Hacker News Reader

I'll translate that into something a bit more correct: "Hydrogen gas is not an abundant energy source. While there are some (rare) natural sources of hydrogen, it's usually made artificially, which takes energy. The energy cost in production is therefore more than the gain in burning it."

That is, however, moot, since hydrogen fusion turns hydrogen into helium. (Note that there was nothing in the article showing a detectable trace of helium trace; that being a key data point in the Fleischmann and Pons paper which was eventually tracked down to coming from another lab in the same building.)

Fusion consumes hydrogen, and gives off a lot more energy than needed to disassociate hydrogen from water. This hydrogen can then be used as feed for the fusion step.

Yeah, the utopian horseshit shoehorned into this article notwithstanding, the primary source of loose hydrogen is currently fossil fuels.

This is only true if you're going to burn it (chemical), not if you're going to fuse it (nuclear).