I may be in the minority here, but I don't see hydrogen as a viable replacement for hydrocarbons, ecologically speaking. On earth, hydrogen is not readily available in a "pure" state useable for fuel, but must first be extracted from some compound or other -- often natural gas (a hydrocarbon). Extracting hydrogen from water is possible, but requires electricity which must be generated somehow -- practically speaking by burning hydrocarbons or with nuclear powerplants. Most large sites for hydroelectric power generation have already been taken; those that are left would receive tremendous resistance from conservationists. Adding windmills is heavily resisted -- think Walter Cronkite and Ted Kennedy and the ocean off Cape Cod and their view thereof. Storage and transportation of hydrogen is difficult -- as a gas it seeps through most container materials and maintaining it in a liquified state is complex, requiring heavy equipment. So what do I think the long term solution is? Probably hydrocarbon/electric vehicles, maybe with the electricity generated in part by nuclear powerplants -- in spite of the public's current reluctance. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: "alanjstepney" <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <<snip>> > The most promising, believes Mr Bowsher, is either nuclear or hydrogen > fuel. > The public is reluctant to explore nuclear; but researchers and engineers > across the world are exploring how best to generate and, more importantly, > store hydrogen fuel, one of the main barriers to its widespread use. > Nine European cities are taking part in a pilot scheme to use hydrogen > fuelled buses on certain routes, for instance. > But until a viable mass-scale way of storing and distributing hydrogen > effectively is developed, it remains limited in use. <<snip>> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST. To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to, modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.