Oil Independence Right Now

[Bill Blue]

Bill is that a left handed way of saying you agree with me....

Yep, all the way.

Bill

 

[Nickodell]

Jim: I agree. We should give up petroleum altogether. After all, we can do without the odds and ends made from oil, like air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, ball-point pens, balloons, bandages, basket balls, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, bullet-proof vests, bullet-proof galss, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cling wrap, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, photo film, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, football players' armor, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair coloring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, copier toners, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, soccer balls, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, tennis nets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tires, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper and a few I forgot.

The cheaper the petroleum feedstock, the cheaper the end products, and vice versa.

 

[mikephillips]

Even with a large rail system you still may not be able to hop on the train to go see grandma. I read an article once that claimed that passenger rail, even before WW2 never paid for itself, it was always subsidized by the freight trains. That apparently was one of the things to come up in the 60's when freight was declining and the railroads were trying to cut/revamp passenger routes, which lead to the creation of Amtrak. And we all know how much money it makes....

 

[Nickodell]

Even with a large rail system you still may not be able to hop on the train to go see grandma. I read an article once that claimed that passenger rail, even before WW2 never paid for itself, it was always subsidized by the freight trains. That apparently was one of the things to come up in the 60's when freight was declining and the railroads were trying to cut/revamp passenger routes, which lead to the creation of Amtrak. And we all know how much money it makes....

Virtually all the great rail systems of the world - the Japanese Shinkansen, the European TGV, British rail, etc. - run at a loss and have to be subsidized by the governments (i.e. the taxpayers). Britain pours billions of pounds into the system each year and the trains get slower (in many cases it takes longer for a 100-400 mile trip than in the steam era of the 1930s), dirtier, less reliable and more dangerous!

It is true, railways have always depended on freight for their existence. Passengers are a pain in the neck; you have to feed them, warm/cool them, provide nice quiet comfy seats for their bottoms, get them quickly to their destinations (you can't shuffle them onto a siding to wait to make up a train "consist" as you can with freight), provide plush sleeping accomodation on long trips, and build stations along the way and at each end, and facilities to sell them tickets and take care of the baggage etc. etc. Once the bulk of freight either stopped (like most coal) or shifted to the roads, they were left with the bloody loss-making pasengers.

Someone did a cost analysis of one of the new light rail systems in California (L.A?) that are held up as shining examples of what should and could be done across the country. It turned out that it would have been infinitely cheaper to give each regular rider a new Cadillac every 4 years.

 

[Bill Blue]

Jim: I agree. We should give up petroleum altogether. After all, we can do without the odds and ends made from oil, like air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, ball-point pens, balloons, bandages, basket balls, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, bullet-proof vests, bullet-proof galss, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cling wrap, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, photo film, fishing lures, fishing nets, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, football players' armor, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair coloring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, nylons, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, copier toners, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, soccer balls, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, tennis nets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tires, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper and a few I forgot.

The cheaper the petroleum feedstock, the cheaper the end products, and vice versa.

Nick, what an elegant argument to find a petroleum substitute to meet our energy needs.

Oh, by the way. As usual, you ignored half of what Jim said and twisted the rest. Good job.

Bill

 

[alpine_64]

Bill,

Come on, do you really think that person has the intelligence to read and comprehend what someone else is saying? Even if you look at the most basic principals of his argument he is supporting you guys.. all the stuff he mentioned would be much cheaper if the demand for oil for automotive needs was lower.

Then there is his argument about public transport, apparently its not the answer.. yet seems to work quite well across Europe and Asia. Even down here in AU I don’t think it’s a bad system at least in the inner suburbs. Urban sprawl is making it a little worse further out, but then again that’s driven by the same idiots who buy an SUV move 100 miles out of town so they can build their big Mc Mansion and then whine about fuel prices.

Finally Nick will rubbish on about how its cheaper to buy everyone a Cadillac, yeah.. and then how would the road system cope..how much will all the new roads cost, how busy is traffic now? How much MORE pollution does Nick want?

The only reason Nick doesn't care about any of this stuff is that he will not be around to see the full extent of the damage his ideals are causing.. I guess once that problem is resolved there will be less issues in the future.

 

[Nickodell]

Hi, Michael. I see you're off your medications again.

Bill: A "well regulated" free market. You just coined a new oxymoron, to go with some of the classics like "jumbo shrimp" and George Carlin's favorite: "Military intellience." The word free is an absolute (i.e. cannot be modified or diminished, it's either free or it isn't). Every time government tries to regulate the marketplace it's a disaster. Remember when Nixon tried price controls? In some countries they "regulate" the marketplace totally, and what a crackerjack success that has been in the Soviet Union, Cuba and N. Korea.

Re: Raising taxes. Quick, which Republican president said the following:

"The current tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth and reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment and risk-taking. What is needed is an across-the board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate taxes." Denounced by the usual "sock it to the rich, and to corporations" extremists from the left, he replied that he included upper-income groups and industry so that they would be "encouraged to undertake additional efforts and enabled to invest more capital," as that is the one and only way to stimulate an economy. So, what's your guess? Reagan? Bush I? Bush II?

Actually, it was the icon of the left, John F. Kennedy, 46 years ago, defending the principle of reducing taxes for all income groups, and industry, in order to stimulate a sluggish economy. And it worked. Employment surged and the country's economy rebounded.

In fact, tax cuts have - oh, heresy! - historically been good for America. With the exception of the 1940s, when WWII provided all the stimulous needed (the factor, and none of FDR's efforts, that ended the Great Depression), there has been a substantial tax cut every 20 years since the 1920s. Coolidge's, Kennedy's and Reagan's triggered economic booms and lower unemployment. Reagan's tax cuts (and reduction in top rates) resulted in billions more revenue coming into the treasury. Of course, the Congress, controlled by the opposite party, spent $2 for every extra $1. Bush's "economic incentive" checks are nothing more than tax cuts. Let's see how they affect the economy.

It's simple. Let people have more of their earnings to spend, save or invest, and the government less to waste on "earmarks," and they will start businesses, invest in companies, modernize equipment and buy things. When they do, companies make and sell more, and employ more people who can then afford to buy stuff that the companies will make more of etc. etc. In contrast, pile on more taxes and it will inevitably have the opposite effect.

You can see the same principle in effect in a microcosm. Ignore for the moment the sudden boom in public transportation ridership due to the surge in gas prices. Many, or most, p.t.a's run at a loss or small profit. The normal reaction, to increase revenue to meet payroll etc., is to raise ticket costs. The result is almost always the opposite of what was intended; ridership goes down and income dwindles.

Unfortunately, a demagogue appears every so often, running for president, who plays to the "sock it to the rich and corporations" crowd, promising to raise taxes, hit oil companies with a "windfall profits" tax and so on. It's a sure-fire formula, and a potential disaster for the country. Who decides what is too much profit? Since many industries, e.g. pharmaceuticals, have higher profit margins than oil, shall we slap extra taxes on all of them? Why not take them over altogether? In fact, I have a slogan for it: From each, according to their means; to each, according to their needs. Or as Hillary put it: "We mean to take things from you for the common good."

 

[skywords]

Unfortunately, a demagogue appears every so often, running for president, who plays to the "sock it to the rich and corporations" crowd, promising to raise taxes, hit oil companies with a "windfall profits" tax and so on. It's a sure-fire formula, and a potential disaster for the country. Who decides what is too much profit? Since many industries, e.g. pharmaceuticals, have higher profit margins than oil, shall we slap extra taxes on all of them? Why not take them over altogether? In fact, I have a slogan for it: From each, according to their means; to each, according to their needs. Or as Hillary put it: "We mean to take things from you for the common good."

I know your train of thought Nick and I used to be a subscriber. But the Republican machine has gone amuck. They have led us into the second Gilded age of ridiculous economic inequities and a society of classes. This is the largest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. The rich are not just rich but rich beyond anyone's wildest dreams. For example what makes these guys worth this kind of money?


Name - Company - Salary - un-exercised stock options

C.A Heimbold - BMS - 31,424,000 - 159,691,000

W.C. Steere. Jr. - Pfizer - 15,159,000 - 107,115,000

R.V Gilmartin - Merck - 6,032,000 - 80,559,000


The list goes on. These guys are why I spend close to $600.00 per month on my wife's medication. I have been spending this for eight years now with no end in sight. What should happen if I or one of my children need meds our insurance won't cover? What then Nick? What then? Wall street and your so called free market have no flucking business in medicine. If this should happen then we become just another casualty of the free market so these AH's can get richer.
Your retirement that you count on is no longer available for most Americans because these companies have done away with pensions and robbed the pension funds, just look at United Airlines, people that work 30+ years have been told sorry charlie.
So Nick please tell me how you tell a child the bone marrow transplant him or her needs is out of the question because one of these CEO's has determined that it's just not in the budget? Tell me Nick just what do say? Free market? Think that means a thing to a child? This Republican BS has to stop and now!!
This is nothing personal Nick like I said I used to subcribe. I am an Independent now.

BTW gas is almost a dollar cheaper just across the border in Mexico and Pharmaceuticals are cheaper as well

 

[alpine_64]

Hi, Michael. I see you're off your medications again.
I].

As usual Nick, thats the best you can do mate. You have no answers for anything anyone has said because in your closed minded diatribe there is no room for objective analysis. So just make your usual childish response.

Dont worry though, you wont have to worry about dealing with all of us where you're going...and probably sooner rather than later The only issue for us will be the poor person who buys "matilda" and then posts the longest list of DPO questions we will have ever seen.

 

[Bill Blue]

Nick, I well realized the oxymoron of "a well regulated free market". I also realize that a totally free market, at least on a national or international scale, is a disaster waiting to happen. The disaster takes many forms, high prices are one them. You acknowledged a second one when you said the oil prices would plummet, resulting in great looses to retirement funds.

After stating that, I suppose you want to eliminate Social Security.

Bill

 

[Bill Blue]

Rick, you've hit on the problem health insurance companies. They do not provide a service, only a promise to cover expenses. That promise is in direct conflict with their reason to exist, to make a profit.

Say what you will about the oil companies, it is in their self interest to provide oil products cheaply and in an efficient manner. The same cannot be said about insurance. The more "product" (payouts) they provide and the quicker they provide the "product" the less they make. As they have rigged the game so they have the final say, yachts and private jets automatically win out over a kid needing a bone marrow transplant.

The industry is fundamentally unsuited for the capitalistic market.

Bill

 

[Nickodell]

Rick: You can use that argument for anyone whom you think is overpaid. Why should a guy with an 8th Grade education who can run with an inflated piece of pigskin under his arm, or throw it into a net, or who can hit a ball into the intended part of a field, better than most, be paid millions of dollars? Why should Oprah Winfrey, or Babwa Walters or Wesley Snipes, or scores more, who "strut and fret their hour apon the stage" (bit of Shakespear) be paid millions more than, say, the guy who works the camera?

A: Because, in a free market, that is what the market values their services at. Why should a 55-year-old Corvette, that was a crummy car when it was introduced - essentially a modified 1952 Chevy sedan, complete with 2-speed Powerglide transmission - be worth six figures today? For the same reason. During the 70-odd years the communists were in charge in the Soviet Union, doctors, for example, were paid about the same as taxi drivers because of the same argument - "why should they get so much?" The free market worked to some extent even then - doctors, ballerinas and sportsmen defected to the West.

Believe me, I feel for the $600 a month you are spending for medication. My wife and I spend - even after Medicare Part D - over $700 ourselves (before Pt. D it was over $1,200). The irony is that we can't even deduct the cost on our 1040 because our income just puts us over the 7.5% floor for medical expenses. Here's the double irony, a real Catch 22. Because we must cash in part of my wife's 401(k) and my IRA each year to afford medications, eyeglasses, dental etc., this is counted as income and puts us into too high a category to be able to deduct medical expenses on our 1040. As they said in the movie: "That's some Catch." "The best there is."

The only consolation is that my wife, who has been an invalid confined to bed for the past 5 years, would be in more excruciating constant pain than she is now, and in fact long since dead (as I would, too - sorry to disappoint you, Michael) without the wonders of breakthrough drugs that only exist because a free market allowed the pharmaceutical companies to risk much with the hope of making large profits. Let's see, what breakthrough medications, that save or prolong life, or improve the quality of life, have come from countries that severely restrict drug companies' profits, or run them themselves, like Russia, China, Mexico or even Canada? Here's the list. In case you missed it, here it is again.

Jim, on re-reading my list of products from oil, it looks more sarcastic than I intended, and I apologize if it offends. I was simply trying to make the point that transportation is only one of the areas that depend totally on oil, and the cheaper it is the cheaper such other goods are (and vice versa). America has become the world's only superpower largely due to oil, and its status is entirely dependent on this commodity.

Bill: "The Republicans want to destroy Social Security" was an effective scare tactic used on retirees in the 2000 and 2004 elections. However, are you aware that Bill Clinton met with Newt Gingrich several times in 1997 to plan how part of Social Security could be privatized? The plan, a rare example of bipartisanship was well on its way, and would have passed both houses of Congress (Rep.) and the Administration (Dem.). Then Lewinskigate and impeachment derailed it all.

 

[skywords]

Rick: You can use that argument for anyone whom you think is overpaid. Why should a guy with an 8th Grade education who can run with an inflated piece of pigskin under his arm, or throw it into a net, or who can hit a ball into the intended part of a field, better than most, be paid millions of dollars? Why should Oprah Winfrey, or Babwa Walters or Wesley Snipes, or scores more, who "strut and fret their hour apon the stage" (bit of Shakespear) be paid millions more than, say, the guy who works the camera?

Apples and oranges Nick. Our lives don't depend on Oprah and Sports figures. It's simply too important to be left to the wims of CEO's making billions by taking away from patients.

quote:
The group's report finds despite billions of dollars in government spending, more than one in four children still don't have full-time health care — a gap twice as big as anyone thought, CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.end quote.

This is simply unacceptable. The free market is not working for health care. You still did not answer the question. What do you say to the kids that can't get a lifesaving procedure? Just what do you tell them? I'm sorry but the CEO would have to give up his Rolls Royce in order for you to have that procedure? And that applies to the kids that have insurance. The money is not going where it is supposed to, To the healthcare providers. Our family doctor told me that for my son that at the time I paid $125.00 a month to insure, he received $7.00 a month for him "period" no matter what care he rendered him. That's real incentive to provide quality care isn't it? The majority of our money goes to shareholders and CEO's. What's wrong with healthcare for everyone?

Protect the drug companies, or no more miracle medications. Well, no doubt we need innovative break-through medications. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry hasn’t been discovering many of them lately. Maybe that’s because they spend most of their money and energy on developing “me-too” drugs that provide marginal improvement on existing (and cheaper) medications. If you think we need a 6th medicine for indigestion ($4 per pill) or a 4th drug for erectile dysfunction ($11 per pill), than you should be happy with the current state of pharmaceutical research. Frankly, while Congress is at it they ought to require that new drugs outperform existing medications, rather than placebo’s, before FDA approval. Maybe then we would see some real progress in treatment or prevention of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.

Besides, advancements in basic science are the foundation by which truly innovative drugs are discovered. These discoveries are far more likely to occur in government institutions (National Institute of Health or National Cancer Institute) or academic institutions (often funded by taxpayers through federal grants). Taxpayers pay twice: they fund the basic research and then pay exorbitant prices when the drugs are approved.

 

[Bill Blue]

Nick, thanks for that post. I always though the impeachment of Clinton was a total waste of time. I stand corrected.

It appears you think that anything Clinton backed was a winner. I guess I am a tad more choosey. Any way I look at it, it comes up goose eggs. What happens to the poor bastard that invested in Enron? Or WT Grant. Or Kmart? Or Nickerson Farms? Where's his retirement?

In reality, all that is wrong with SS is the fact the g'munt has never paid a decent interest rate on the money it has borrowed. A few trillion of back interest, followed by periodic interest payments, would probably put it back into the black. All we would have to do then is figure out a way Wall Street could siphon 20% off the top and everyone would be happy.

Bill

 

[Nickodell]

A few facts about Social Security. Firstly, the dire "sky is falling" predictions of S.S. running out of money is political hype. Projections are that, at the current rate of funding vs expenditure, the "Trust fund" (what a laugh that term is) won't be exhausted until 2042; after this, payroll taxes would not quite cover outlay to retirees and the disabled. Even then, the projected deficit is less than 3/4 of 1% of national income. And this projection is based on today's figures; by 2042 real wages will be some 40% higher at the present rate of growth in productivity, yielding a proportionately higher payroll tax.

Secondly, all the scare talk also ignores one salient fact: Funds aplenty will very soon begin to pour into the treasury from baby boomer retirees cashing in their 401ks and IRAs. 77 million of them were born from 1947 to 1964. Their contributions to retirement accounts rose from $48 billion in 1970 to $6.9 trillion in 2000. It has been calculated that the taxes coming from the boomers cashing in parts of these accounts, and maturing life insurance and private/public/company pensions will be over $12 trillion.

These factors will meet all projected requirements, even increased funding because of the longer lives people continue to enjoy, past the end of this century.

Privatization: This has been another scare story put out by you know who since the 2000 election. "B*sh/R*p*bl*c*ns want to destroy Social Security and put old folks on the streets or make them eat dog food," etc. etc. The plan being vilified for political purposes (the one that Clinton and Gingrich were working on) simply would have allowed worker to voluntarily choose to divert part of their payroll deductions into vehicles that, as the experience of the last half-century shows, return at least 4 X Social Security's pathetic 1.4% (actually, a minus 2% after inflation).

Look at what happened in Galveston, TX, in 1981. Using the then-current ability to opt out of Soc. Sec., the county commissioners allowed workers instead to invest their retirement savings into annuities with guaranteed returns, purchased from major life insurance companies chosen by competitive bidding. The result has been a return averaging almost 7%. A worker retiring with a final wage/salary of only $50,000 receives a pension of some $4,000 a month, compared with Soc. Sec's piddling $1,450, and a disability insurance of up to $5,000 a month and life insurance of up to $150,000.

Better yet; unlike Social Security, if the worker dies before retirement age, his account (a real one, not S.S's phantom "lock box") goes to his family, instead of being escheated by the government.

When two other counties joined Galveston, and 50 more showed interest, the Dem. Congress, fearing the loss of their cash cow, barred other local governments from opting out of Soc. Sec. The hypocrisy was rampant. Several leading politicians of both parties, and especially Dems. (e.g. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) were all in favor of partial privatization in 1990 when Clinton was. In the 2000 election it split almost exactly down party lines, with Repubs. for it and Dems. bad-mouthing it.

 

[Bill Blue]

Only a part?? What does that gain? The real problem is that Americans are under savers. The "almost made it" privatization would not address that at all, probably make it worse. Workers would then think they are in fat city, SS, their privatized SS account and the phoney retirement they would never receive.

But why not make the fed pay a realistic interest rate? Then allow workers to add to the withholding if they wanted. God knows this country has to borrow money. Better to borrow from ourselves.

Bill

 

[mikephillips]

To me the real problem with the free market, or more accurately Wall Street, is that it's become obsessed with short term profits and tends to punish longer term vision. So many companies do the "me too" kind of things, rather than make less today so they can make more 5 years from now. What we need is some incentive for long term strategic vision.

 

[Jim E]

Mike you sure hit the nail on the head, that is just the reason we no longer make anything here. We only have the service industry which is not very well known for retirement plans or medical. We are all going to have to clean rooms or cook hamburgers until we die. Heck I have no medical whcih puts me one major illness from being homeless, cannot go to the doctor let alone pay for drugs if I needed them. So any change to the crazy medical world looks pretty good to folks like me it sure cannot get worse.

Nick I get your point cheap oil cheap stuff, which could be short sighted... cheap stuff is just what we get nothing is made to last or be repaired, why bother the DVD player breaks you just toss it and buy another one, the cordless phone battery dies pitch it those phones from china are cheaper than the replacement battery. How many tons of plastic happy meal toys go to the land fill every year. Then there is packaging mercy, wrap it in plastic cause it is cheap to do unwrap it throw out the wrapper then six months later throw out the goods. Who cares it is cheap. Maybe if oil was not so cheap we would not be in this situation maybe just maybe we would not put up with crap goods and happy meal toys and our oil needs would go down. Then again we do not import oil for this junk because it is not made here so I supose that is an indirect oil need. Cheap oil gave us SUVs that get 10 MPG and mom driving the kid to school in them and an auto industry the is swirling around the drain, guess who will end up paying for that. Yeah a passenger rail system may not make money but our auto based transport sure has a lot of costs that are not at the pump. Things like cleaning up oil spills, what to do with old tires defending our right to buy oil.

We will never live to see a rail system like the one in Japan it is just too long a range plan. We do stuff like build a freeway in Hawaii the place cried for a rail system. In the morning rush it could take an hour and a half to go twelve miles in bumper to bumper mostly stopped traffic and that was in the early 80s I cannot imagine what it is like now. How is it no one could see the problem coming there, limited space lots of folks no where to park once you got there it was crazy. Guess it was cheap oil and the auto industry wanting to sell cars

There is no answer we are stuck really really stuck. Gas will be five bucks a gallon here in no time then what will it be when something happens in the supply line does not have to be in the oil producing nations what happens if another big storm hits the gulf, last time gas doubled over night and was hard to even get. Pretty much shut the country down there for a while no fuel no trucks no trucks no goods no other way to haul stuff.

I just think we need a better plan than give me more cheap oil there has to be a better answer than that.

 

[Ken Ellis]

I just sent the link below to one of my tech-friends. Unlike a lot of such claims, this company seems open to sharing pictures of the tech, quotes power outputs, and isn't hiding the broad strokes about what they're doing. There are some proprietary processes, it seems, but claims such as this no longer scream "fake!" due to some "secret". How much is true and affordable remains to be seen... but remember, prices of electronic devices always drop quickly -- or you get more for the same buck.

I just hope that the "water as fuel" process doesn't take on some of the negatives of the current "food (corn) as fuel" debate... although it certainly could, in the future. Non-food biomass ethanol, and 'oil'-generating bacteria look like interesting prospects, too.
I just hope that, when gas prices drop back to the $3.00/gallon range (!), folks won't think the 'crisis' is over and become complacent again.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080613/153276/


There's a Tonight Show sketch where Johnny does a bit in front of a gas pump -- back when gas went from .35 to .55 per gallon. It was presented as hilarious and unimaginable that gas would be more than a buck a gallon or so. Ahh, the good old days...

Ken

 

[Ken Ellis]

Here's another little thing I ran across...

Now, I know that a YouTube video is no substitute for a fully-vetted, peer-reviewed presentation, but these guys are doing something interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ToojK_MJd0

Ken