We found the following article at Wikipedia. The yardstick of Wave Energy Generation is Salter’s duck with a 90% efficiency. Why are we talking about this on hydrogen autos. Well, mere creative logic.

There is a large reservoir of hydrogen in the earths oceans. In Australia at least and in many countries, large segments of the population live on coastal areas. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of sea water.

Electricity can be produced by wave energy.

Wave Energy => Electricity => Hydrogen => Hydrogen Fuel Cells => Automotive Motion

We posit that members of the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Lobbies were not under the principal of law and juries a properly constituted jury to decide the fate of wave energy. Read on dear reader to discover the fate of the UK Wave Energy Program.

Discussion of Salter’s Duck

While historic references to the power of waves do exist, the modern scientific pursuit of wave energy was begun in the 1970s by Professor Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland in response to the Oil Crisis.

[Historically speaking - another oil crisis and an inventor comes up with something that looks viable]

His invention, Salter’s Edinburgh Duck, continues to be the machine against which all others are measured. In small scale controlled tests, the Duck’s curved cam-like body can stop 90% of wave motion and can convert 90% of that to electricity. While it continues to represent the most efficient use of available material and wave resources, the machine has never gone to sea, primarily because its complex hydraulic system is not well suited to incremental implementation, and the costs and risks of a full-scale test would be high. Most of the designs being tested currently absorb far less of the available wave power, and have for this reason much higher Mass to Power Ratio than is theoretically possible.

According to sworn testimony before the House of Parliament, The UK Wave Energy program was shut down on March 19, 1982, in a closed meeting, the details of which remain secret. The members of the meeting were recruited largely from the nuclear and fossil fuels industries, and the wave programme manager, Clive Grove-Palmer, was excluded.

[Does this look slightly suspicious? Representatives from the nuclear and fossil fuel industries were according to Wikipedia, the main members of a meeting deciding the fate of the UK Wave Energy Program in a secret closed meeting]

An analysis of Salter’s Duck resulted in a miscalculation of the estimated cost of energy production by a factor of 10, an error which was only recently identified. Some wave power advocates believe that this error, combined with a general lack of enthusiasm for renewable energy in the 1980s (after oil prices fell), hindered the advancement of wave power technology

In 1989 according to Energy Ocean Tom Thorpe raised the profile of wave energy - by his own lobbying. As describe here.

Tom Thorpe—while managing part of the UK’s Department of Energy research program in 1989 he carried out a review of wave energy for the UK government and became a supporter of both wave and tidal technology. He then took his promotion of ocean energy to an international stage with work for the European Commission, the International Energy Agency and the World Energy Council. Continuing to raise the profile of Ocean Energy his support eventually led to the rebirth of the UK Wave Energy Program (WEP).

Hydrogen has been billed as the “fuel of the future”, the solution to our non-renewable energy needs. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. 93% of all universal atoms are Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the fuel that powers our sun. How we have not thus far harnessed it is a miracle. The proponents of fossil fuels will say that hydrogen is pseudo-science - a word that is often used in black propaganda campaigns that attack real threats to established monopolies or economic combines. Regardless of this backdrop which surrounds the simple science there are nevertheless some facts, which should, in a sane world be allowed to speak for themselves.

It is an undisputed fact that fossil fuels which currently provide fuel for our lifestyles are finite and “non-renewable”. It is this fact which cross relates with the economic law of supply and demand. In the end days of fossil fuels the demand has increased, whereas the supply is getting less. Economic theory states that this will drive prices up. And this is what we are seeing.

Notice the outlandish and lavish hotels being constructed in Dubai. These are all being built on the back of oil. Why is the third world starving when Dubai is rolling in more money than they can spend? It is the law of supply and demand.

But out of this debacle a phoenix can rise from the ashes. The great leveller - hydrogen. Hard to control - it can be produced even by third world countries and free them from economic shackles.
And in fact it is our belief that these countries should be the first to embrace these technologies and insulate themselves from the fossil fuel addiction. Black oil is like heroin. Once your infrastructure is in place for a fossil fuel society you must always go back to your dealer. Infrastructure is the addiction. By education and a slow replacement town by town of infrastructure your cities can achieve economic independence and stand on your own feet.

Your cities can even begin producing hydrogen and share in the wealth.

Economic theory also suggest that where the cost of a substance rises to a point that it becomes too expensive alternative production methods or technologies will arise. There is a “slack” in the price of fuel that is made up of exorbitant profits and this can be adjusted up and down to keep everyone on the “drip”. Just when everyone thinks that fossil fuel is too expensive the prices tumble and we forget our “biogas” and “vegetable oil” driven cars for the moment.

It is only by having a desire to free ones country from the drip, which requires brazen courage and forward planning by great leaders will one ever be free of the fossil fuel trap. Countries such as Sweden, Norway seem for some reason to have a track history of innovation in social change but that is not to say that other countries will not beat them to the mark.

It is with great sorrow that this author feels that the USA, the UK and Australia will be the last to embrace the change, primarily since Australia while rich in inventors individually has a follower type attitude - politically we seem to have become a state of the USA as far as foreign policy goes. We are looking to the 5 tigers in Asia and also emerging African Nations to lead the way.