Be advised that most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas. The reaction converts 2.2 tons of methane and 4.9 tons of water into 6 tons of carbon dioxide and 1.1 tons of hydrogen. In effect, you have to "burn" the oxygen out of water and strip off hydrogen from the methane---but you produce as much carbon dioxide as if you had simply burnt the methane directly in an engine.
Electrohydrolysis sounds like a fine solution...but only if you have plentiful nuclear power, since you still have to produce the energy required to break the chemical bonds in water between hydrogen and oxygen.
It would be easier to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from water and scrap carbonaceous matter (e.g., plants), which would result in a closed cycle. Hydrocarbon fuels are easier to handle than hydrogen and we already have a widely-established distribution network.
In the end, there is no problem being solved by any of this.
Be advised that most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas. The reaction converts 2.2 tons of methane and 4.9 tons of water into 6 tons of carbon dioxide and 1.1 tons of hydrogen. In effect, you have to "burn" the oxygen out of water and strip off hydrogen from the methane---but you produce as much carbon dioxide as if you had simply burnt the methane directly in an engine.
Electrohydrolysis sounds like a fine solution...but only if you have plentiful nuclear power, since you still have to produce the energy required to break the chemical bonds in water between hydrogen and oxygen.
It would be easier to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from water and scrap carbonaceous matter (e.g., plants), which would result in a closed cycle. Hydrocarbon fuels are easier to handle than hydrogen and we already have a widely-established distribution network.
In the end, there is no problem being solved by any of this.