[Kory Yamashita]

It just pisses me off that they're paying down the debt when they could be running a government sponsored alternative power research fund. With the funds for research and development, hydrogen fuel cells could be in popular use within a few years. And hydrogen cold fusion cells wouldn't be far behind that. Canada is already a world leader in hydrogen fuel cell research. With government-operated energy infrastructures failing to meet demand, the government has every right and obligation to invest in alternative energy or power sources. Oilsands are just going to get us more toxins for less useable energy. Same with coal. Hydrogen is "cleaner" in the pollution sense, at least. But in terms of environmental impact, it's a bit tougher because it requires more energy to isolate the hydrogen than the hydrogen cells give back. So hydrogen is more like a liquid energy battery than a source of energy. But as a transfer technology it could make short-term improvements and be a great cushion for our huge drop in energy production per capita that is sure to come soon. And perhaps we can ease our way into cold-fusion hydrogen fuel consumption or something. I'm having a hard time understanding why people -- educated and supposedly "intelligent" people (Paul & co.) -- are looking at sustainable, profitable, and most likely more practical solutions to our energy woes and instead choosing to kiss corporate petrol a**. Seems like we're fighting hard to keep our heads above the water these days... perpetual tax cuts, constant privatisation (is it REALLY balancing a budget if every year you sell off billions of dollars in infrastructure to pay for it?), longer hospital lines, massive rural unemployment, cuts to social programs. And major corporations are having record profits. Something's fishy here. This passing the buck and patting oneself on the back for a job well done is really starting to piss me off.

[Dr Caleb]

Not sure if this is what you heard Rev, but there's been a long standing dispute between many south western Alberta grain and cattle farmers about companies drilling for Natural Gas and Methane in the Rocky Mountain House region.<p> If there is drilling, the air and water will get polluted and make the farms uninhabitable. Klein of course disagrees.<p>

[Reverend Blair]

That sounds about right, except that it turns out there have been about 100 wells already drilled. I think that's why the farmers were mad.

There is hope, Kory. A few months ago we did a photo shoot of a hydrogen delivery system that looked very much like a self serve gas pump. If that technology is already out there all of the foot-dragging by the government and their corporate masters can't hold it back forever. We need to keep pushing.

[Kory Yamashita]

Oh, and did you hear about Gordon Campbell's announcement of having a hydrogen highway running the Sea-to-Sky highway by 2010? He said by that time they hope to have it extended all the way to LA. Wonder whose work he's taking credit for....

[Reverend Blair]

I heard about it, but I'll believe it when I see it. These things tend to get lost in funding shortages and a lack of participation by private interests. It's a pretty good promise in a province with a strong environmental movement. Let's see if he keeps it.

[Milton]

Kory, I agree with a lot of what you say but I don't know where you are coming from with "cold fusion". As far as hydrogen goes you don't need to have fuel cells, you can generate electricity with windmills, use the electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then store the H2 and O2 for use. The only real problems with hydrogen is that it is more diffuse, which means you require a greater volume of H2 to get as much energy as CH4(methane) because as you can see there is only 1 bond broken in H2 whereas there are at least four bonds broken in CH4, the broken bonds is where the energy comes from. So because it is more diffuse your"gas tank" is going to have to be bigger or your refueling stops more frequent, one or the other. Also burning hydrogen is invisible, so you could walk into a H2 fire because you didn't see it. Fortunately H2 is diffuse and will spread out quickly when released which could limit the severity of a fire. As far as pollution goes burning hydrogen results in the creation of water and heat, that is it for by products of combustion. Why don't we switch? The banks have lent heavily to oil companies. If oil corps go out of business the ripple effect would cause the collapse of our global trade/monetary system. Yes, it would be a good thing. "Paul & co." don't think it would be good because the ruling class would be seriously damaged and possibly unable to recover. And yes, infrastructure would have to be put in place, gathering and distribution systems would have to be constructed, and we could switch the propane pumps to H2 pumps, retool production lines so that vehicles can burn H2, R&D increased expenditures to develop better "gas" tanks. Now, Gordon Campbell, on the other hand, sucks and any thing he says should be immediately checked to find out which corps are getting the government funds for nothing and how much money they have contributed to his election campaign. Also this pathetic creep has declared that there are not enough skilled tradesmen in BC to handle the construction for the olympics and so he will open the border for Mexican skilled labor to come in and stay in camps and learn to whistle Dixie.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton, there are three ways hydrogen can be used that I know of: </P> The first two are Hydrogen Combustion and Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Both require pure hydrogen (formed by the electrolysis of water, possibly fuelled by wind, tidal, or solar energy). And the direct chemical reaction of both have only one chemical biproduct: water. </P> However, combustion engines typically operate at much higher temperatures than fuel cells. During the combustion, the temperature raises to a level where oxygen and nitrogen (which is usually pretty much inert in the atmosphere) will combine to form N20 or N402, two different types of nitric acids that then attach to water molecules and form acid rain. </P> The other difference between the combustion of hydrogen and the fuel cell is that the combustion relies on the release of a great amount of energy to heat to drive mechanical movement. However, a hydrogen fuel cell basically uses the electrolysis in reverse to provide mechanical energy with much less energy lost to heat. Basically, fuel cells are more efficient (with current technology and in general theory, anyways). </P> As to Cold Fusion: </P> I did some research on it, but Cold Fusion can be hard to pin down at times. Most people who are working on it are fairly secretive about the technology. </P> Anyways, when we typically think of a nuclear reaction, we think of a high-energy reaction requiring lots of equipment to control (as in a nuclear power plant) or else it releases huge amounts of destructive energy. But Cold Fusion is the concept of somehow forcing a low-energy atomic reaction and somehow harnessing that energy. I haven't been able to find much about it, but from what I've read, it sounds like it may become a mainstream field of study in the next 10 or 15 years. </P> </P> The advantage of Cold Fusion over Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Combustion is that cold fusion makes hydrogen a SOURCE of energy rather than a method of transporting it. Fuel cells and combustion release less energy than is required to seperate the hydrogen from water in the first place. However, Cold Fusion would make it possible to use hydrogen as an actual source of energy. </P> I'm not saying it's without problems. I'm just saying we ought to look at Cold Fusion and see if it's a practical technology to invest in.