Oil Under my Thumbby Green Writer on June 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm |
IMO oil might fly when this hits the streets. Or it has been one of the rudimentary causes for oil moving higher.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
More importantly can we run our cars on water?
Is this why oil is going up? Is this the last hurrah for oil? Further research must be done…..Developing.
by GW
So post some fuckin’ thing that’s NEWS will ya?
Fuckin’ Israel has been stirrin’ up shit in the Middle East for forty years.
If we want to calm things down there, have the USA just GIVE Iran 150 nukes. MAD works.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:03 amThis is not about new…It is about what causes are stirring up oil and the like….
If you have answers please share them with us. Most pro traders are getting out of the oil trade since they do not understand why oil is moving higher.
As I discover ideas or articles material to things I trade or that concern us all I post them.
I did not realize we appropriated $400 mill to coverts ops in Iran.
Further more the Israel/ Arab world conflict is taking on a new shape as of late.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:15 amref running cars on water - Honda just introduced a car which runs on hydrogen, will be sold in sunny southern Cal first, sometime Q1 08, but some movie stars are getting theirs 4th qtr, this year. Naturally, it may take a few years before the public buys it but you can bet that oil will be down by then.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:26 ambuylo,
June 30th, 2008 at 11:52 amPerhaps we are seeing the final hurrahs for oil and related companies.
If the h2o buggie is for real and the government has all the technology perhaps when oil breaks the world they will present it as a means to correct oil.
Honda’s car is expensive for most consumers. I also like Boone Pickens natty gas car conversion. CLNE…not the stock, but the idea of his fueling station and such.
H2O cars are bogus.
H2 cars are real, but their commercial prospects are not. H2 is a pain-in-the-butt fuel to try to haul with you. The US DOE has long had a number of specifications (cost, weight, volume, etc.) necessary for commercially viable onboard H2 storage. DOE has also long been reporting that there is neither a technology, nor a known technology path by which those specs can be acheived.
Most of the major development programs for H2 cars were born not out of concern about energy independence or about the cost and availability of petroleum-based fuel, but as efforts to develop zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and near-ZEVs). Proponents will shift the arguments to fit the times.
The big selling point about hydrogen is that it is a universal energy carrier. IMO, its biggest rival is electricity, which is also fairly universal and difficult to store. Electricity has the infrastructure, so electricity will win most battles, I believe.
On vehicles, H2 will give you more energy storage than you can get with batteries - even with lithium-ion batteries. However, it is still a struggle to get enough H2 storage on a vehicle to give you a 300-mile driving range even with the efficiency of a fuel cell. Batteries will be good enough for city driving. For long distances, H2 is clearly better than batteries, but 300-miles is less than people will want. It fares very poorly against the >500-mile range of a Prius.
And, of course, there is the wee problem of trying to get enough H2 fueling stations in place that you dare drive your H2 vehicle more than 50 miles away from one of the few dozen places you can fuel up in the U.S. I think the number for gasoline stations is in the range of 200,000. California has talked about establishing “hydrogen corridors”, strings of H2 stations along the major freeways. Yawn.
At best, H2 vehicles might be suitable for fleet use, but that is still a long shot. Natural gas vehicles offer 90% of the advantages of H2 vehicles, with only 10% of the disadvantages. Even natural gas vehicles never succeeded outside of fleets in the U.S., so the prospects for H2 vehicles are really dim. There are places outside the U.S. where NGVs are very popular, but that doesn’t pave the way for eventual H2 use there. In those markets, NGVs (or, more often, NGV conversions) are bought to reduce fuel costs. H2 isn’t going to reduce fuel costs for anybody.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pmottnott,
You may be right…Electricity seems the way to go. CLNE and natty gas also seem interesting.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pmAlthough the ideas in the first video seemed great, but now the guy is dead and there seems to be alot of problems in getting this tech back into mainstream.
Although the ideas in the first video seemed great, but now the guy is dead and there seems to be alot of problems in getting this tech back into mainstream.
You mean problems like the physical laws operating in our universe?
But let’s sidestep the science for a moment and just work with the information we have and that we are qualified to judge. Can we say whether or not his technology functions as he states? I say that we can definitively state that it does not.
Think about what the inventor did with what would have been an incredibly valuable technology for many, many applications:
–tinkered around in his workshop for years
–avoided rigorous examinations by xperts, but carried out showy demos like driving a car across the country “on 22 gallons of water” and generating hydrogen in a patent office not designed to safely vent an explosive gas mixture
–sold “dealerships” to unsophisticated investors.
If the invention was for real, he would have subjected it to rigorous examination by credible experts to remove any doubts about the value of the invention, and then either licensed the technology for a vast number of specific application areas, or raised some serious money to establish a company to exploit the technology.
The inventor was convicted of fraud. I’m not surprised.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pmottnott,
While what you say is true, we can not really know the circumstances to their fullest reality.
What I mean by this is take Tesla for instance. Here you have a scientist blackballed from the history books who also has created many things that were stolen but in use today.
Do we really know what the truth is? It was stated that he had no formal education past highschool.
In theory his invention does work since there are derivatives of the science being worked on by a company in Florida who has passed the rigorous tests.
The difference in HH0 is that the water is used with gasoline to make cars 50% more fuel efficient.
Power can be generated from water alone but the previous science could not get the electrolosis part correct. There are plans where military style hum v’s are being made to run on water only.
Another group in their trial of desalinization found the they could ignite the hydrogen. They too are trying to create a new alternative fuel.
As well recently cold fusion has been given a new face and it is suggested that we will have cold fusion in the next 50 years.
Now considering the world as is; if his technology was for real, do you think military, corporations, and those in command of power and wealth would just allow a technology to come to market and put many industries and millions of people out of business?
I think not. If he were smart about his dealings; he probably would have taken your suggestions as common sense and prepared for the possibility that a few would try to prevent his technology from emerging.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pmIn fact from his statements it is easy to see that he did not think this way. Of course we really will never know since his testimonies are limited.
Further more look at T Bone and CLNE. His solution with natty gas is taking to some extent. We are the richest country in natty gas according to Lindsey Williams, but this alternative while being cost efective, viable, and non disruptive to the auto and oil & gas industries is being trumped by corn ethanol. Where is the logic in that?
I mean think about what your saying. This country did not realize that the Bay of Tonken incident was contrived until 25 years later.
I just recently learned of slavery not officially ending till the 1930’s.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pmWho discovered America?
Did you know that Iraq and Iran were the only two oil countries in the late 70’s not to sign a treaty through Kissinger stating oil will trade in US dollars and that a portion of oil royalties were to come back and purchase our national debt?
How about the unconstituional Federal Reserve?
I’m sorry but you may not have any argument at all.
GW — I don’t know where you get all these nutty conspiracy theories from, but Tesla was hardly “forgotten by history.” For goodness sakes, he’s the most famous American inventor after Edison, his greatest rival.
You have to read history to forget it. By that standard, Edison, too is “forgotten” by 90% of the general public.
_
June 30th, 2008 at 11:24 pmNPR just ran a piece on covert ops in Iran
June 30th, 2008 at 11:54 pmOn the basis of the evidence the court found Meyer guilty of “gross and egregious fraud” and ordered to repay the investors their $25,000.
The Fly must have written the ruling!
July 1st, 2008 at 12:02 amhttp://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/07/mistakes-in-the-mythbusters-episode-on-fuel-economy-devices/
July 1st, 2008 at 12:27 amGW: You are missing out on a chance to learn. Could save you some money some day.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:37 amottnott-
i dont disagree with the majority of your points, however i put forward the following:
the limited range of alternative fuel cars is largely a red herring.
i would argue that the vast majority of miles driven by joey donuts are commuting to and from work, less than 50 miles at a time.
i acknowledge that there will always be the need for some sort of legacy fuel to achieve the required range (semis, greyhound, etc) but the effects of a limited range alternative fuel vehicle could be huge.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:37 amjake,
If one studies history you will find information and can thus argue that Tesla has not been forgotten. Ask most people and they reply that they have never heard of Tesla while Edison surely brings vague memories to most sheeple.
Conspiracy theories are not my interest. Finding what the truth is vs what was told is what is important.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 amjake,
July 1st, 2008 at 9:29 amAs far as conspiracy theories are concerned, all theories are nutty until evidence comes to light to prove them true or not true.
With so much omitting of information and the lack of real transparency why not consider the outrageous and try to prove them one way or the other.