Nicola Conenna: We have just set up this European economic interest grouping (EEIG) and established it in Brussels because Europe is the key political reference point, even though the project originated far away in Orvieto in Italy. The local communities that are members of the association will be organising demonstration projects using hydrogen from renewable sources. No transport projects this time, but rather distributed generation projects, namely cogeneration thanks to fuel cells that supply heat or power on demand, and which could be used in buildings, for example. For the time being, we have about ten towns taking part, but we have ambitions to bring on board several hundred European cities. We don't have any EU subsidies to help us yet, but we are looking into the possibilities. I am also planning to set up an association called "European Blue Network". "Blue" is the colour of the planet and the sea, something to which I am naturally bound. The association will focus on climate change, energy - back to hydrogen again - and biodiversity.

Coming back to hydrogen, what interest is there for an ecologist? Nicola Conenna: We are working on the idea that the hydrogen economy can serve towards a redistribution of either energy or economic wealth at world level: a kind of "energy democratisation" exercise. With hydrogen, it is indeed possible, thanks to the distributed generation concept. Having environmentally-friendly cars is something really interesting, not least in areas of high concentrations of pollutants. Electric vehicles that do not run on fuel cells have no real future, because their batteries are too restrictive. But what interests me the most is the concept of distributed generation, because at the end of the day we won't need power plants anymore. But this shouldn't just be seen through the eyes of our Western world. The problem is global: two-thirds of mankind still has no access to electricity, so the option of electrification of these poorer societies will be a determining factor for climate change.

They don't have to do the same thing as us. Oil prices are currently prohibitive for developing countries. So it is a good idea to start electrification directly with hydrogen: a fuel cell in every village! We have to bank on renewable sources of energy, the main primary source of hydrogen. In our Western world, they are linked to the grid: we are not encouraged to use it as such, to produce hydrogen for example. But then, in the best part of the world, there is no grid. But most regions have the option of using solar energy, so there is a genuine possibility of accumulating this source of energy, thanks to hydrogen, and using it is really quite a promising option. HydrogenCities has the chance of bringing non-European towns on board, too. We already have good contacts with South America.

So the short-term prospects lie in "fixed" fuel cells (for electricity generation) rather than "mobile" ones (in vehicles, for instance)? Nicola Conenna: Fixed fuel cells are much more practical and simpler to use, too. But the fact is that there is no investment in this sector. At the moment, investment in hydrogen technology is coming from the motor industry, especially in Japan and Germany. As this is genuine investment, the sector is developing. As for other sectors, fixed fuel cells, notably for distributed generation in private households, for example, have only a very small outlet: small firms with a workforce of a few dozen people - I know that Vaillant, the water boiler manufacturer, has some projects in this area. But the sector cannot develop rapidly in this way. It has to invest. If in our local network of cities, fuel cell manufacturers sell at least one demonstration unit per town, you already have hundreds of units. We are already at the stage of passing from prototype to industrial-scale production. Getting it to take off would open the debate to a number of factors and prices would start falling. Then the option of distributed generation would become more realistic.

What exactly is the problem with hydrogen? Nicola Conenna: We have to cut the price! The current problems are not of a technological nature. We don't have the necessary battery life tests: but you have to be sure that they can last several decades. This is very important for fixed fuel cells, even though the cars themselves are not expected to last so long. Then you have to ask the question: how does the hydrogen get to the fuel cell. I think that the natural gas experiment is propitiatory. It's not the same thing, but there are a good many similarities. Infrastructure, for example: you can even think about using the same network, and this is an option we are pursuing. We did it 20 years ago without anybody even knowing: before natural gas, city gas supplies contained 60% hydrogen! The more I look into it, the more I realise it is not as complicated as all that. On questions of transport and safety costs, there is a tendency to exaggerate fuel cell technology: because, here again, things are not as simple as you might think. When it comes to safety matters, for instance, this is a non-toxic gas that is very volatile and quickly disperses into the atmosphere. You just need a few precautions against the possibility of a leak. Petrol is more dangerous when it is on fire. And there are some problems of metal weakening to overcome as hydrogen can penetrate their molecular structure.

Why aren't we investing in hydrogen research now? Nicola Conenna: Oil companies have no interest in the hydrogen economy taking off straightaway, even if they are not actually against it. Oil reserves will not last for more than other 30-40 years. But by then, the price will no longer be acceptable. So, hydrogen will probably not be able to take off for another 20 years or so. And every industry that depends on it, that is, three-quarters of the economy, falls within this scenario. Our point of view is quite different: we are motivated by the greenhouse effect. We have 10 years in which to act: we have to reap major results over a decade. The Kyoto Protocol is only a starting point that is not going to solve the problem: 3.5% fewer emissions, that's not enough to save us. We've got to act quickly. Industry is thinking in terms of 20 years for economic reasons, but the problem is actually shorter term than that. We will therefore be working on public opinion, the institutions, to get more investment to enable us to move faster. We have chosen to work with local communities, because we have the energy redistribution model in mind: and they are closer to the citizens, after all.

But how is this hydrogen going to be produced? Nicola Conenna: It has got to be made from renewable sources of energy. It is possible to generate hydrogen from natural gas, admittedly, and this might be more profitable from the distribution point of view. But at the end of the day, it is a bit stupid, because if you have got natural gas, you might as well use it directly, otherwise you would lose some energy when transforming it into hydrogen. The only acceptable reason is diffusion of fuel cells. Certainly not from coal because even with gasification processes, you still end up with large amounts of CO2. I am totally opposed to carbon sequestration because it is dangerous, and Nobel Prize winner Carlo Rubbia agrees.

But this is unthinkable as long as we have oil. On the other hand, renewable sources of energy are intermittent and hydrogen can help to stabilise their supply: we can build up reserves of energy and use it when we need it thanks to fuel cells. This also reduces somewhat the problem of geographical decentralisation of renewable sources. Thanks to hydrogen, there are a good many chance to exploit solar energy. With renewable sources, there is wind power, hydro-electricity, thermal solar power (heating air to hundreds of degrees in order to power turbines) which produce electricity, and then hydrogen produced from water electrolysis. Photovoltaic energy is good in isolated cases (like in the mountains, sea, islands) where it is impossible or too expensive to have a network. But there are physical limits, and more research is needed to improve things.

Turning to nuclear, isn't hydrogen an obvious outlet for this source of energy? Nicola Conenna: I cannot deny that it is possible to produce hydrogen from nuclear. It is evident, not least to use up excess electricity generated by nuclear power plants. The electricity enables water electrolysis and the heat enables thermal separation of the water molecules which enables even more hydrogen to be generated. This is a fact. I am against nuclear for different reasons. It is not a solution to global warming. And then the problem of radioactive waste has not been solved either. There is also the risk of terrorism and the problem of uranium resources being finite. Moreover, it is no longer possible to count on monopolies on the electricity market. Nuclear energy requires capital. So why put your money in a sector that has no future (a century at most)? It makes more sense to put it in a sector that can function for 3 billion years: solar power.

But doesn't playing the hydrogen game boil down to the same thing as the nuclear game? Nicola Conenna: In my view, nuclear power has no future. It is just not viable to build nuclear fission power plants. As for fusion, why not if we are capable of doing it? But it doesn't exist yet. To move to industrial-scale production and have a mass at several million degrees over thirty years is not easy. And it is not even certain that we will get there. Moreover, research is extremely costly. I prefer to put the money to good use with a different logic. I am not going to give up my dream of a hydrogen economy for the risk of nuclear power benefiting from it.