pakled wrote:
it's always a good thing; complex problems require complex solutions. However, just remember the Hindenburg...

that said; I likes it.
Every time I hear about the Hindenberg I want to swell up (with anger) and float.
The Hindenberg burned as fiercely as it did because the envelope of the airship was "doped" with essentially the same chemicals that are used as propellant in solid rocket boosters. If the envelope had been "undoped" It would have made a big "whomp" with much less heat and much less damage to human flesh. Set off a small hand held, hydrogen filled balloon and see how much of a bang you get.
Hydrogen can be store cryogenically and it can be store in containers where the leakage rate is very slow. The problem with free hydrogen gas is that it will leak out of just about any tank or container you can think of. That is because the gas can work its way between the molecules of chrystaline substances. To store the gas, it has to be made to adhere to some surface and be held in place by electrostatic forces. A container made of metallic hydrides is good. The hydrogen can be driven out by heating the container.
Here is the basic flaw. Hydrogen is NOT an energy
source. It is a form of energy
storage. There is very little free hydrogen on Earth. Most of it is bound into other molecules, especially water. The only way hydrogen can be an energy source is if it is fused into helium in a fusion reaction. Controlled fusion is technologically infeasible. It takes much more energy to cause a mass of hydrogen to fuse, than is gotten out of the reaction. The only practical fusion reactors at this juncture are stars. Billyuns and Billyuns of stars.
Controlled hydrogen fusion has been 30 years in the future for the last 50 years and 100 years from now it will still be 30 years in the future.
ruveyn