The HYDROGEN ECONOMY?

Question

I recently heard a politician say that the hydrogen economy is still 20 years away - due to the cost that companies like Shell, BP etc would face in developing the technology eg the expense of R&D and the cost of installing the infrasture to make H2 widely available.

Sadly this was also echoed by an industry insider.

Well, if commercial entities as large as Shell and BP are hesitant to invest (whatever the real reason behind their procrastination) and as a result there is a 20 year time lag until we get clean motoring, then....

Q: Isn't this a perfect example of where a nationalised industry should be created? (Very much like the nuclear power industry was created in this country in the second half of last century.) Why can't the Government do that again with the Hydrogen economy? The UK has the money needed to invest; and the right people, to make this a reality. The technology export potential is huge and once installed and functioning here, we could privatise it!

Answer 1

We have to wait for commercial industry to pay for it because the government spends too much money on benefit spongers, drug addicts, NHS trust board-members salaries, foreign wars, dignitaries dinners, illegal immigrants, spying on russia (among others), cherie blair's hair-do's before elections, big fekkin tents in greenwich, heroin and tv's for convicts, etc etc etc.

Answer 2

The US government is much like the UK government. Our govt. screws everything up. We, as a people, would never let our government take over anything. We have been fighting off liberal attempts to nationalize health care, for many years.

All of the research I have seen shows that it takes more energy to create hydrogen than the hydrogen produces. In Iceland, the government has mandated the use of hydrogen to replace fossil fuels. In that case, it is being done on an extremely small scale. And Iceland has an excess of geothermal energy, which they use to make hydrogen. So they can afford to do it.

In the US, General Electric company and others have a method for making synthetic fuels and can do it for $35.00 a barrel. The companies want the US government to insure that price. The govt will not do it. It is not govt responsibility. Secondly, OPEC can manipulate the price of oil, to get it below $35. It would put the US companies out of business. OPEC did it once before, about 30 years ago.

No one can predict when or if the switchover to hydrogen will take place. It will only be done if and when it is economically feasible to do so. Look for some breakthroughs on production methods in the near future. Carnegie Mellon University researchers have discovered that floating powedered coal on the surface of water will give off hydrogen. Other than mining the coal, no energy is used to make the process work. Next step: collect the hydrogen.

Answer 3

The threat of having a government bureaucracy rush in to create an industry is that at this point, we don't know if that industry is economically viable. Hydrogen as fuel might in fact be a really bad idea -- it might just destroy value, it might always consume more energy in production than it delivers, it might require cars that are much too expensive, it might require so many fossil fuel power plants to generate power that it leads to MORE pollution. Don't forget the law of unintended consequences -- Hydrogen may do more harm than good, at this point its too early to tell.

So the benefit of leaving it to private industry is that it is self moderating. If Hydrogen proves to not be economically viable, then the companies trying it won't last long (whereas government program could be a money pit that keeps lingering on). If left to the free market, people will not be forced to bear the costs of switching to hydrogen until they feel it is worth their while and they freely want to do it (why should the government force something on people they don't want -- you live in a democracy don't you?).