This is something that we all need to do our bit on. Sitting around and waiting for government to do something is a waste of time, government will do as little as it possibly can just in case votes, and/or campaign funds, might be at stake.

I agree to an extent. We are all responsible for our own actions and can’t wait for government to legislate our behviour when it comes to ghg’s. The problem, in my opinion, however, is that while as you say, we can force retailers and companies to change by deciding not to buy their ghg intensive products, most people won’t because all they care about is a good deal. That’s why we just opened a third Wal-Mart in Saskatoon. In order to get people to be more responsible consumers, we need to get people to be less materialistic. Sigh.

Regarding 2010-15, isn’t 2010 when the previous gov’ts agreement with the auto industry runs out? I seem to recall there being a ‘vuluntary reduction’ plan of some sort on the table in 04/05 (found it here). That’s the only reason I can see for the 2010 start-date that makes any kind of sense (note I said “any kind of”). I imagine the oil & power industries would scream bloody murder about having mandatory caps enforced prior to the “voluntary” agreement(s?) running out.

While it would be nice if the various industries could be a bit more altruistic in their approach, IMHO it’s highly unlikely.

From where exactly do you think hydrogen comes? There are no hydrogen wells or mines.

When you figure out a way to get the hydrogen out of the universe’s elemental mass (eg. stars, for which it is fuel) and into fuel cells of earthbound vehicles, let me know. Meanwhile, did you think through the implications of producing hydrogen from other substances? Few energy transfers in nature are ideal (ie. result in transfer without losses). You aren’t supposing there is a wealth of unused electrical production, are you?

I read your post. I understand the universal abundance of hydrogen to be irrelevant, but since you mentioned it I wasn’t sure you did. I see now that you do. So let’s move on.

A very conservative (ie. low) estimate of my own annual household electrical consumption is 14,000 kilowatt-hours. Other sources show per capita estimates of electrical energy consumption in Canada in the range 17,000-18,000 kilowatt-hours per year (for all uses - household, share of industrial and commercial uses, etc).

A very conservative estimate of my annual driving time is 300 hours (less than 6 hours a week). A search of the web shows power output estimates for reasonable hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles ranging from 50 to 100+ kilowatts. Take the bottom end of the range; a very low estimate of my annual transportation need, assuming perfect conversion from the grid outlet providing the current for electrolysis to the requirements of the car, would be 15,000 kilowatt-hours.

My point, then, is that my consumption of electricity on an annual basis would have to approximately double (by the most favourable, but unlikely, estimation). Some people will use more, and some less; and, of course, there are all the commercial operators of transportation.

But you believe “there is a wealth of unused electrical production”. I am certainly aware that during off-peak periods some generators are taken off-line, since there is no way to store electricity in the grid. I realize some of that could remain in service to charge fuel cells during off-peak periods. But I am highly skeptical that there are hundreds of thousands of megawatt-hours of usable but foregone production currently available, and I am unconvinced by any numbers I have seen that the contribution percentage of wind, solar, or any other environmental panaceas will reach very far into double digits. So we are talking about tens (I suspect hundreds) of large-scale coal, hydro, and nuclear projects that have yet to even appear on a blueprint.