Furthermore, Gordon wants to see Canada spends its money on the development of hydrogen power, not throw it away on the carbon credits demanded by the Kyoto Protocol. This would be a step into the future of energy that would help the country stay on par with the rest of the world.
Terence Corcoran and John Hykawy are correct that hydrogen will be a bust if, as they suggest, it is extracted from natural gas.
However, hydrogen offers a future of clean vehicles and greater global security if it is created using nuclear energy.
Small, intrinsically safe Candu reactors could produce an infinite supply of hydrogen through electrolysis, with absolutely no emissions and no depletion of natural gas.
The same reactors could provide the energy for compressing the hydrogen to a density where it would be a viable fuel for vehicles.
The whole notion of "efficiency" becomes moot when nuclear energy is used.
Yes, more development is needed in transportation and storage technologies, including an on-vehicle tank that will provide range comparable to gas and diesel vehicles.
Furthermore, while we must continue to develop ultra-efficient fuel cells, hydrogen does not have to wait for their commercial availability.
The spark-ignition, internal-combustion engine technology of today can be easily adapted to burn hydrogen.
As an interim step, reactors in the tar sands could provide the heat, hydrogen, and steam required for extracting oil from Alberta's sand.
While Canada gets rich exporting oil, we would be developing the expertise and infrastructure to make us world leaders as the planet moves from a carbon- to a hydrogen-based economy.
Instead of exporting billions of dollars to buy carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol, this money should be used by the private sector to lead the world in developing the technologies needed for an emissions-free future independent of Middle East oil.