Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles: Time To Say Goodbye
My colleague Jon LeSage offers this wonderful edition of his Green Auto Digest, summing up the progress that has been made in clean transportation in 2016, and speculating as to what we may expect to see in the coming year.
Here are a couple of interesting findings:
• Tesla has cashed over 400,000 checks of $1000 each as pre-orders for its Model 3 battery EV, range: 200+ miles, to be delivered in early 2017 at a price point of $35,000 (less incentives).
• The Honda Clarity maintains its lead in the hydrogen fuel cell sector of the industry, which it has held for as long as I can remember, yet the sales numbers are a tiny fraction of that of the Tesla offering.
What do these two facts mean when taken in conjunction with one another? Maybe they show that it’s time to declare that battery-electric vehicles are most certainly going to beat out hydrogen cars, and that the latter have zero chance of becoming competitive against the former.
There are numerous reasons for this as discussed here, including, to name a few: the complication and cost of making pure hydrogen, the well-to-wheels cost of hydrogen to the environment, the low efficiency of fuel cells, the alarmingly short longevity of fuel cells before they break down, the almost complete absence of a fuel delivery infrastructure, and the huge price tag.
I’m reminded of an unsuccessful mayoral candidate in Philadelphia in the early 1970s who said at his concession speech, “There is a time in every campaign when the winner wins and the loser loses.” It’s really time to say goodbye here and move on.
“Hydrogen cars” were never more than a special type of series hybrid electric car. But we are caught in this time loop of their being pulled out as “the solution” anytime the petrochemical companies want to delay electric transportation a bit more.
In the latest variation gov officials are being told that they don’t want to “pick winners and losers” and should therefore subsidize hydrogen vehicles. The latest push for hydrogen vehicles also seems to be less about market economics than government incentives: “The current hydrogen push has less to do with consumer demand than with government incentives that treat fuel-cell vehicles (FCV) as equal to or better than electric vehicles.” says this article: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a10175/the-hydrogen-car-is-back-again-16528552/
Noe-Conservatives politicians will scream about waste and picking winners but not when it comes to the chosen “alternative” vehicle of their doners.
Hydrogen vehicles were a bad idea when most of their history was filled with scams about powering cars from water. They were a bad idea when proposed by the Bush administration in 2003 as an alternative to battery electric cars and they are a bad idea today.
If petrochemical companies want them so badly they should subsidize them from their own coffers rather than the public purse. But they won’t because they don’t want to show their hand and also know that they are a bad investment.
The first time I heard of hydrogen fueled vehicles, I could see that they made little sense. Because I had never said “hello”, there was no need to say “good bye”. I was totally mystified why anyone ever even considered them, for reasons which have been amply stated.
Conceivably there may be some very small niche market for H2 fueled vehicles but except for space craft, I have no idea what it could be.
Craig,
As you know I have a long standing vested interest in the success of Electric vehicles, however despite my personal feelings, I feel you are being unfair to HFCV technology.
HFCV technology is misunderstood by most EV supporters and commentators like John Le Sage. The leading two developers, are Toyota and Hyundai (not Honda, who are relatively small players).
HFCV’s and EV’s both arose from the need to develop zero emission vehicles as a replacement for fossil fuels, in particular gasoline and diesel.
Both vehicles share the impetus provided by high oil prices and to a lessor extent, ‘peak oil’. In recent years CAFE, climate change and zero emission vehicles emerged as important factors just as oil abundance killed concerns regarding ‘peak oil’ and high oil prices.
The two technologies both suffered limitations and deficiencies in their respective capacities when compared to rapid advances in ICE efficiency.
HFCV’s are alive and very prosperous ! Nearly 50% of all forklifts are HFCV units, ( 80% of those are Toyota). providing a lot of experience in HFCV capacity.
The limitations of EV technology is ESD capacity. Despite early predictions, the consumers haven’t warmed to the restrictions of EV technology.
Although EV’s are zero emission vehicles, consumers are turned off by :
1) Slow charging times
2) Range restrictions
3) Difficulty in charging
4) High purchase cost
5) Technology unsuited to heavy vehicles
Despite all the arguments by enthusiasts, consumers have proved unwilling to change their lifestyles to suit a vehicle. Consumers prefer convenience and perception than concern for the environment.
Tesla heroic efforts notwithstanding, and with all the best hopes for GM’s Bolt and Nissan’s leaf, market penetration remains tiny, less than 1% of vehicles sales, and not even equal to one year’s production of the Toyota Prius !
In contrast, HFCV technology suffers from only one restriction:
1) Economic necessity.
There’s no HFCV enthusiasts. Unlike EV’s, there’s no backyard, would be, auto entrepreneurs trying to build HFCV’s ! (Myself included) No start up Tesla’s, no eager converters.
HFCV technology requires massive corporate funding, considerable engineering, and a massive distribution infrastructure.
While EV sales don’t exceed 5% of the market and gasoline/diesel remains cheap and plentiful, ICE vehicles will remain very profitable in comparison to EV’s.
It’s true to say that EV sales, (with the possible exception of Tesla) collapse without massive government incentives.
In such a climate, why would anyone invest in HFCV mass production ?
So why is both Toyota and Hyundai continuing expensive R&D ? The answer’s simple. Both companies manufacture a significant number of specialist HFCV’s. The cost of Toyota’s HFCV large vehicle and car R&D experimental program is written off against it’s hugely profitable specialist division.
Toyota and Hyundai see HFCV’s as a hedging bet.
HFCV’s have major advantages over BEV technology.
1) The technology is mature.
2) No range anxiety
3) Fueling regime the same, or similar to ICE.
4) Competitive purchase cost
5) Fuel cost approx 1/3 of gasoline/diesel.
This is a big company product. If market conditions suggested it was favorable to introduce HFCV thechnology on massive scale then a combination of large auto-manufactures and H2 suppliers would roll out the required infrastructure, while restricting the supply of gasoline/diesel on a global scale. The corporations have the knowledge, logistical resources and capital to do so profitably.
Governments would bend over backward to assist. Why ? Because HFCV technology protects and continues a major source of government revenue, the tax at the pump on gasoline/diesel. Governments would also love the massive increase in economic activity.
Currently, EV’s are not a threat to anyone as the ESD capacity is very limited. It’s not unreasonable to say the fate of EV’s depends on a breakthrough in ESD technology.
As for such consideration as ;
1) “The complication and cost of making pure hydrogen” ,
2) “the almost complete absence of a fuel delivery infrastructure”
3)”huge price tag “.
Those are minor and irrelevant considerations to the huge corporations involved and easily solved. In fact, building the infrastructure would actually be profitable before the first kilo of hydrogen was sold.
considerations such as :
1) “the well-to-wheels cost of hydrogen to the environment”.
2) ” the low efficiency of fuel cells”
may be of concern to a few marginal “green’ enthusiasts, but the vast majority of consumers don’t care ! Show them a vehicle which looks familiar, drives the same, offers the same convenience, is cheaper to run and zero emissions, no one will give a damn about ” well-to-wheel” !
As for “the alarmingly short longevity of fuel cells before they break down ” , that’s being about as true as claims Prius batteries lasted only two years and caught fire !
If it’s got a Toyota badge, the public will trust the technology. Toyota’s warranty covers fuel cells for 8 years, that will be good enough for the average consumer.
The only thing stopping the introduction of HFCV technology on a wider scale, is the lack of need.
“nearly 50% of forklifts are HFCV units”…
That is not true at all.
It’s not even remotely true in any capacity.
It sounded like a level of bullshit usually reserved for statements made by Trump or his surrogates, so I assume you have misread your source.
My suspicion is that your source said 50% of all HFCV’s were forklifts, which I would imagine could be correct.
As for the rest…
It’s just not worth it. EV’s are not really competitive in today’s world, but they are 1/5th – 1/10th the price of an HFCV and last 5 times as long; they get greater mileage on a charge than an HFCV would get on a full “tank” of H2; they take a similar amount of time to “refill”, and the fuel costs ~10X as much per unit energy.
There is no chance that an HFCV would ever be competitive in any future market as compared to a BEV… and BEV’s aren’t competitive with ICE’s yet (and likely won’t be for another couple of decades).
arg… The fuel for an HFCV costs ~10X more per unit energy than the electricity required for a BEV.
(it’s frustrating at times to post on a site that doesn’t enable editing.)
😉
Glenn,
You are correct, my reference didn’t make clear that 50% referred to the growth in sales of forklifts using alternate fuels.
Fuel cell forklifts like rival electric vehicles have been largely restricted to indoor use since introduction. However, with the introduction of ‘drop in’ conversions, the technology has seen a dramatic growth, especially replacing LPG.
In a mere three years Fuel-cell-powered forklifts (often powered by ‘drop-in units’) have come to dominate in such applications as refrigerated warehouses etc.
Much of the problem for electric Fork lifts has been a reliance on cheaper, but old technology in the form of lead acid batteries.
But let’s look at the rest of your assertions:
1) “(A BEV)gets greater mileage on a charge than an HFCV would get on a full “tank” of H2″ .
Really ? Compare :
a) Toyota Mirai ; 321 miles per tank.
b) BMW i3 (94) 114 miles
2) ” they (BEV) take a similar amount of time to “refill”,”
Again, compare :
a) Toyota Mirai; 3 minutes.
B) BMW i3; Level 1 charging (110-volt) 20 hours. Level 2 charging (230-volt) 3.5 hours.
3) ” BEV cost 1/5th – 1/10th the price of an HFCV and last 5 times as long.
a) Toyota Mirai; $58,335 8 Year warranty
B) BMW i3; US$47,195 8 year warranty
It would appear you’ve had a few ” Trump moments” yourself, eh !
The cost of hydrogen for automotive use has never been established beyond the experimental market, however Shell and Air-liquid both expressed confidence that with mass production, H2 would be marketed at a slightly lower price than gasoline including taxation at current levels.
This would still give HFCV a lower operating cost than ICE.
HFCV technology is both complex and difficult, but it works. EV’s are far more elegant and a lot more promising, but restricted by the low capacity of the ESD technology.
EV’s also have much greater compatibility for autonomous operation.
But while gasoline/diesel remains cheap and plentiful, neither technology is making much headway.
I was assuming similar performance levels.
The Mirai is a subcompact car with little passenger and/or trunk space that is rated at 0-60 in 9+ seconds… similar to a Nissan Versa Note.
The BMWi3 is a subcompact car with plenty of cargo and passenger space and can accelerate from 0-60 in 4 seconds.
The BMWi3 is a luxury sports car, the Mirai is… not.
I’m concerned about apples-to-apples. Not Mirai vs a BMWi3.
😉
Also, the full tanks on a Mirai have a 70 MPa charge (10,000 psi), and store 5 kg apiece. The most efficient compressors out there would require ~3.5 kWh/kg, so those ridiculous tanks require 35 KWh of electrical energy in order to charge the tanks. A Tesla S would be able to travel nearly 100 miles on the electricity used to compress the hydrogen for the Mirai. Electrolysis is ~70% efficient at best, so it would take another ~560 kWh in order to produce the H2 that would be stored in those tanks…
And that doesn’t factor in the inevitable losses in storage and transfer. Nor is there any information on the longevity of the Mirai… I suspect it will be quite short. Nor does it investigate the amount of subsidies that Toyota has received in its development nor the level of losses that it is incurring in the production and sale of these units.
So my general statements were still quite valid, even if I haven’t looked into this issue in several years.
There’s just no possibility this will ever be able to compete with an EV.
And remember we aren’t yet at a point where an EV can compete with an ICEV.
Glenn,
You really should get out a little more !
1) “The Mirai is a subcompact car similar to a Nissan Versa”
Untrue ! The Toyota Murai is a Mid-size (US) 4-door sedan with the same boot space as a Camry.(length 4,890 mm)
2) The BMW i3 is not a luxury sports car ! It’s a small, oddly shaped, rather fat little sub-compact 4 door commuter car. You are thinking of the vastly more expensive ($145,000) BMW i8 ! (a true sports car).
3) Do you really imagine the average consumer cares about the amount of energy consumed by the gas pump to fill a car ? Or for that matter whether electrolysis is ~70%, 60% or 80% efficient ?
4) As for 0-60 acceleration, that’s not a big selling factor, except among boy racers, and motoring writers, that fact is evidenced by the largest selling vehicles in 2016;
Toyota Corolla
Volkswagen Golf
Ford F-Series
Ford Focus
Not vehicles noted for rapid acceleration !
5) Toyota warranty’s the Mirai for 8 years. That’s longer than the warranty on any ICE, so how on earth can you, with no supporting material claim ” the longevity of the Mirai will be quite short” ?
It would appear that your information on both EV’s and HFCV’s is either completely out of date, or just plain wrong !
Given the errors in your facts, it’s quite evident that none of your general statements are valid.
Even your claim that ” we aren’t yet at a point where an EV can compete with an ICEV ” is out of date.
The Tesla S, LEVRR, BMW i8, Leaf and GM’s new Bolt, have all shown the potential to compete in their market sectors, although only the Tesla S has reached significant numbers. In the case of Toyota Hybrids (especially Lexus) EV technology has proved highly successful reaching massive volume sales.
I suspect that you have never owned, or even driven an EV, or bothered to experience the Mirai.
It is revealing that 96% of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels (mostly ngas, and virtually all vehicle fuel is made this way.) This would make a hydrogen fueled car an alternative fossil fuel car rather than an alternative fuel car. It may be more efficient and cheaper to simply make ngas powered vehicles.
While this is the argument that fossil fuel interests have been trying to make for years regarding the BEV (a coal powered car) the percentages and supply chain shows the difference.
When you notice that the argument of hydrogen cars being a fossil fuel powered car is not heard, it begins to become clear who is making such arguments. It is not independently minded environmental thinkers but partisan petrochemical interests.
– Also while it is also said that hydrogen could allow fueling of vehicles “like traditional fuels.” I wonder if this has been so carefully thought out. Gasoline is a liquid that will fall to the ground if spilled or leaked. Fire suppression equipment installed at fueling stations are intended to treat this type of fire.
Hydrogen has an annoying tendency to leak from most containers due to the size of its molecule. It also tends to combine with most substances changing their characteristics. Tubes, nozzles and valves can become brittle and break. Hydrogen is an invisible and odorless gas. A leak would not be seen or easily detected. Hydrogen burns mostly in the UV and not the IR range and a fire starting in bright sunlight would not be seen and could not be felt unless the body were in the flame. A fireball would tend to rise, rather than fall, potentially damaging or quickly moving past the very fire protection equipment that might be required to put out a subsequent gasoline fire.
The first time I see a hydrogen pump next to a gasoline pump is when I will consider how far and how fast I can move away.
Breath,
I had not known that burning H2 emits radiation mostly in the UV range. Here is a quotation from an article about H2:
“Hydrogen fires, compared to hydrocarbon fires, emit little visible light and little IR radiant heat. Instead, energy is radiated primarily in the UV band. Therefore, without doubt, UV detectors excel at detecting hydrogen fires. In addition, they have a good detection range and can see a 24-inch plume flame up to 50 feet away (see figure 2).”
Here is the link to the article from which I copied the above:
http://www.rimbach.com/scripts/Article/IHN/Number.idc?Number=128
I suppose that burning hydrocarbons also emit considerable energy in the UV range.
Also from the same article you cited, “Because there is little radiant heat emitted to the environment and nothing to see, your senses won’t warn you to stop. You might walk directly into the flame.
The physical flame has more “punch” than a hydrocarbon flame, i.e., the temperature is higher. The result? If the flame impinges on another piece of equipment, the heat of a hydrogen flame will have a stronger effect than a hydrocarbon flame of the same size.”
I can just imagine the sound bite from a victim of a hydrogen fire, “I couldn’t see nothin. I didn’t feel nothin. Next I knew, I was all burnt up.” And then all the money invested in hydrogen development follows the path of the Hindenburg. Hydrogen is not only dangerous but it is a relatively unknown danger making it even more hazardous.
I think Frank that the take away is that hydrogen fires essentially lack IR radiation and visible light and are therefore a serious problem for human senses to detect.
Breath,
You are quite correct,H2 doesn’t need to be made from natural gas, but in reality that’s the most economical method.
You are also correct when you identify the stakeholders in HFCV-H2 technology being the major Automakers, Oil/Gas Companies and governments.
But that’s exactly why the technology stands a chance.
Marco, Your comment suggests a preference for a top down distribution of goods and price over a market distribution.
So you are saying that Corporations and government will set the price and encourage the distribution of FCEV and that is why it will work. Yep, that seems to be what is happening.
A cynic might suggest that it is then a further extension of capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich, hypocrisy and a bit of a scam. I try not to be cynical.
Breath,
Thank you for your reply.
I have no ‘preference’ as such, I’m simply offering a plausible scenario.
The old ideological terms of capitalism and socialism are a very outdated. There are some technologies and industries which require the organization, capital and logistical experience and expertise only major corporations can supply.
In my estimation, the construction and implementation of technology such as a conversion to an HFCV-H2 fleet would require the total commitment of many large corporations and enthusiastic government support.
Analyzing the logistic, political and economic dynamics, HFCV-H2 is not only possible but viably feasible on a global scale.
Currently, there is insufficient incentive to implement such a plan, and a worrying negative in the possibility of a radical “breakthrough’ in ESD technology.
Large corporations and experienced governments try to plan on a large scale. In drawing up the logistics for such a gigantic undertaking, a huge number of factors, often unrelated to the actual project, must be considered.
Large corporations are not usually eager to innovate. Innovation requires risk, gambling on the unknown and willingness to fail, things most corporate executives try to avoid . (it’s cheaper to just buy successful start-ups).
Large corporations are usually very good at logistical implementation. Especially, on a large scale. the later half of the Twentieth Century showed the managerial strength and organizational ability of US Corporations, along with western counter-parts.
It also displayed the weaknesses of large corporations when they became too risk adverse and bureaucratic.
My favourite quote from the CEO of a large corporation, is the observation by Akio Toyoda after his first year as CEO of Toyota Corporation.
” I dreamed that once if was CEO I would control Toyota, but I have discovered my position is very similar to trying to steer a large and unruly elephant by it’s ears!”
Over a decade ago, a number of large corporations, including Shell, Toyota, Air Liquid etc, sponsored a feasibility study by a firm of strategy and logistical analysts to study the feasibility and all other aspect of implementing a roll out of infrastructure etc, for the implementation of HFCV-H2 gasoline/diesel replacement.
The brief was ongoing, and the ‘study’ continues into the future.
( If you are interested, I can explain how the infrastructure providers can make a profit before selling the first Kilo of H2).
Minor aspects like fueling safety, distribution etc were solved many years ago.
Obviously, my personal preference is for EV development, but I’m also aware that my preference doesn’t count when dealing with such a vast dynamic.
I keep investing in EV technology because I want it to succeed, but I would be exceedingly naive or just plain daft to ignore the huge elephant in the corner !
So Marco, because “the old ideological terms of capitalism and socialism are a very outdated,” are you implying that they should not be studied and understood? Perhaps that they don’t exist in pure form? Or maybe your perspective is similar to those who advocate that fiat currencies are part of the “new” economy and that there is no need to secure currency in anything “of material value?”
There are dozens of ways to make money from a proposal without selling any product. They tend to range from the marginally legitimate to an outright scam. I think I will decline to inquire what you are considering.
I tend to focus on the intrinsic value of a technology rather than how much money can be made from it regardless of other considerations.
This is not everyone’s focus and certainly there are some interested in renewable energy only for how much money might be made, perhaps even seeing an opportunity in the dearth of business perspective in the field.
Breath,
Backing up currency with gold or something else of intrinsic value does not limit the money supply to the extent that is commonly thought. Only a small amount of the money supply is in paper money or coins. Most of it is in the form of bank deposits.
When money is deposited in a bank, the bank lends much of it out. When a borrower receives the money, he or someone else deposits it in a bank and the bank lends it to someone else. The result is that the money supply continues to increase limited only by the demand for money and the percentage of bank deposits which the bank is permitted to lend out. Thus, a dollar, even if backed up by gold, silver, or something else if intrinsic value, can expand by several times. Thus, it can turn out that only 20% or so of the dollars are actually backed up, i.e., secured by something of material value. The money supply continually expands and contracts depending on the demand for money which varies with the state of the economy and the interest rate, and with reserve requirements. That is true whether or not each paper dollar is backed up by gold, silver, or whatever. Basically, we are operating with fiat money.
Breath,
The world has certainly moved on from economic doctrines conceived in the 18th and 19th century.
Forgive me if I find your response narrow-minded and more than a little intolerant.
You are certainly entitled to your personal philosophy, but it’s egocentric and more than a little irrelevant when discussing what a mass market may or may not desire.
As I pointed out in my reply, it really doesn’t matter what technology I may prefer, unless millions of my fellow consumers agree, my preferences are simply irrelevant.
I invite you to re-consider your retort :
“There are dozens of ways to make money from a proposal without selling any product. They tend to range from the marginally legitimate to an outright scam. I think I will decline to inquire what you are considering” .
Without any knowledge (or even inquiry), you have already judged and condemned something as either ” marginally legitimate or an outright scam” !
You decline to inquire presumably because you would rather believe in the wickedness of others, rather than expand your knowledge.
Actually there are a great many perfectly honest, legal and legitimate ways a major corporation can make profit from a product other than point of sale.
Saying your interest in renewable energy technology is for it’s “intrinsic value” or for ‘altruistic motives’, sounds very high-minded and praiseworthy, but is it really?
These technologies need to be commercially viable to cover the vast cost or research, development and commercialization. This takes a tremendous amount of experience, skill and discipline by people you obviously despise, to bring these projects alive so you can reap the benefits.
Hi Frank,
You are correct that we are operating with fiat money here in the US (and across much of the globe), and your description of fractional banking is essentially correct. Indeed, many large banks are far more deeply leveraged than a robust 20% of liabilities on deposit.
US banks are ultimately dependent on the “full faith and credit” of the United States (through FDIC and other mechanisms).
As long as enough of the proper people in the proper places continue to have faith and extend credit, our nation’s house of cards may remain standing, but it remains a house of cards.
In fact, with recent legislation in the past decade, banks are actually permitted to take depositors’ funds to pay off creditors.
Heads, they win – tails, we lose. That’s the system of privatized profit and socialized loss we can expect when we allow our “public servants” to be rendered mere chattel beneath the deluge of bribery capital now long submerging our state and federal capitols.
People have forgotten about the very successful state-owned banks (they still exist and do well, but used to be common). Another option is the banking services once offered through the United States Postal Service (now prohibited). Our shrinking Public Commons has been continually under assault and usurpation for many decades, and the process is accelerating.
Want improvement? Ban bribery in all its forms. That’s the most important and central issue that controls all others. As long as cash reigns over our nation as king, we’ll more and more be slaves to the most vicious greed and craven cowardice.
Cameron,
In earlier times, there was no Federal Reserve Bank and money was supposedly backed up with gold. However, boom and bust cycles were more severe and more frequent. It is unclear that backing up money with gold actually serves any useful purpose. Bank failures were common even with gold backup.
Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of Economics advocated expanding the money supply at a steady and controlled rate instead of attempting to regulate it to dampen swings. It was his position that it was impossible to know what the optimal response of the Federal Reserve should be and that it was likely to be out of phase with what was required thereby exacerbating problems. I feel no need to take a position on that.
The U.S. Postal Savings System was implemented because people did not trust banks. Probably most people now are unaware that it ever existed.
Ban bribery? Good idea, but exceedingly difficult to enforce completely. I would favor re-enacting the Glass-Steagall Act and making a few other changes as well, such as reinstating anti-trust action. Deregulation was at least partly responsible for the Great Recession. And, the gap between rich and poor has become greatly excessive. Surely by now it is clear that “trickle down” does not work.
Frank,
I’m afraid the idea of money having some kind of intrinsic value, was outdated by the 19th century.
In the modern world, money or even wealth, is a very complicated,complex complex and exceedingly difficult for most people to understand.
For the average person money or wealth is tangible, usually representing tangible assets or security. The average person has very little perception of the dynamics of modern global economics.
Naturally, this is pretty scary for those who ponder such things and it’s even more natural for some people desperately seek to simple economic doctrines promoting simplicity, certainty and adherence to ‘moral’ virtue.
To these people the complex dynamics of modern economic practice, are bewildering and create a feeling of helpless insecurity.
That’s unfortunate, because with 7 billion (and rising) people, our world is not getting simpler, but rapidly even more complex.
The only thing backing modern currencies, (or wealth) is perception. Naturally, the perception of wealth for a billionaire is different from someone on minimum wage.
Many folk like Cameron and Breath, become indignant with the idea of conspicuous wealth. They seek a ‘moral’ solution. This usually boils down to an old fashioned “wealth re-distribution”, outdated with the end of the agrarian era.
Modern wealth can’t be ‘re-distributed’ or it ceases to exist ! In a complex globalized world even nation state taxation measures are ineffective. Likewise the nature of wealth defies re-distribution.
Modern wealth is simply created from human ingenuity. Money no longer represents goods or resources needed to maintain human existence. Real wealth is illusory and impossible to re-distribute without destroying not just the value, but the entire economy.
Cameron yearns for simple solutions. Much like those old style beauty contestants earnestly proclaiming their desire to, “work for world peace”, his trite platitudes are meaningless.
“Banning all corruption”, really translates to “banning what I don’t understand or don’t like” !
Like Don Quixote these folk tilt at windmills created by their own feelings of impotence. large corporations are not sinister monsters run by a small cabal of evil men. The are like nations, made up of thousands (even millions) of interconnecting human beings.
Everyone impacts on each other. No individual (or secret cabal) is powerful enough to exercise total control.
Let me provide an example. Recently Sotheby’s auctioned a pair of diamond earrings for $2,958,927. Obviously, there’s no way the earring’s could be “re-distributed’ and have no real practical value.
The young internet entrepreneur who bought the earrings earned the price buying and selling memorabilia, none of which has any intrinsic value. The ‘wealth’ is illusory, yet that’s nothing in comparison to the ‘De Beers’ Millennium blue diamond ring sold for $32,013,223 to a trader in obscure and complicated financial derivatives(none of which have any discernible intrinsic wealth).
A clerk at Sotheby’s couldn’t earn enough in a lifetime to put down a deposit on the earrings, yet for practical purpose , how are the $100 dollars earrings she wears any different ?
Disproportion of “wealth” angers some people only because they still imagine the earrings are worth that much money. In fact the value is as illusory as the price paid.
The creation of wealth in the modern world is a matter of perception. Attempting to create economic certainty by simplistic doctrines or legislation, is silly. The best we can do is keep riding the tiger !
This is the reality of the world we inhabit, there’s no ideological doctrine that will magically transform our species into inhabitants of Utopia !