I am, 100 years after 1914, reminded of the effect that war had on engineering.
When the Second World War (WW2) started, the situation, technology- and armswise, was this: fighter aircraft were propeller-driven biplanes with open cockpits, fixed undercarriage and low speed by comparison. Rifles were bolt action, single shot. No airborne radar, no blind navigation aids, ground radar defence was nonrotating antenna, poorly armoured tanks, no ground-to-ground or air-to-ground missiles or rockets, shortwave radio, no penicillin, no wide availability of sulpha drugs.
By the time the war ended, the situation had changed: fighters were monoplane retractable undercarriage, enclosed, near sonic speed, and jets had flown. Rifles could be fired fully automatic. Plan position radar had been invented, as had been navigation systems, such as Decca. Tanks were powerfully armoured, the V1 and V2 missiles and rockets had flown and penicillin and other drugs had been invented. Apart from the US, all the inventions were in countries which were being periodically bombed and whose male population and female population were either slightly or heavily involved in war. The primary invention in the US was the atom bomb and nuclear power.
WW2 lasted from 1939 to 1945. We can guess that some development and invention occurred prior to 1939, say from 1935, but it would be safe to state that never before had such an extraordinary advance been made on all fronts in a period of about ten years. Even if we look to the 1970s with the fax machine, the CD, the personal computer, and so on, we can see these are all inventions which derive from the microchip or microprocessor and really are not, I argue, on the same scale.
I believe the answer to the WW2 invention spree was quite simple – money. The governments of the day were prepared to spend a fortune on developments which, they hoped, would win the war. Further, the governments were content to let industry do the developing of new products and guaranteed to buy them.
Now here we are, back in 2014. Our electricity comes from some generator somewhere: gas turbine, steam turbine, windmill, diesel generator, waterwheel or solar cell. The supply is outstripped by the demand. The question is: Why? It is well known that the more roads that are built, the more they are in demand. It may be that building more generators is not the answer. Hold this thought.
In my cupboard, I have a small toy set. It consists of a toy car with a fuel cell and a loose solar cell. You put the water into the fuel cell and connect it to the solar cell, which generates electricity that changes the water into oxygen and hydrogen. Then the hydrogen feeds into the fuel cell and drives the car – not very far, but it does. A fuel cell of this type costs about $6 500 for every kilowatt hour (production cost). It is about 40% efficient. For my 300-house suburb, I calculate we would need about R52-million and we would have our own local power station.
But it is not going to happen because it can be done much cheaper by conventional means. However, the returns and benefits of reducing the technology cost for use in sunny Africa are astounding. We should not allow Ministers to hold hands at conferences and scratch each other’s chequebooks while they rabbit on about the R900-billion Inga Falls scheme (hydropower from the Democratic Republic of Congo to South Africa), designed to enrich relatives of a slew of African politicians.
The solution lies before us. The fuel cell concept will work. This is a new war, a fight to get affordable and sustainable electricity to all Africans. We really should get to it. Our governments have the money and they can do it if they want to. One is a bit numbed by the unreasonableness of the present government. A big aghast at unqualified Ministers and Eskom heads. But it does not have to be so. Instead of throwing money at political appointees, why not throw money at a real problem? Invest in fuel cells. We should.