Jeremy Rifkin (yes, I know, he's a 'lib', but like Pat Buchanan, once you don't let his mantle distract you, you can find some interesting commentary within his writings...) in his book "The Hydrogen Economy", effectively illustrates how the use of a new fuel source would not be the panacea we're looking for, because the energy puzzle contains (besides exploration/exploitation) processing, transportation, delivery, end-point (at the consumer point-of-use, where safety and efficiency butt up against cost & "bang-for-the-buck" - this is where Gasoline still wins when compared to Hydrogen) storage and infrastructure components. For example, our current energy grid reflects a centralized, top-down design - oil exploited, then transported over large distances to processing points, in turn distributed over further long distances to local distribution points (gas stations) from which the consumer taps into it.
Rifkin visualizes the combined effects of ever-evolving (and miniaturizing...) technology, entreprenuerialship and - using what-is-today an increasingly de-centralized information society best represented by the Internet - local processing/storage/distribution nodes eventually replacing this top-down "corporate" paradigm in how we get, move, store and use our energy.
He makes a pretty compelling argument, but again, he's a "big-picture" guy - the devil is, as always, in the details.
But he is intrigueing. I've some preconceptions about how a hydrogen (or at least, a non-foreign-oil-dependent...) economy could come true, and I gotta tell ya, I like the idea of getting all these middle-men out of the picture. After all, even when you remove the "we'll charge what we want" Saudi effect (which is how it costs them 2 - $3 per barrel to extract, but costs us 27 - $40 to buy from them), a simple look at what a gallon costs us at the pump shows plenty of taxes, fees, etc that are doubling the impact to our pockets.
Also, I believe that we the general public are placing too much emphasis on what the energy companies/corporations are telling us about how viable these solutions are. I read up on this periodically, and once I get past all the tech jargon, I basically read the same thing, that Hydrogen (as compared to current petroleum) would be difficult to transport, to store safely, to convert effectively in a way that the existing web of plants-routes-localGas stations-consumers could effectively use. after all, if they are market-based entities, than logically they don't want to put themselves out of business - which means they'll try to graft any new energy sources exploitation/use model into/onto the current design. And this is the only way they can realistically look at the problem, because the infrastructure belongs to them... it would be corporate/financial suicide for them to develop a technology that allows me to have a safe and efficient hydrogen-generator that provides me fuel for home and transportation right under my roof...
But we really can't expect revolutionary ideas/initiatives on this issue from the entities-in-charge as they explain how we can find, develop and use future energy sources, if there exists the possibility that such ideas could mean we must do away with the current model, and their existence depends on our continued dependence upon the current model in the first place. That's like asking the fox guarding the hen-house how safe the eggs are. Yet we still do this, or at least nod knowingly and deferentially to these experts as we "entrust" our future energy needs to their all-knowing and "altruistic" explanations.
In synthesizing my view of Rifkin's ideas, I ultimately come to have great faith in two things that I believe will ultimately hold true: the unstoppable advance (and miniaturization/growing efficiency of/decentralization of and accessibility of...) of technology, and good old-fashioned American Ingenuity. The former really can't be stopped, and the latter gives me great hope that somewhere in a midwestern farmhouse, some kids are going to be able to figure out a way to create the modern-day, hydrogen equivalent of an 18th century "well" that can provide answers for many of the needs of the consumer at the lowest level possible.
CGVet58
This is my very first post and probably is too long...if it is, I promise to do better next time.
I was an eyewitness to what happened in Venezuela in 1998 when Hugo Chavez came to power. In February of 1998, many thought the shoo-in winner was the former Miss Venezuela ( who is now governor of Margarita Island).
But as the campaign continued, it became apparent what Chavez and his cadre of workers wearing red berets were going to do. They were going to hijack the election with the politics of fear.
We could have written a script about how it was going to go down. I told people back then that if you liked Fidel Castro, you would love Hugo Chavez. Our diplomats over at Foggy Bottom were asleep at the switch, and their leader committed malpractice every time she opened her mouth.
Chavez is determined to keep the price of oil at $50 or above because the revenue for PDVSA (which is already nationalized, by the way) is a windfall. An old adage in business says that revenue hides a lot of sins.
Chavez uses the money to keep the poor in the country on his side. You ain't seen nothing yet...watch how his land redistribution program moves along.
By the way, I do not suppose that the transition to hydrogen will happen overnight.