Hydrogen from petroleum?

I missed this yesterday (well, I don't often trawl through stock exchange regulatory announcements), but feel that it is still worthy of comment.

It's about Exxon-Mobil, with partners, developing a new unique technology that "reduces carbon emissions and offers advantages over other Hydrogen delivery systems".

So I read on, with interest, the biggest of the big-oil boys looking at Hydrogen generation systems was definitely an eyebrow twitcher. Oh, the technology will use "liquid fuels ... gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel and convert them into hydrogen onboard the vehicle where it will be used in a fuel cell power train."

They claim that "it has the potential to be up to 80% more fuel efficient than today's internal combustion engine technologies and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 45%."

Now that's some claim and I'd like to see and understand more of the potential of this technology, but, and perhaps I'm being a little picky here, its fuel source is still petroleum, ethanol or bio-diesel based, so doesn't this sort of technology simply perpetuate big-oil's existing storage and distribution infrastructures.

And one other thing. Though I've forgotten an awful lot of my chemistry over the years, surely if you remove all (or most) of the Hydrogen from a bunch of complex hydrocarbon molecules as a fuel source, aren't you going to be left with an awful lot of Carbon, CO2 and other nasties to dispose of?

Will they walk the walk ......

..... as well as they talk the talk?

This rather interesting snippet from offshore-technology.com which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."

"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."

As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.

I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.

Who's dissin' who?

When is branding disingenuous?

As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.

Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?

I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.

For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.

Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.

The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.

Exploiting a brands's green appeal