Do you want to be the next Uncle Bill? Read here.

Wouldn't that be called water electrolysis?

Traditionally, yes.

However, we may invent certain kind of unknown catalyst, or even biological method.  There are still many possibilities.

Hydrogen is a dead end. The only reason it existed in the first place is so that petrochemical companies hoped they could retain some of their distribution / sales pipeline.

It's also dying out already. Back in 2011 there were 14 places in there UK where you could fill up your hydrogen car. In 2023 there were 11 (with only 8 available to the public). Now there are 6.

Over that year, whilst hydrogen went from 11 to 6, public EV charging points went from 38,972 to 57,290.

Fred27 said:

Hydrogen is a dead end.

I think I agree apart from maybe some special bulk applications like steel making.

But solar power could be used to make methane and synthetic fuels which we could distribute and use in our existing infrastructure. In the UK we might do better with wind power.

Wind and solar have the same issues of intermittency but transforming the energy into chemical fuel makes it possible to store and efficiently distribute. So far we have two ways of doing that, batteries - which are inefficient in terms of cost to make, time to change and low energy density and combustible fuels which are inefficient in terms of use of energy to make them from atmospheric CO2.

(I'm being a little flexible here in calling batteries chemical fuel but I think its OK in this context.)

So we need a breakthrough - better batteries or better electricity to fuel conversion - either will do.

MK

I had an "uncle Bill" once. He could turn Legume Energy directly into Methane Gas. Does that count?

There was a similar discussion in the past:  RE: Question of the Month: Which technology will power automobiles in 20 years?

I recommend watching the linked video, Hydrogen won't save us. Here's why.

Is it possible that we're asking the wrong question? Perhaps we should wonder "Why do we feel the need to move everything around so much?" We have built up our transportation systems one illogical decision on top of another. In America, we are still destroying people's homes in order to make wider roads for more people to move faster. When do we decide that this all makes no sense and begin a fundamental shift to spending less on transporting food, parts, and people?  

Sorry, stepping back down off my soapbox now. 

md_steve said:

In America, we are still destroying people's homes in order to make wider roads for more people to move faster.

There have been similar studies and assessments of transport in the UK. When roads were two-lane, expanded to three-lane, and in some places are now four-lane. 

We have Universities where there are departments dedicated to transport studies. There are journal papers out there available about this topic. You can search for "journal article multi lane motorways" to find various papers on the topic.

Of course, your assertion is another angle to my question.

Globalisation also produces redundant transportation.

An example is - you export your liquid milk to me while I export my liquid milk to you.  The resultant effect is - the double way transportation expenses are actually clueless. 

Many departments in universities are actually redundant, for instances, philosophy, literature, etc.  These can be studied at home or in open libraries.