O.k, I see I may have a bit of a problem with "terminology" here....Let me ask a few questions to see if I can kind of get re-acquinted with the version of reality I am finding here:

1.  Do we agree that hydrogen would be a chemical element?
   
2.  Do we agree that hydro-carbon fuels are essentially a mix of the two main chemical elements, hydrogen and carbon?
   
3.  Do we agree that it has been a long standing practice to find, gather and refine the hydrocarbon chemicals and use them as chemical fuel?
   
4. Do we agree that the use of the term "fuel" refers to a relatively useful burnable chemical, and that it is the hydrogen that burns that makes it such?
   
5.  Do we agree that until the fuel is burned, it is only potential energy, whether it be wood, oil, gas, peat, tar sand, or whale blubber?  This is why we would regard tar sand as potential fuel, and at this time, limestone is not.
   
6.  So when we say that hydrogen is only a "energy storage" not energy source,  that is also true of any "fuel".  Until it is gathered and in some way processed, it is not a power source?
   
7.  If we need energy, and do not have any "liquid fuel" source, can assume then that we can only use solar, wind, tidal, or other forms of sun driven power directly, or is it possible that there is a way to extract a usable liquid fuel from a common element on Earth?
   
8.  Can we assume that if we have NO readily available liquid fuel, water is a common store of hydrogen, which may be able to be extracted using some renewable energy imput, to make a desired liquid fuel?
   
9.  Can we assume that if that's the only way to get a portable liquid fuel, then humans have two choices:  Either sit around on their lazy arse and say it cannot be done, and go back to Ken Deffeyes awaited "stone age by 2030", or get off our lazy arse and at least try to do it?

TENTH and final point:  I am just glad some of your guys were not around at the birth of the industrial age.  We wouldn't have had to worry about it's effects because you guys could have proved that IT COUND NEVER BE DONE.

Point 9. is becoming of extreme importance:  Here is the cutting edge of the discussion:  If you believe for moral or philosophical reasons, that modern technical society SHOULD not exist, then the pursuit of hydrogen or any alternative is inmoral and incorrect.  But this does not mean that it is a fanciful dream, or that it somehow violates the known laws of physics.  
I would in short like to deal directly with Leanan's sentence:

"You might as well argue that we are going to run our economy off hydroelectric power.  After all, water is extremely abundant.All we have to do is pump it uphill so we can run turbines with it when it comes back down."

I trust you see the error in comparing extraction of a chemical element from common materials (the birth of all chemistry in history) as different in not only degree but in kind from a perpetual motion machine, which is what you  are describing.  I am not an idiot, and appreciate least of all condenscending attitude, and will reply to such in like fashion.  I will go ahead and recognize your insult, but do feel compelled to let you know that I am fully aware of it's intentionally non useful nature to this discussion.  
Roger Conner  known here as ThatsItImout