Raise the Hammer

To clarify, my statement regarding truth was in regards to "Hydrogen, in contrast, is a net energy sink: its EROEI is always negative" which isn't true, which was the point of including some of the more recent research in the topic. Unless you take the point of view that....

"It will always take more energy to produce hydrogen than you can extract from that hydrogen, even if you do manage to find a renewable way to produce the hydrogen. There's no getting around the laws of thermodynamics", in which case hydro, wind, solar, nuclear and petroleum are all negative energy sinks. No source of energy can make more energy than what went into it, you can't take that opinion of EROEI for hydrogen and not any other source of energy. To clarify, if hydrogen can be made passively (which it is, but not currently for consumption) it becomes no different than any other renewable resource. For the biological solution, a pool of bacteria would produce hydrogen indefinitely. Even at a hundred percent efficiency, I would guess there isn't enough room on the planet to produce sufficient to cover our current energy consumption.

"In any case, your examples are all at best a generation away from being market-ready or, worse, still in the theoretical stages. None of these technologies are anywhere near mature - and even when they are, they will still make up only two pieces of a very difficult puzzle." All points I readily made.

"We don't have 25-50 years to develop a replacement for our petroleum-based transportation system, and it is utter folly to assume that hydrogen fuel cells will be our saving grace." I most definitely said, 'Hydrogen isn't a great saving grace, but will be in the mix for our future'.

To recap, assuming you agree with me about thermodynamics, we agree on everything, except I think it is worthwhile to continue research on passive hydrogen production, and I guess you don't agree with that for whatever reason.