Still, reforming either fuel would result in much less carbon dioxide than is produced by the best internal combustion engines today. If fuel cells become popular, a hydrogen infrastructure could be developed that would reduce CO 2 output. At first, hydrogen would be made from natural gas, as is methanol. But if oil and natural gas run low, hydrogen could be produced with solar electricity and water, resulting in a totally renewable energy economy in which no global warming gases are produced. Daimler-Benz, Ford, and Toyota all lean toward methanol, because it has three hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom.
Methanol produces less carbon dioxide than does gasoline, which has two hydrogens for every carbon.
GM claims to be agnostic in the fuel debate. And Chrysler, which will buy fuel cells from Ballard and electric drivetrains from Delphi, a GM subsidiary, loudly champions gasoline, because the infrastructure is already in place. Some experts also argue that there is little difference in CO 2 production between methanol and gasoline if all processes, from wellhead to wheel, are taken into account. Oil companies, which are working uncharacteristically closely with the car makers on this issue, naturally favor reformers that process gasoline or kerosene made from crude oil. If reformers can be perfected, then cost is the last major hurdle.