You obviously have a VERY serious problem with reading comprehension. I already SAID that the pipeline network would need to be expanded in capacity. Sheesh.
"Tell me if I’m wrong, but I think your use of hydrogen gas is as a chemical feedstock rather than as fuel."
You're wrong.
"I just do not believe that its use as fuel (actually, an energy vector) will ever be economically justifiable - unless it leaves the planet!"
Well, I didn't believe that oil would cost $140 per barrel, either.
"2/3 of our crude oil consumption becomes transportation fuel, and over 95% of our transportation fuel comes from crude oil, through many billions of dollars worth of infrastructure. I don’t think we can change that very quickly, so I think that the best solutions will have to make use of it."
Which is why ethanol is a good idea "now". It uses much of the existing infrastructure with the shortest lead time of any current alternative, with the possible exception of oil-seed derived diesel.
"That is why I like the idea of algae culture as a new feedstock - but I also think that butanol is worth investigation."
And again, I've already said that for the longer term they are worthy research topics---but they're not available NOW.
I have not said a single word of criticism about you and your manner of expressing yourself, and have confined my remarks to the subject under discussion. You, on the other hand, have been ill-mannered, boorish, and personal in EACH of your responses. I have gleaned a few factual items scattered among your vituperation, but I have learned a lot more about you - and it is not pleasant.
I have been polite, you have been just the opposite. That says a LOT more about you than about me.
Have a nice day.