nuclear energy.