The economist in me is neutral in terms of the points about hydrogen, how it's made, where it comes from and what it's potential is, especially in transportation, of course, and likewise for electricity.
I still am of the opinion that we should make sure not to pick the winner, but, of course, government does, and hopefully your report talks about how government might create conditions that are favouring certain things. David Layzell talks about how, if we're going to have hydrogen, we need to do some of those. Government needs to step in, and I agree with him.
My point is simply that, if you're getting to zero emission, the world gets a lot simpler, because it means, not only in the end-use combustion of something are you thinking about CO2, and is it in a closed loop however you're getting it, but you have to think about the entire production process. Just to give you an example, in British Columbia we have a low-carbon fuel standard. It's where people can sell and trade credits for how they are reducing the life-cycle carbon intensity of fuels, ethanol and diesel, that are used in transportation. If you look at the charts, you see producers who are ranked to be net zero in their life-cycle emissions.
My point is simply that our policies have to be right across the economy. When you do that, you will produce some ethanol, and you will produce some biodiesel, and they will be zero emission life cycle. What their cost compared to life-cycle zero emission hydrogen and life-cycle zero emission electricity will be, depending on the end use.... I don't know who will win.
I do know that in Scandinavia right now, 20% of liquid fuels are from a biogenic origin. Some of it's imported; some of it's produced locally, and some of it is really focused on having zero life-cycle emissions.
It's that policy you need, and then I don't worry so much about the outcome.