This is a "what is the conclusion" question. The premise is that even though hydrogen is a powerful source of energy, hydrogen requires fuel to make, fuel that could otherwise be used in other industries. The passage then gives an example of how using natural gas to convert into hydrogen and then electricity, while it powers our homes and electric cars, causes environmental damages.
From this summary, it seems like what the passage is concluding is that making hydrogen energy isn't worth the side effects.
Looking at the answer choices:
A) While the passage says that converting natural gas to hydrogen and electricity causes lower efficiency, there's nothing in the passage suggesting which energy source is the MOST efficient energy source. Answer choices that use absolutes are usually wrong (not always though)
B) This is the opposite of what the passage says, it says that converting natural gas to hydrogen and electricity (which is then used by the hybrid cars) is what actually CAUSES increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
C) There is no mention about price points at any given point in the passage, irrelevant.
D) This matches our originally drawn conclusion, since at the end the passage even says that natural gas to hydrogen to electricity conversion leads to an increase in harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
E) The first part of this answer choice is correct, however, where it goes wrong is in stating that it's too short in supply, because there is no mention of supply anywhere in the passage. Irrelevant.
Answer choice
D is correct.