One Middle Eastern oil Minister is on the public record as saying, "that hydrogen could very soon replace oil." He went on to say, "that the stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stone." Unquote. He when pressed said, "that he thought hydrogen would replace oil as a preferred fuel, well before we ran out of oil." Unquote.
I believe he could be right.
The energy required to convert water to its components, can be halved without affecting output or production, just with the addition of a cobalt catalyst.
Normally, we lose as much as 20%, as energy loss, when we convert hydrogen back to electrical energy.
However, with the inclusion of the cobalt catalyst, and the halving of the initial energy input, the resulting maths tells us, we could produce a net 30% gain, via the inclusion of said cobalt catalyst.
A patented process!
We can also release hydrogen from sea water with radio waves.
I don't know how well that research is progressing.
We know that lighter than air hydrogen, will lift itself to great heights, where fuel cells could convert it to energy and pristine water, which could even turn a turbine or two on its way to its next user or process?
We used to separate hydrogen via the catalytic cracking of the water molecule.
I believe we will, not too far ahead in time; replicate/upgrade that very old technology, utilising modernity, endlessly available sea water and solar thermal heat?
To produce very low cost, endlessly sustainable, carbon free fuel.
While it is possible to power conventional or fuel cell powered motor vehicles with hydrogen?
Simple practicalities, like refuelling requirements, might limit it initially, to very large stationary power plants, set up to run high tech manufacture or very rapid very low cost, mass transit options, desalination projects etc.
Rhrosty.

BAYGON,

You misunderstand fundamental points:

1. Renewables are not economic and neve can be. So they are no solution at all. They are a diversion
2. Nuclear engineers are not a constraint. They will be trained and gain experience plenty fast enough. Small modular nuclear plants would be designed and built at factory and shipped out. They do not need massive numbers of operators. The plants are built in factories like Boeing and Airbus aircraft.
3. “if we look closely at what happened in Japan “ we see not a single fatality due to exposure to radiation. The fatalities are due to radiation phobia and the actions taken as a result of the widespread phobia. And that is due to 50 years of activism and scaremongering as you are doing.
4. Nuclear is about the safest electricity generation technology and about 10 to 100 times safer than what we accept now as standard practice for our electricity generation.
5. Cost competitive nuclear is prevented by the imposts imposed as a result of 50 years of scaremongering. It is irrational.

You are opposing safer electricity generation. Go figure!

A rational Greenie?
Sea grass by itself absorbs 3 times as much carbon as all the rain forests!
Dams built in the right places would limit the amount of alluvium that flow reef-ward with every major flood event, wiping out sea grass and all who depend on it!
Yet there they are, standing fast against any remedial dam measure and or flood mitigation damming!
Sea grass absorbs three times as much carbon as the world's entire rain forests!
So what do they protect with their chains and tree houses?
You guessed it, old trees.
Young trees, with their more vigorous growth, absorb far more carbon than old trees.
Yet it is always old growth forest they seem to be most concerned about? Rational?
Trees store carbon, whether vertical or horizontal!
They wax lyrical about a reef system progressively endangered by rising carbon and acidification, yet stand silent regarding the importation of fossil fuel products, that produce four times more carbon; in preference to that, we could produce simply by accessing the hydrocarbons contained in "that reef" or nearby systems!
Hydrocarbons which would produce four times less carbon; as fuel, than that which we and many other parts of the world import and use. Rational?
Is the problem rising carbon or our still surviving industrial base and or, food production capacity?
Well, they do seem to be fixating on population numbers and how they might reduce it?
I suppose widespread and extremely cruel starvation would do it, just as long as it's not their family and friends at risk?
Well?
And if the cap doesn't fit, don't choose to wear it by taking offence or responding?
It's all too easy for endlessly demanding inner city tower dwellers, or banner waving chanters, to simply take our food production for granted; or, think that things like milk and eggs, come from supermarkets, in a never ending guaranteed supply?
I don't suppose they ever stop and wonder why, we are losing four farmers a day, to suicide!?
Just who is the endangered species, I wonder? Perhaps it is rationalists?
Rhrosty.

It's possible biofuel production could be made very viable.
Who knows what modern technology might achieve.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/index.html

Who knows what modern technology might achieve?

Anyone with a brain and a modicum of basic science, that's who.

Modern technology is 100% based on net free energy.

Most of that comes from easy access oil reserves which are becoming scarce.

When net free energy per person reduces to a level that Caltex just in essence imposed on AUstralia by withdrawing self reliant refining capacity then people will do what they have done best throughout history:

De-risk their situations by killing and maiming their immediate neighbours.

The gullibility of Australian governments in allowing this while continuing NBN expenditure has sentenced Australia within 10 years to social and economic collapse.

Meanwhile the entire (Nth Hemisphere powers) world will collapse within a generation.

And in the aftermath of these collapses, diseases will cull the human species possibly to extinction. This is doubly likely since global medical investors have derisked medical practice by antibiotic scare campaigns. In essence antibiotics will be phased out and subsequent deaths will be blamed on overuse of antibotics rather than medical negligence.

Meanwhile the truth will be tested as poultry and livestock farms continue to use increasing amounts of the very same antibiotics to maximise agri business profits at all time record levels.

The bottom line:

Modern technology to Human greed and corruption is like one man's breath blowing against an Atlantic hurricane.

So what do you propose ? Build nuclear power stations ? Buy refined petroleum products from overseas refineries ? Mine more coal? Buy a kilo of smack and wait for the reaper to come ?

Whilst I think your interpretation is a bit flowery, in essence I agree, I wouldn't want to live in a post industrial society.