Nice try, TT, but no. I did not argue that we should eliminate natural gas as a fuel source. You are trying to put words into my mouth. I argued that hydrogen is dangerous and explosive. I also argued that compressed gases are dangerous and can rapidly expand with explosive force. My argument is not that we should ban hydrogen or ban compressed gases. The points that comprise my argument are:
1. It is not cost-effective TODAY to produce hydrogen as a replacement for hydrocarbon fuels, as large amounts of electricity are required to produce hydrogen. Vast amounts of hydrocarbon fuel must be used to produce that electricity. Only countries with vast amounts of hydro-electric power and/or geo-thermal resources can produce hydrogen for less than the cost of the hydrocarbon fuels required to produce hydrogen.
2. Hydrogen gas is extremely explosive. Hydrogen is the most highly reactive substance known to mankind. Even in chemical plants with dedicated hydrogen storage facilities and staff there have been explosions (yes recently).
3. Driving around cars with 5000 PSI tanks full of hydrogen is excessively dangerous as cars are often subject to unpredictable impacts and excessive heat due to fires.
4. The service life and maintenance requirements of hydrogen storage systems are inadequate for the low-maintenance needs of the average vehicle driver.
5. The service life and maintenance requirements of hydrogen storage systems are inadequate for the low-maintenance needs of the distribution system (hundreds of thousands of hydrogen fueling stations to replace gas stations world-wide).
6. Storage of any highly pressurized compressible gas is inherently dangerous, and moreso when being driven around in relatively small vehicles with poorly trained drivers who are incapable of operating high-pressure gases safely.
Yes, of course we have advanced and may one day even be able to use hydrogen safely to power the common automobile. I just don't see how we are anywhere near that point today. Refer to the google search I posted earlier for a list of recent hydrogen explosion incidents, most of which were in chemical plants manned by trained engineers, not explosive Hondas manned by soccer moms.
Based on your last paragraph, I think we are in complete agreement. Please remember that this argument began because someone else on this forum suggested that the American auto industry was somehow inferior because they claimed that we were a few years away from practical mass-produced hydrogen-powered cars. I was merely pointing out the reasons why mass-production of hydrogen powered cars is not practical TODAY.
In addition, your point that the development of both the air-ships and the space shuttle were accelerated for political reasons are true with respect to hydrogen-powered automobiles as well. Honda is desperately trying to prove something with their premature release of the hydrogen vehicle. It is my belief that this is just as premature as the other two failed projects.
I'd also appreciate it if you could keep your arguments civil and avoid further personal attacks. You started right out of the box with claims that anyone who didn't believe in this technology was uninformed and fearful, and basically ignorant. That is clearly not the case. Yes, I'm fearful of hydrogen powered vehicles driving around on public streets with 5000 PSI pressurized vessels inside. I'm fearful for some very good reasons. You know full well that I'm anything but ignorant.
Sorry, TT, but you are not dealing solely with ignorant, uninformed, fearful readers here.
Then why does it seem you behave as one? 
Oh, and yes, there are plenty of oxy/acetylene tanks that do explode every year. Plenty of low-pressure LPG tanks too. And there's a reason why building codes require those tiny low-pressure gas-grill tanks to be at least 25 feet from a structure. There are also plenty of air tanks with much lower pressures that explode every year. A few simple google searches will verify these facts.
I don't see this as support for the vilification of hydrogen as a fuel. There are accidents with nearly every piece of technology ever created. Are you also suggesting the elimination of ALL technology that can be a threat to human existence and wellbeing? Where ever tools, technology, and humans intermix, there will be accidents.
I've also seen what was left of a large apartment building in the Bronx after a natural gas leak ignited. It wasn't pretty. The devastation was horrific.
Yes. In the late fifties, an entire hardware store blew up in the town of Roselle, IL where I lived. Natural gas leak. Killed several people. Heard the explosion [loud] from 5 miles away. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have allowed the proliferation of natural gas use throughout the US, right? Horrible evil stuff that. What, exactly does this have to do with the development of Hydrogen as a possible fuel source?
Sorry, TT, you are good, but I suspect that even you are not a better engineer than the pride of pre-WWII Germany!!! Don't you think those German engineers knew hydrogen was explosive? Somehow, they thought they were making it safe, too. Oh yeah, and the Space Shuttle Columbia with the giant pressurized liquid hydrogen fuel tank made some lovely fireworks too! One simple o-ring failure blew that shuttle to bits in the blink of an eye. Do you think the auto manufacturers of the world have better engineers than pre-WWII Germany and NASA, too? Honda may be good, but they aren't THAT good.
"Suspect"? For certain you can not know or have the information to judge how good or bad an engineer I am.
"simple oring failure"? This is an echo of what the mass media simplified the explanation for the disaster. While the o ring is simple in concept, it's implementation and speciality in the shuttle was far from simple, and certainly beyond the understanding of many individuals. I'd also like to point out that the shuttle boosters were not intended for operation by the general public. Further, budget constraints, development schedule shortening, as well as refurbishing turn around pressures, contributed a great deal to the accident. Part of the Hindenburg incident was due to managerial issues overriding technical development as well. Both these flights had accelerated risk factors, ignored by persons who were in control for various political and prestigious reasons. To apply general safety factors for these prototype machines onto machine for the general public, I feel, is disingenuous.
Hydraulic brakes and pneumatic brakes were once vilified as "dangerous", too. Do they still have safety issues? Yes. Do their benefits far outweigh their detriments? Yes. Did it happen overnight. No.
I have to wonder what makes your opinion qualified as credible, that todays better educated engineers and computer simulation and development technology isn't, in fact, far better than what German engineers had in Pre-WWII. Or, what NASA had 10 years ago. Is it not possible to build and expand on a knowledge base? To make tools that create better ones? Is it impossible that humans can learn to use powerful tools and materials with out self destruction? What are you asking for? An erasure and regression of the last 100 (or more) years of technological advancement?
I'm not convinced that Hydrogen is ready for the mass market. I do think it is worth some investment into perfecting the technology. It doesn't have to be for everybody to be valuable. I think it is ill-advised to put all energy dependency into crude oil alone. Diversification of energy sources, I believe, is what should happen. The problem I see, is that within a capitalistic society, creating a mass dependence is a good thing for those that can control it's use and dictate the profit to made from it. Diversification threatens this centralized control of profits as well as the dependent populace.
