It was a live TV discussion on how to cope with the rising fuel prices and the experts on the panel consisted of well known public figures. I was there on the panel to give some economic output to the discussion. The programme was open to members of the public to make comments or ask questions over the telephone.

The discussion dealt with issues on economising on fossil fuel use, maintaining efficiency in production and reducing the emission of green house gases. The consensus was that the fossil fuel was the sinner and ways of producing alternative energy sources should be explored.

Then a member of the public addressed the panel over the telephone. “There’s a young inventor who has shown that motor vehicle engines can be driven on water. Water is abundantly available and if we help this inventor, all our problems could be solved. It’s cheaper, free from carbon emissions and universally applied,” he said.

The members of the panel immediately took on this idea as if it was the saviour. “That’s true,” one member said. “The use of water for running car engines would help us save valuable foreign exchange which we would otherwise have to spend for importing crude oil. Since carbon free production gives us carbon credit for sale to others, we can earn extra foreign exchange too. So the promotion of this idea is what we should do now to save the nation,” he explained. His reference to carbon credit was the emerging carbon trading market in the west where under an international convention held in Kyoto in 1997 and ratified by many nations, the signatories agreed to reduce carbon emission collectively. So the countries which saved carbon emissions would get carbon credit and are in a position to sell to others who exceed the agreed emission levels. The moderator turned to me for confirmation that water driven motor cars are the most efficient on economic grounds.

“Before we accept this water driven car engine idea, it’s necessary for us to calculate its net benefit. As it is, the net benefit is negligible or even negative. So we should move cautiously,” I said. This answer puzzled all the panelists because it was against the accepted version by many that water driven car engines would bring overall net benefits. The moderator who was also puzzled wanted me to explain my point.

“Energy is all around us and tapping it efficiently and economically for commercial use is the problem. Some conversions are so costly that even at the current high oil prices, they aren’t economical. Harnessing energy in water is also one such example,” I said. They all looked at me in surprise as if they were hearing it for the first time. So I continued.

“Energy in water is hydrogen which like oil can be burned or is combustible. But to separate it from other water molecules is a tedious affair requiring us to use independent energy sources. So that independent energy source should be freely available and should not involve any method that produces green house gases as oil or coal do,” I said. The panel had still not got this idea clearly and I had to give further explanation.

“To separate hydrogen, we have to use electricity. Engineers say that we have to electrolyse or send electric currents through water. This electricity source is the problem. Many inventors use a battery to electrolyse water and that battery has a life span and it should be recharged continuously. If it’s recharged by using domestic electricity supply, then the electricity board has to burn coal or diesel or furnace oil to produce and supply that electricity. This doesn’t serve our purpose of saving foreign exchange or earning carbon credit, because we burn oil somewhere else. If electricity is supplied at a subsidy by the government, then the car users are subsidised by general tax payers. Remember if the government prints money to give the subsidy, then we have the additional problem of inflation hitting everyone.

So these crude inventions don’t help us or the world. We still have to depend on fossil fuel or coal. That is why major car manufacturers have so far not come up with a viable model based on hydrogen fuel cells. It’s still under development and commercial production is about 5 to 10 years away,” I said.
“What you mean is that not every invention is viable in economic terms?” the moderator asked.

“Precisely,” I said “There’re thousands of inventions made every year. But only a few will pass the economic test and out of those few, one or two will pass the commercial test. But those that will pass the commercial test will be put into production and will be viable both economically and commercially.”
“It’s a sad situation for this young inventor. Isn’t there any way for him to proceed further with his invention?” the moderator further questioned.

“No. He should not lose hope,” I said. “He must do his research further and come up with a viable model. Instead of depending on a battery which has to be recharged by using electricity produced by burning oil or coal, he should have an independent electricity supply source based on renewable energy. That will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel and enable us to earn carbon credit which we can sell.”
.