Hydrogen power is the terrible idea that refuses to die
We were at the 'dawn of the hydrogen age', the magazine proclaimed. We could look forward to 'cars that go 5,000 miles between fill-ups' and 'electric power plants you buy like appliances'. Even more incredible things would then happen.
'The disappearance of the electric grid is a possibility; a makeover of the electric-utility industry is nearly certain,' the magazine gushed.
It didn't quite work out that way, of course, but advocates of hydrogen never give up. For example, Ballard Power Systems, the Canadian company that the Wired reporter visited 28 years ago, founded by the fuel cell pioneer Geoffrey Ballard, is still going – although its founder died in 2008. The company says it has spent $15bn (£11bn) on research and development, and supplies small quantities of fuel cells to auto manufacturers the world over.
But last week Stellantis, the world's fifth largest carmaker, which owns Peugeot and Vauxhall, said enough is enough. The company has cancelled its hydrogen initiatives, redirecting the capital to electric vehicles and hybrids instead.
'The hydrogen market remains a niche segment, with no prospects of mid-term economic sustainability,' said Jean-Philippe Imparato, the company's European boss. Even the iron fist of net zero bans on petrol and diesel haven't been enough to make hydrogen cars and vans viable.
Toyota hangs on. It's flown the flag for hydrogen for decades, and is on to its second generation of hydrogen-powered Mirai. It's a joy to drive, I'm told. But since you can only 'fill up' at Hatton Cross near Heathrow, Sheffield or Birmingham, it's a niche choice.
Elsewhere, progress is desultory. TfL retains 20 hydrogen buses, out of a fleet over 8,776, but hasn't added any since 2021.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Top Chinese, US trade officials huddle in Sweden for second day of thorny talks over tariffs
Chinese and U.S. trade officials were heading into a second day of meetings in the Swedish capital Tuesday to try to break a logjam over tariffs that have skewed the pivotal commercial ties between the world's two largest economies. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng made no public comments to reporters after the first day of talks that lasted nearly five hours behind closed doors at the Swedish prime minister's office Monday. Before the talks resumed Tuesday, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson met with Bessent and U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer over breakfast. The United States has struck deals over tariffs with some of its key trading partners — including Britain, Japan and the European Union — since President Donald Trump announced 'Liberation Day' tariffs against dozens of countries in April. China remains perhaps the biggest unresolved case. 'The Chinese have been very pragmatic," Greer said in comments posted on social media by his office late Monday. 'Obviously we've had a lot of tensions over the years. We have tensions now, but the fact that we are regularly meeting with them to address these issues gives us a good footing for these negotiations.' 'Whether there will be a deal or not, I can't say,' Greer added in the clip posted on X from MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'. "Whether there's room for an extension, I can't say at this point. But the conversations are constructive and they're going in the right direction.' Many analysts expect that the Stockholm talks, at a minimum, will result in an extension of current tariff levels that are far lower than the triple-digit percentage rates as the U.S.-China tariff tiff crescendoed in April, sending world markets into a temporary tailspin. The two sides backed off the brink during bilateral talks in Geneva in May and agreed to a 90-day pause — which is set to end on Aug. 12 — of those sky-high levels. They currently stand at U.S. tariffs of 30% on Chinese goods, and China's 10% tariff on U.S. products. Other issues on the agenda include access of American businesses to the Chinese market; Chinese investment in the U.S.; components of fentanyl made in China that reach U.S. consumers; Chinese purchases of Russian and Iranian oil; and American steps to limit exports of Western technology, like chips that help power artificial intelligence systems. Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator and now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said that Trump's team would face challenges from 'a large and confident partner that is more than willing to retaliate against U.S. interests.' Rollover of tariff rates 'should be the easy part,' she said, warning that Beijing has learned lessons since the first Trump administration and 'will not buy into a one-sided deal this time around.' On Monday, police have cordoned off a security zone along Stockholm's vast waterfront as rubbernecking tourists and locals sought a glimpse of the top-tier officials through a phalanx of TV news cameras lined up behind metal barriers. Flagpoles at the prime minister's office were festooned with the American and Chinese flags.
Reuters
2 minutes ago
- Reuters
Amundi second-quarter profit misses expectations, shares fall
PARIS, July 29 (Reuters) - Asset manager Amundi ( opens new tab reported weaker-than-expected quarterly profit on Tuesday as margins came under pressure from lower net management fees partly due to a depreciation in the U.S. dollar, sending its shares down nearly 6% in early trading. Adjusted net income over the April-to-June period fell 4.5% from a year earlier to 334 million euros ($386 million), below the 345 million euros expected on average by analysts polled by the company. Net revenue fell 1% to 790 million euros, also below expectations. Shares in Europe's largest asset manager, which is controlled by French bank Credit Agricole ( opens new tab, fell nearly 6% at market open and were down 4.3% by 0749 GMT. Analysts at Goldman Sachs said Amundi's margins were hit by a decrease in net management fees, due to a weaker U.S. dollar, a greater share of institutional clients who pay lower fees, and inflows into lower-margin products like passive and fixed income funds. Net inflows in the second quarter were 20.4 billion euros ($23.65 billion), bringing total assets under management to a new record of 2.27 trillion euros. Amundi said institutional investors and third-party distributors poured money into both passive and active strategies, especially those focused on European markets, as clients seek to rebalance the allocations of their assets. "What we saw a lot of during the first half of the year was, first and foremost, many European clients repatriating and diversifying their allocations," CEO Valerie Baudson told reporters on a call. "In particular, they repatriated a lot of money that had been invested outside Europe back to Europe. We also saw a lot of interest from American and Asian clients," she said. She added that she expected minimal impact on European economic growth from the framework trade agreement struck between the United States and the European Union. ($1 = 0.8625 euros)
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Throwing money at foreign countries does nothing to keep migrants out
Does foreign aid reduce migration? This has been a major question among academics and politicians for decades, as higher-income countries have tried to stem the flow of legal and illegal immigrants from lower-income countries. The argument runs that migrants are driven by both push and pull factors. Push factors in their countries of origin can include local insecurity or a bad economy. Pull factors in their destination countries can include flexible labour markets or state welfare. Therefore, if foreign aid can address some of these issues, potential migrants will supposedly be able to focus on achieving economic success at home rather than leaving. However, some have criticised this theory: the economic gap between high and low-income countries is so great that it is very difficult for any amount of aid to create the conditions needed to prevent people leaving. Indeed, some have referred to a so-called 'migration hump', by which they mean that low income countries which get rich enough often end up having more emigration, not less. This is because more people then have the money to afford to move to the West. We can see this with the Vietnamese, who make up one of the largest national groups crossing the Channel on small boats. Vietnam has been very economically successful over the last two decades and living standards have risen significantly. Nonetheless, life in Vietnam is still poorer than in Britain, so people have a strong incentive to leave if they can. In order to reach a level of economic success that would make leaving truly unattractive, developing countries need to more or less achieve parity with the West. In the 1950s, South Korea was poorer than many Sub-Saharan African countries. Through hard work and good leadership, they now have comparable lives to Westerners, and there are few illegal Korean immigrants as a result. However, it's unrealistic to imagine that most countries will achieve this, or that foreign aid can be primarily responsible. On the contrary, there has been widespread criticism of the foreign aid industry for getting countries hooked on charity rather than letting them do the hard work of developing themselves. Those countries which get the most aid have often been recipients for decades, and look to be so for many decades yet to come. The idea that a few million or even billion in foreign aid will reduce immigration to Britain is therefore unrealistic. Indeed, one major study by the University of Essex found that foreign aid did reduce the desire of people in the Gambia to emigrate, but that as soon as the foreign aid project ended, the Gambians involved went straight back to wanting to leave. There is neither the money nor the will for the West to prop up the economies of the developing world to a level sufficient to prevent people wanting to leave. The announcement by the Government last year that they would spend £100 million on foreign aid to reduce root causes of migration came at the same time as their plan to smash the gangs. It seems likely that this was the carrot to the law enforcement stick. With the number of those crossing the Channel on small boats continuing to rise, it is clear that both have failed. Britain cannot fix the whole world. However, we can control our own borders. This will be much more effective and cost-effective. This is controversial to some, because it will mean tackling international law, with measures such as leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. However, those who are worried should take heart that president Trump has expressed a willingness to jettison old international agreements that no longer work. There is now an appetite at the highest levels for change. There is also a strong humanitarian case for doing so. Our current porous borders allow criminal gangs to ply their trade. Every year people die taking the dangerous journey; some of them are women and children. So great has the cost of dealing with illegal immigrants become that successive governments have taken money from the foreign aid budget to pay for the hotels needed to keep legal immigrants in. Regaining control of our borders isn't just a political necessity; it's a moral one.
