Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off
Interesting.
ping
A couple of points to consider about hydrogen:
1. Although burning hydrogen does not create carbon dioxide, it does create water vapor. Isn’t water vapor a green house gas?
2. There is a fundamental difference between the energy needed to extract and refine oil and the energy needed to create useable hydrogen. In the case of oil, there is a huge amount of energy already stored in the hydrocarbon molecules, and thus a big return on investment in terms of energy-in/energy-out. Hydrogen out in “the wild” represents no such stored-energy waiting to be tapped. To extract hydrogen from water, for example, you have to use at least as much energy as you will have available from the hydrogen that is your end product. In other words, a hydrogen economy depends on some primary energy source, such as nuclear power or an extremely vast array of solar power panels to make it work.
I’m not saying hydrogen is a bad idea, and i’m all for continued research. But it is by no means a “magic bullet”.
Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off
My vote is for dilithium crystals held in a warp plasma field...
The only Hydrogen fuel that makes sense is when Hydrogen is combined to form Helium ie. fusion.
Let’s just concentrate on those cold fusion devices and see if a miracle happens and there really is some way to make cold fusion work.
Otherwise, we are stuck using Carbon-based Hydrogen-carrying fuel like oil and natural gas.
I don’t know why everyone is trying to re-create materials to hold Hydrogen when there are hundreds of chemicals that already hold Hydrogen for burning efficiently like oil and natural gas.
Find a way to make natural gas from Carbon and Hydrogen constituents. Find a way to make oil from basic Carbon and Hydrogen carrying materials.
Refinery technology has been around for over a hundred years. A tweak of the existing technology here and there and you can make natural gas from garbage or trees or anything.
Happens everyday all day long in nature.
The only place I see hydrogen being part of the fuel equation is fuel cells on demand, bonded in liquid or solid form.
That’s in essence what they are trying to do here. In practice it would allow for replaceable and rechargeable modules for the hydrogen feedstock for the cell.
If someone could come up with a catalyst that when you run water over or through it, it would produce Hydrogen and Oxygen, you would have a true closed system that might come close to being a perpetual motion machine.
OPEC... 
would love that!
And everybody knows that titanium is plentyful and cheap.
”But both of those strategies require large amounts of energy themselves.”
Maybe initially we’d have to use oil to produce hydrogen, but after awhile couldn’t one use the hydrogen itself to power whatever it takes to produce the hydrogen? Say one is making hydrogen via electrolysis. Something would have to be used to boil the water to turn it into steam so it can turn the turbines to produce electricity in order to split the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen.
Lets say one takes some of that hydrogen and uses it along with solar energy to heat the water to turn the turbines. Since hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces water one could capture almost 100% of the energy used to make the hydrogen and use again and again.
How about using hydrogen, solar power and wind power to make the electricity to split the molecules?
How about using hydrogen, solar power and wind power, geothermal, etc either coupled together or in different combinations?
It seems like those who are against hydrogen are always saying bit takes way too much energy to produce, so the hell with it. By way of conventional energy, yes, but why use conventional (oil, coal) means that cost so much when there are alternatives?