I cannot see how my comment could be constued as being any more contoversial than your own, The way I read your comment it gave me the distinct impression that you were suggesting that there was no cost to these companies. I was pointing out there is still a cost and it wont be small even with Government grant aid..
You have now introduced another suggestion of 'kick backs', as far as I know this is not a recognised term, and I certainly do not know how it can be applied to these situations, perhaps you can explain please.
Regardless of the details above, the thrust of my post was not so much about the specifics of the Honda or Toyota plans but more about the need for a coherent and joined up energy policy for the future, which needs to include a variety of solutions, and the need for our usage to become more attuned to the availability of different supplies.
You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but two things are IMO certain, cost of oil based fuels will continuue to rise, and the supply is finite, so it will run out in the end.
As you probably already know the government pays entities an annual amount and this includes domestic if they have funded the installation themselves so in essence the taxpayer pays for windmill. It is almost certain fact that ther are alternatives to fossil based fuels but to use them would be very bad for the economy of any country.
Despite searching I have not been able to find any reference to government subsidiesor grants paid on an annual basis to owners of small generation systems. Perhaps you could give us the web site address where you found this information.
What is easy to find are the schemes where effectivly the grid pays for any excess power generated, which can derive an income to the small generator.This not a subsidy but a commercial arrangment.
The UK is a net importer of fuels, this is demonstrated by our sensitivity to world market trends and the price we pay, which fluctuates, and seems to be on an upward trend.
" It is almost certain fact that ther are alternatives to fossil based fuels but to use them would be very bad for the economy of any country."
It is difficult to see how becomming more self sufficient for fuels would be bad for our economy, perhapse you could explain your comment?
All advice and opinions given are my own and are given in good faith, unless quoted with references, The reader should verify the information given with relevant professionals
If a cheap alternative to fossil based fuels or the combustion engine as we know it is found, millions of people would be out of work which is bad for any country. Why do you think there is no rush to market an alternative?
I think that is a rather over simplified view:-
I never said it would be cheap.
Effectively if you are considering the demise of the IC engine,, then as a standalone event that would be pretty disastourus to the car industry, but it is more likely that if the conventional IC engine were forgotten, that alternatives would take its place, which will need people to develope and manufacture etc.
Also it is likely that alternative fuels to the ground sourced hydrocarbons will become available which will still allow IC engines to be used, probably somewhat changed being smaller and more efficeint.
When conventional fuels become restricted either by supply or price it is almost certain we will have to reconsider out use of personal transport, so motor ownership and production is likley to shrink anyway. This won;t be a sudden collapse, more of a wasting away over several decades.
I beleive that we have already started to see these changes occuring, There is over capacity in car manufacturing, which is why companies are shrinking, cars have become much more fuel efficeint (even lareg luxury cars are getting teh efficencey treatments now) over the last ten years, a trend that will continue, and government are keen to push the price of motoring up as we see with the fuel tax escalator and road fund tax increases, and no meaningfull control on fuel prices at the pumps, more restrictions of parking and access to cities, some cities charging you to keep a car even if its on your land. road tolls etc.
Good post John. My view is that fuel cells may be the way forward as they can also power a household and are environmental friendly although I am not sure of the process to re-charge or activate them. Apparently very little modification is required for the IC engine to accept these fuel cells.
It would be interesting to have your take on these fuel cells? For a caravan they would be ideal and are being used already.
Fuel cells are already available for mobile use in caravanning and camping applications:
Fuel cells are fundamentally devices for combining hydrogen and oxygen and in the process producing electriciy, heat and water. They do not produce a fuel suitable for IC (Internal Combustion) engines.
Fuel cells have been around for a number of decades, extensivly used on the Apollo and later maned space flights. They have subsequently been developed for operations where conventional fuels and engines pose a problem, there are numerous militatry uses where cost is not a major constraint but sadly they are stillquite esoteric and exspensive to buy for normal mortals.
There have been prototype vehicles powered by fuel cells,but so far they still cost to much to implement on a commercial basis. One of the particular difficulties, is the cost of producing the hydrogen rich fuel to run the cells. However I am convinced that with enough commitment many of the technical issues could be overcome, and with the economies of scale, costs could be brought down, but how far and how long - who knows.
On the other side of the balance, the breakeven point will approach sooner if hydrocarbon fuel costs continue to rise.