By which I mean nothing in my previous post was intended to be taken as personal.

What snip did I miss? I tried to be fair by quoting '...extraction and crushing of rock to extract the trapped hydrogen is...prohibitively expensive.... The most promising source...may be geological "traps" similar to those now drilled for natural gas.' And being sure to include 'prohibitive expensive.'

To me the article seemed to suggest a new source of hydrogen in addition to an older one. Geological "traps" sounded different to me than crushing deep rock to extract hard to get hydrogen. I was not trying to "pull" anything. But I get the idea from your post that I misread what was being said.

If by "geological traps" the author means the stuff spread out through the deep rock, then no problem. I was wrong to interpret what was being described as two separate sources of buried hydrogen. I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. Which works out pretty well since you don't mind correcting.

In my other post I wrote "my personal view". And that's all it was. An opinion. I still hold that same opinion since hydrogen is the fuel that many hope will one day fuel fusion reactors. No one knows if fusion will ever happen. But it is my opinion that we humans when we put our minds to something are almost unstoppable. And I think we will make fusion happen. I realize there is a world of difference between using hydrogen as a fuel used in combustion and using hydrogen as a fuel pellet in an inertial confinement reactor. But there is plenty of hydrogen lying in our oceans.

Maybe one day we will set about extracting that hydrogen for power. Maybe not. But it's my opinion that hydrogen is coming.

Thanks though for pointing out I misread the article. I would rather know I read it wrong than go on believing something that was not correct.