Hydrogen and realism

The carconnection.com has run an interesting and balanced article on hydrogen-power in Iceland. In part it says, "The Shell station uses a process known as electrolysis to produce its fuel, electric current splitting water into its basic components: two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, the latter vented into the atmosphere."

Interesting indeed that they are producing the hydrogen onsite. Better, cheaper and safer than trying to transport it. The hydrogen is for a small H-dedicated bus fleet, by the way. The article admits "Electrolysis is an energy-intensive process, in itself, and if you were to follow the wires leading out from the back of the station, they'd connect to the big towers snaking east, nearly 30 kilometers into the country's rugged interior...As they approach the source, one can spot steam pluming into the sky. Some are natural vents, hinting at the violence roiling deep beneath the rocky soil." It's geo-thermal, folks.

So hydrogen is do-able, despite lower energy density and higher volatility. Especially so if you have locally renewable energy such as hydro or geothermal sources to tap into. In most countries you just don't have that sort of energy locally available, of course. So we resort to oil or coal. Which defeats the benefits of using H in the first place. Of course there is also Nuclear power but again the production of the right blend of uranium isotopes is energy intensive. So you end up spending energy to make energy. Are we ever to get out of this cycle of fossil-fuel dependence? What will it take?