# OT/NT: Proof that fuel prices are getting out of hand.



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

Times are tough all over. The high cost of fuel is having very far reaching effects. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/tongue2.gif 
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D91JSR3O0.htm


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Dave, 

Interesting story! Never thought the world's oldest industry would be among the first to suffer. However, perhaps, like the housing market, their rates were grossly inflated and their bubble has been burst!


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Saw this storyy a week or so ago and I think it was on The Daily Show or maybe it was the Colbert Report. Ether way it was a hillarious story when they did it. 
For what it's worth..... I'm not gonna get suckered into any long debate over the "fuel issue" but I would like to say my peace. Since we have moved past Capitalism into the uncharted territory of Ludicracy.....I can't wonder what we're all going to do a year or more from now and certainly can't wait until the rest of the Middle class to finally decides to remove their heads from where ever they are and see what's going on. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif 
See ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Yes, everyone should demand that we start drilling off our own shores and back on all of our land. The enviros have our hands tied, and people better wake up. To heck with the spotted short tailed lizard...............people should come first.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Just a thought... maybe we should be using "their" oil until it is all gone, then "we" will have some to sell to them.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 07/02/2008 9:52 PM 
Yes, everyone should demand that we start drilling off our own shores and back on all of our land. The enviros have our hands tied, and people better wake up. To heck with the spotted short tailed lizard...............people should come first.

Hear hear!!! 
Spoken like a true consumer. 
Never mind the environment. Look after #1 first. 
But not to worry. All the oil will run out one day and we won't have to worry anyway.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07/02/2008 10:19 PM 
Posted By Steve S. on 07/02/2008 9:52 PM 
Yes, everyone should demand that we start drilling off our own shores and back on all of our land. The enviros have our hands tied, and people better wake up. To heck with the spotted short tailed lizard...............people should come first.

Hear hear!!! 
Spoken like a true consumer. 
Never mind the environment. Look after #1 first. 
But not to worry. All the oil will run out one day and we won't have to worry anyway.

The advantage you Austrialians have is you filmed all those BIKER APOCALYPSE movies down in Austrailia and you have a first hand idea on what to do when everything falls apart. 
PS I always thought those movies were fun.


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

MAD MAX 



Theres that Truck on Train Tracks (Post-Apocalyptic galloping goose lol), makes it more on topic lol.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I love the line in that article about the most important thing after food (for men anyway)!! I bet the reporter was happy to be assigned to that story, and not some other regular 'we got bit by rattlesnakes' story..


----------



## markperr (Jan 7, 2008)

The way I see it, I'll be long dead before the oil runs out, and at the pace that all the hand wringers are moving at to bring us an alternative, I suspect so will they. 

I'm all for alternative methods of energy. I'll be the second person to ride on a solar powered airplane, right behind the person who advocates it's returns from their successful first flight. 

Mark


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By markperr on 07/03/2008 4:20 PM
The way I see it, I'll be long dead before the oil runs out, and at the pace that all the hand wringers are moving at to bring us an alternative, I suspect so will they. 
I'm all for alternative methods of energy. I'll be the second person to ride on a solar powered airplane, right behind the person who advocates it's returns from their successful first flight. 
Mark




No doubt our children, grand children and great grand children will be delighted with the legacy we will be leaving for them to appreciate.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Here here, Tony


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

No doubt our children, grand children and great grand children will be delighted with the legacy we will be leaving for them to appreciate.

What's the most they can do? Pee on our graves? I going to be cremated. Have my ashes dumped in the Grand Canyon " border=0>


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

_Posted By TonyWalsham on 07/04/2008 12:07 AM

No doubt our children, grand children and great grand children will be delighted with the legacy we will be leaving for them to appreciate._
Yes, just as you were thankful for what your Father, Grandfather, & Great Grandfather provided for you.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

Spoken like a true consumer. 

The enviro folks are way out of line. They do not want the U. S. to drill off of Florida, so now China will. Lets see how much China cares about the enviroment. They will care about as much for the enviroment as they do their own people. We have plenty of oil, it's just a small minority of people that keep us from using it. And yes, I do think that people are more important then any animal on this earth...............and proud to say it. 

But as usual, many will get in line to blame it all on big companies, and also how America is the bad guy.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I was under the impression that the present "OUTLAWING" of drilling off our shores and other places was done with and EXECUTIVE ORDER Signed by a president. 

Can a exectuve order be recendided by another president? 

If that is true then it would be real easy to change things. But I guess it's just not going to happen


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

Thanks Andrew, that clip bought back some memories 

Cheers 
Neil


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 07/04/2008 7:16 AM 
The enviros are way out of line. 

And just what line are you in??????


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 07/04/2008 7:16 AM. 
The enviros are way out of line. They do not want the U. S. to drill off of Florida, so now China will. 

I am sure the dedicated keepers of American security would be interested to find out when China proposes drilling off the coast of Florida.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

It's in the news Tony. Cuba and China are striking a deal to drill off the coast of Florida - outside of US waters of course.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

All China and Cuba have to do is drill a little "horizontal" and they will be in "our" oil. Dwight they may start in their waters, but the drill will end up in our areas. Now my question for the enviros is we can't do it, but China and Cuba can? Does that make any sense at all? The U.S. won't have ANY control of the drilling practices that the Chinese or Cubans use.


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Hay, how come our largest oil company is #14 on the list?? 

BulletBob


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's not true about China and Cuba--see the link 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40776.html 

Here's a quote: "The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR." 

How come it's ok to refer to people who oppose oil drilling as "enviro whackos?"


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Would someone please be so kind as to point me to a reputable link that clearly and factually states China and Cuba are combining to drill for oil anywhere.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Drudge Report is getting ready to publish the first photos of the drilling rigs that will be used by Cuba and China. These ships are being manufactured by Samsung Shipping. And lownote, I know where you are coming from on this. I'm all for being environmentally correct as anyone, but I surely cannot see the logic in denying our own country the right to drill (environmentally safe) but allowing these countries to do the same with NO CONTROLS of what they are doing, just a scant 80-90 miles off our own coast. The same argument can be made about the standards WE must follow or will have to follow in the future with concerns of global warming, when China spews all the garbage it wants to. We ALL breathe the same oxygen in the same atmosphere. The environmentlists seem to want to preach the same agenda, no drilling in Anwar, no drilling off the coast of Florida or California (where I live), but WILL NOT suggest alternatives. I lived in California when those oil platforms caused so much damage to the Santa Barbara Channel. But drilling technology has changed now and drilling can be done safely, IMHO. I'm all for doing the right thing, but I want to hear what ideas these other folks have without taking the next fifty years to get a solution. WE need solutions now! AND when Iran chokes off the Straight of Houmouz in the gulf, you'll be happy to pay $10 per gallon. Nobody will be able to solve that one and we will have a world depression. I'm tired of the left and right belly-aching about what should be done and they still keep talking-no actions. It's really pathetic. I'm off my box now. PEACE, lownote.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

From our local "The Age" newspaper by Andrew Weldon


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07/04/2008 7:37 PM

_Would someone please be so kind as to point me to a reputable link that clearly and factually states China and Cuba are combining to drill for oil anywhere._


Published Miami Herald on Thu, Jun. 12, 2008

_"China's Sinopec oil company does have an agreement with the Cuban government to develop onshore resources west of Havana, Piñon said. The Chinese have done some seismic testing, he said, but no drilling. *[Western diplomats in Havana told McClatchy that to the best of their knowledge there is no Chinese drilling offshore."]*

"Cuba's state oil company, Cupet, has issued exploration contracts to companies from India, Canada, Spain, Malaysia and Norway. But many oil companies from those countries have expressed reservations about how to turn potential crude oil into product. Cuba doesn't have the refinery capacity, and the biggest potential market -- the U.S. -- is off limits because of the trade embargo."_

China-Cuba rumors fuel renewed offshore drilling debate

_(Above bold emphasis added by myself.)_
And we all know how open and forthright the communications are between Cuba and the U.S.? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## Dave F (Jan 2, 2008)

Can we get back to chatting about the hookers?


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

And just what line are you in??????

If you mean what line of bussiness am I in, I'm in the sporting goods bussiness. We sell baseabll and softball equipment, why do you ask??


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By John J on 07/04/2008 1:33 PM
I was under the impression that the present "OUTLAWING" of drilling off our shores and other places was done with and EXECUTIVE ORDER Signed by a president. 
Can a exectuve order be recendided by another president? 
If that is true then it would be real easy to change things. But I guess it's just not going to happen 



Nope....our wonderful Congress and state legislatures passed the no-drill legislation. In California, we have earthquake issues. Also, having lived in Santa Barbara for six years, I can GUARANTEE you that the oil platforms INCREASED the amount of "tar" that washed ashore. Before the rigs went in, tar on the beaches was an issue. AFTER the rigs went in...and they began their water injection process, the tar on the beach increases a lot...and this was before the damn rig blew out and saturated the whole coastline. For sure, that water injection process forces more oil out...but it also forces it out of the cracks in the sea floor that are there from the earthquake fault. 

As for Florida...or should I say the Gulf...I understand it's Florida law that precludes drilling south of the panhandle. 

As for Alaska...it's Federal legislation that stops the development of ANWR...which to me is flat stupid. 

In Colorado, Exxon/Mobile JUST announced a new technology that allows them to recover the oil in the oil shale without digging. There's some new technique that heats the ground to release the oil from the shale. 

For SURE...we need more investment in new technology to get at the oil we have...but I still think we need a HUGE endeavor started to develop and install NEW non-oil based energy sources....solar, wind, wave, and nuclear IMHO. And I mean HUGE!!! 

Oil as we know it won't be here when our great grandkids go to college...and that's NOT far out.


----------



## Steve S. (Jan 2, 2008)

It is so typical. The folks that always are ready to take shots at the U.S. for just about anything never seem to want to talk about the other Super powers, China and Russia. Remember three mile Island.........wow, about the same amount of radiation was exposed as getting a chest x ray, but oh my gosh.......America is terrible and let's never build another nuclear facility. But then Russia has nuclear catastorphies killing thousands and letting off enough radiation that the whole area is still probably glowing orange, they try to cover it up, and I do not hear these same Americans crying about that. China polutes and does not even try to clean up their act, and these same Americans never say a thing. I could go on and on. But my, how these same Americans are always ready to point their finger at our large "Evil" corporations and our Great Country. 
The time to open up drilling is now. If they want to drill in my own backyard it is fine with me. 
Our oil companies are so much better at it then any others in the world, both in safety to our enviroment and production it is amazing. And, if a spotted red tailed salamander may be disturbed, well thats just too bad. We can put a few in the zoos to keep those that "care" so much about animals happy.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Steve S. on 07/05/2008 1:40 AM
The time to open up drilling is now. If they want to drill in my own backyard it is fine with me.




Well...I'm not so sure that's true. While I'm a believer in supply and demand...I'm NOT sure the demand is really here...for users of oil versus folks that like to gamble...or speculate as the news likes to say. When hedge funds and retirement funds buy more oil than China does...and sell it on the spot market...that's gambling. For sure, increased oil production would harm their gamble...but where's the incentive to drill more and produce more if the end game is lowering prices? Well, the answer is in the smaller drilling companies, and NOT the larger ones like Exxon/Mobile or BC or Pemex or...name big one. That will make a few folks richer...but won't provide enough supply to really lower prices. 

While I'm a proponent of drilling in the US for US consumption, I don't want to see our production increase to the extent that the oil prices get so low that other countries start buying OUR oil. 

The solution is in moderation of oil use in the near future by us...with the high prices...and development of NEW sources of energy for us to consume. If we shift to non-oil energy use MORE...then oil prices will go down somewhat because we burn less for electricity and heat (in cities). However, the alternate energy sources....nuclear, solar, ethanol, etc...aren't profitable to do UNLESS oil prices are high. 

So...oil is going to go away for energy use in 50 to 100 years...and we need to get on with changing to alternate energy sources NOW. If we just drill more, we'll use up what we have...lowering prices so that our oil goes to other countries...and we NEVER get the alternative energy sources going for our benefit. 

Bottom line...get used to higher energy prices...and work toward a workable future energy supply. I sure don't see how this shift can be made unless we force the politicians to take off the rose colored glasses. $5 gas will be here by the end of the year...and that forces us to change how we use energy...and we need to force our legislators to formulate a way ahead. 

I sure wish someone had a vision for our energy future...like President Kennedy did with the go-to-the-moon initiative. Maybe with a vision...we'd go somewhere good.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Nice, well reasoned post, Mike


----------



## chooch (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By TonyWalsham on 07/04/2008 12:07 AM
Posted By markperr on 07/03/2008 4:20 PM 
The way I see it, I'll be long dead before the oil runs out, and at the pace that all the hand wringers are moving at to bring us an alternative, I suspect so will they. 
I'm all for alternative methods of energy. I'll be the second person to ride on a solar powered airplane, right behind the person who advocates it's returns from their successful first flight. 
Mark

No doubt our children, grand children and great grand children will be delighted with the legacy we will be leaving for them to appreciate.





Many people can't worry about grand children and great grand children. They are worried about feeding and clothing their family TODAY. Homes heated with oil, electric or propane have a real problem. The cost has gone through the roof and mothers and fathers are doing without essentials to pay for fuel. Take a look around. Watch the news. It may not be in your neighborhood, but believe me it's not far from you where people are really hurting because of the fuel situation. Something needs to be done now or we will be a third world country soon with no real hope for the grand children or great grand children.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I heat my with Propane. In May of 2007 it cost 175 bucks to fill my tank. Last Nov it cost me 425 bucks. I have turned off my propane tank. I am not sure what I am going to do to heat the house next winter. I told the Propane company to take me off Auto Fill.


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Do we have drilling rigs in the Gulf from before the ban? What happened to them during the storm Katrina? Did we have that much of a spill during the Huricane? I thought we have improved the process of drilling that we are less likly to spill oil than ever before?


----------



## flatracker (Jan 2, 2008)

I guess I'm sort of between Steve and Mike, who both have good arguments and well thought out. While I sure agree we need alternative fuel developed, I still know we need oil for quite a while. I don't see anything else that will keep our airlines flying, trains running and heavy equipment operating. Also huge factories, etc. operating. 

I don't know if we did drill more, who would be buying the oil, as the oil companies will sell to the highest bidder. They don't care what happens to our country, as they are in the business to make all the money they can for themselves and the stockholders (which are us, to some extent). 

The real problem to me is, the politicians who have been arguing against each other for so long, and it has gotten so bitter, they have lost all reasoning as to what they are suppose to be doing to help make the country run better. They have ceased to come up with common sense agreements on just about everything. Personally, I'm so discusted with the whole bunch of them, that I would like to throw all of them out and start from scratch. It sure couldn't be any worse than it is now. Maybe we wouldn't have the ones that are so deeply entrenched, that they are their own little powerhouses that use their ego to slant things the way they want them to be. I guess I'm thinking of utopia?/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sad.gif 

We need an energy plan for this country that includes more drilling, more nuke plants, and more coal fired power plants NOW! We also need to pour a lot of moey into research for new sources. As stated before, if we could get to the moon in fairly short order, I think we can also develope new energy soures fairly quick, given a STRONG effort. Of course congress will sit on their posteriors and twiddle their thumbs, worring about the environment (votes to keep them in power), etc., etc. PATHETIC, is the word for them. 

This is a great country! We CAN do it! Hopefully, enough of us will get mad enough to keep pounding on the congress people, or VOTE them OUT! That's the only thing they understand. Soooo people, will we do it? After all, it's up to US!


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

flatracker, 

You have the right idea.. Check up on your congressperson.. If they voted against drilling in the US or off shore, then work against them & vote them out.. Do the same for those who are anti nuke power plants.. We need to get people in office who will take action.. 

BulletBob


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Would someone please be so kind as to point me to a reputable link that clearly and factually states China and Cuba are combining to drill for oil anywhere.

Does the New York Times qualify? Not exactly a newspaper known for its "conservative bias."  

Article[/b] 

To be fair and balanced, there are other news outlets now claiming this info is false - so who to believe? 

Bob - I agree with everything you said. 

All - lets keep the discussion civil and leave labels like "enviro wackos" out of the discussion please. Complaints are coming in. I'm sure we can all express our opinions without employing such labels. Thax.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

To me one of the problems with all the new "green technologies" that I never hear brought up is the "density factor." Say what you will about fosil fuels and necular power, but one thing they do do is pack a great deal of energy into a very small area.

While I'm sure that part of the problem may be addressed with advancing technology. I'm not so sure that the following is really an improvement, and mind you all of the following are currently in place today..._No, no, no, Bobbie, that's not a forest it's a wind farm_...


----------



## peter bunce (Dec 29, 2007)

Hi, 

I understand where you in the USA coming from and the reasons why, BUT our oil is already over $5 a gallon (at 4.5 litres to the gallon). the present price is (per litre) £1.16 x 4.5 = £5.22 in dollars = 10.44! I agree that fully half of our cost, if not more, is duty - to the government. 

So we are there, in net terms, and way past in cash terms; I am also concerned with the cost (& have been for years!) BUT the discussion if it should be here (are your RR's complaining, our truck hauliers are?) needs to be kept on an even and 'non confrontational' level. 

We are there in net terms and way past in cash terms; I am also concerned with the cost BUT the discussion if it should be here (are your RR's complaining, our truck hauliers are?) needs to be kept on an even none confrontation level. Where do they put it all? Ah, that is totally another story, and I am not going to start on that, it does not belong here at all! 

As Dwight has said and I wholly endorse and agree with him, CAN YOU KEEP IT IN ORDER please? If not tjhis topic will have to be closed down, though I am also sure that the moderators will only do that with a reluctant and heavy heart but it can & will be done if neccassary. 


So can we keep it somewhat calmer all round please?


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight and lownote, 

Sorry for the label. My bad. Notice taken.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 07/05/2008 8:46 AM
To me one of the problems with all the new "green technologies" that I never hear brought up is the "density factor." Say what you will about fosil fuels and necular power, but one thing they do do is pack a great deal of energy into a very small area.

While I'm sure that part of the problem may be addressed with advancing technology. I'm not so sure that the following is really an improvement, and mind you all of the following are currently in place today..._No, no, no, Bobbie, that's not a forest it's a wind farm_...





Personally, I like the wind farms. I find them graceful...and there are a bunch here in California and you don't see them for the most part unless you drive within a few miles of them. 

On the other hand, I can drive 40 miles up to Riverside County and NOT see the 14,000 ft mountains around the valley...because of smog. I would think it would be great if wind power farms could reduce the smog there by providing clean power. A lot more people would then have the nicer view. Certainly way more than see those wind farms. We just need a plan to make this happen. 

Or nuclear power...just need to begin building nuclear plants for commercial use like the Navy builds them for submarines and aircraft carriers...treat em like machines. Mass produce them. Incrementally improve the machine over it's lifetime on a mass basis...versus the custom basis we use now. We just need a plan. 

Or wave power. San Clemente Island is powered by a wave generator that floats on the surface. Been out there...it's only a mile or so west of the island...but it's real hard to see. Frankly, I've only seen it when flying into there. Yep...ships have to go around it...but they're used to going around the island. Imagine 100s of square miles of ocean with these things bobbing away in the swells. We just need a plan. 

Or coal power...gasified coal. The USAF has a mandate to use synthetic jet fuel soon...so they are trying to get a coal gasification plant built in Montana...that converts coal to oil and injects the waste CO2 deep underground where it will stay forever. The issues being faced are not technical...they're trying to find out whether the process can be done on a large scale. We got LOTS of coal in Wyoming and Montana. We just need a plan. 

Then we have the new solar collector technology...a firm in San Jose has a new way to PRINT solar panels using a printing press. The solar collectors cost 1/10th what the previous stuff cost. Their first plant sold out a years printing in a week. What we need are MORE printing plants. We just need a plan. 

And if those solar collectors do start coming out in quantity...we can cover all the roofs with them in sunny areas...and reverse the electric grid...with it's attendant impacts. We just need a plan. 

Then we have the solar farms...one is being proposed in the Imperial Valley that will provide 20% of the power to San Diego. San Diego is the 6th largest city in the US. So, theorectically, if we built a 1000 acre solar farm out there, instead of the several hundred acre one being proposed, we could power all of San Diego from it. The problem is the transmission line required...unsightly, fire hazard, goes over environmentally protected ground (isn't that everywhere now), disrupts animal movement, etc. There's a solution here somewhere. We just need a plan. 

And, as Bob Martin pointed out, what we DON'T need is polarized representatives. Representatives that are hard over one way...or idiots like that Senator who says the Chinese aren't drilling in the Gulf (they aren't...yet)...but he's NOT helping by saying what he's saying. It's the hard over folks and the untruthful spins that keep progress from happening. We just need a plan...and to do that, we need environmentalists and money'd interests and regulators to pull together...to make that plan. 

VOTE every legislature, Congress, State, and Local OUT if they are not pulling for or LEADING a solution...or have NO CLUE. Get new folks in there...and maybe we can have that plan we need. We just need a plan...or several of them.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

In my own personal case, of trying the do the environmentally correct thing of trying to save energy in my own home, I installed a solar heating system for my swimming pool. This was in 1979, only six years after the FIRST gas crunch. There were great tax incentives to do this. And these tax incentives were both STATE and FEDERAL. I paid NO federal or state income tax for four years with these incentives. But, you know what? In 1984, both the feds and state dropped those incentives like a hot potato when they saw that these incentives were working TOO WELL and the taxes were not coming in and tax revenue was drying up. In 1983, I converted my hot water system for the home to solar. The state of California still had a new incentive for that! Those tax incentives don't exist anymore. This all occurred over 25-30 years ago! If our government was REALLY serious about energy independece, we would have a program similar to the "Moonshot" program proposed by John Kennedy in 1961. We should be looking at ALL FORMS of energy, not just drilling. As Mike said, there are wind farms all over Southern California. They are in the Tehachapi area, south in the valleys leading into and around Palm Springs. We just don't seem to be real serious and committed to solving this energy problem. This all could have been done over thirty years ago! Even now, if oil costs per barrel, drop for unexplainable reason, we all will be back to our old ways in a nano-second. Very sad indeed.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike

All of the above is nice but still doesn't address the density problem.

Then there's another question that I've never seen addressed, and that's what are the effects all of the wind farms and solar farms will have on the climate, with the scale in which they'll need to be employed.

All of that electricity that's being generated by whatever method, can't ignore one of the basic generally accepted laws of science. Mainly, _"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form."_ I've never seen any reports or predictions of just what the effect pulling all that energy out of the atmosphere will have on the weather patterns.

Yes, I know laugh, but then think El Niño/La Niña, which is nothing more than the heating and cooling of the equatorial waters in a relatively small area of the Pacific Ocean, and does nothing more than add energy or withdraw energy from the atmosphere, and this is again generally accepted to be responsible for changes to the weather patterns around the globe. Add to the preceding that these technologies are intended to be implemented on a global scale by both developed and undeveloped nations alike. The mere fact that the effects will be spread across a much greater area than that which El Niño/La Niña encompass, may have unforeseen consequences.


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

We need pebble reactors!! These do not require water for cooling & are small, so you keep adding as the need goes up.. Some of the the third world countrys are building them now.. Why are we behind.. These would be good for all the small towns.. No large transmission lines to build.. 

BulletBob


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor 

The greenies would be all over THAT in an instant


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 07/05/2008 2:07 PM
Mike

All of the above is nice but still doesn't address the density problem.





Sure it does....none are dense. Dense is bad IMHO. All the NIMBY's in the area of any "dense" project put up HUGE fights over any project going into their area...and delay them...which drives up cost. Except for the nuclear option, the other energy techniques are disbursed...and often in areas where population density is very low...and they just pump the energy into the area that needs it. Heck...our local utility buys power from hydro dams up in Washington State. 

As for the other effects...you've got a point. Solar farms form a high density beam of light that heats water...and I suppose it would harm any birds flying through it. Wave power does absorb wave energy...ergo flattens waves. Who knows what problems that would make if you put in thousands of square miles of them. 

I could go on...the point is, we need to find out. Someone has to lead the way to find out IF these are good...bad...what their weaknesses are...what needs to be fixed...how to fix it...does it work in large scale profitably...etc. If no one leads, nothing happens. It's NOT time for hand wringing. We got our $5 gas...let's not try to trump that with having $10 gas in two years. 

We didn't know how to go to the moon when Kennedy proposed that we do. I'm suggesting bold moves here...so that the US has an energy future...and maybe starts a NEW INDUSTRY...employing a lot of folks...so that we can sell to other countries. 

We know these energy techniques are technically safe....what we don't know is how they scale up. We need to find out.


----------



## KYYADA (Mar 24, 2008)

Oil = 100 yrs. 

Lets look at a few US fuel reserves 

Natural Gas = 300 yrs. 

Nuclear = 80 yrs. 

Coal = a thousand or so 

What we need is a way of using solar power to make transportable fuel..... 
oh I forgot we already have that it's called alcohol and I hear some sophisticated modelers use to power their trains !!!


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By KYYADA on 07/05/2008 11:54 PM 
SNIP 
What we need is a way of using solar power to make transportable fuel..... 
oh I forgot we already have that it's called alcohol and I hear some sophisticated modelers use to power their trains !!!

Yep. 
The really sophisticated modellers use electricty already, to charge batteries in their Large Scale locos. 
Solar makes it clean and Green. 

See, I brought it back to model trains.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike

Don't misunderstand I'm not against using any technology to better our position, I just think that jumping head long into something without any idea of the consequences isn't a good idea, and may very well create a problem worse than the one trying to be solved in the first place.

For example, the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas (currently the largest wind farm in the world) produces 730MW (i.e. about half again the output of an average coal fired power plant) and it takes up 47,000 acres. compare that to the area that the coal fired plant requires. The wind farm doesn't seem like an efficient use of land for the power produced.

As for *BOLD* moves, I don't think they will be well received by the environmentalists. I mean take a look at what is currently happening in west & north Texas with the law suits against the wind farms. You'd think they would be pleased that what is generally considered to be a much cleaner source of power is being implemented, but they are not.

As for the alcohol, just sticking with the basics. One gallon of alcohol contains but two-thirds of the energy that is contained in a gallon of gasoline. So if you were to do a direct replacement of gasoline with alcohol. You'd have to produce by volume 33% more alcohol from the start just to break even with the gasoline.


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

A valiant attempt, Tony!


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

I just think that jumping head long into something without any idea of the consequences isn't a good idea, and may very well create a problem worse than the one trying to be solved in the first place.
I agree with that. Another example... the Federal mandate on using corn to produce fuel. That brilliant piece of legislation has tied the price of corn to the price of oil, and now the cost of food has also gone through the roof.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Real environmental issues and NIMBY issues are NOT the same...and fears from one should not be confused with the other. "The Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center was subject to one of the nation's first nuisance lawsuits against a wind farm. Plaintiffs in the area of the wind farm, many of whom live on 100-700 acre properties, originally filed suit in June 2005, unhappy about the appearance of the turbines. Soon after, the judge ruled that under Texas law, they could not complain about the look of the wind farm. The complaints then shifted to the sound created by the turbines and extensive noise measurements were made. However, the jury found that the wind farm did not create a private nuisance, and awarded the plaintiffs nothing." -- Wikipedia. 

NIMBY issues are just another challenge that we need leadership to help with. There USED TO BE a feeling in the US that big public works projects were good for the country. That's changed I think. While 47,000 acres sounds like a lot of land, it's really only 70 square miles or so...10 miles x 7 miles. Consider how much land was lost in the 1930s when all the major dams were built in the west...to produce hydro power for people elsewhere. Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam alone is like 100 miles long and miles wide and takes up 250 square miles of space...and that's just the water. We take that for granted now. And, consider this also...it's beautiful to some...and to some environmentalists its beyond ugly because of what it's done to the Colorado River basin. 

Consider all the land taken to build the interstates in the 1950s and 60s and all the acreage developed to provide the materials for that project. A two lane interstate (each way) uses an acre of land for every 250' it runs...like 20 acres per mile...and that's for a little one. Get into the more suburban areas...and you end up with 10 lanes going each way eating up an acre in 50'. 

Some solutions take space. You and I are obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum on that issue...I think disbursed is better than dense. I drive across the west and southwest part of our country and see endless space to develop solar or wind power. I'd much prefer to see a big wind farm put in a pass in the mountains in the back country...than another natural gas driven generating plant put inside the city limits...or a new coal fired one put in near the rail lines that have to be widened to take the extra coal train load. 

And then there is the practical aspects...and this isn't pretty, but it's true...in rural areas, there are less people to sue to stop a big solution project...especially if it's NIMBY issues. That is clearly something leadership has to consider...and I still believe in the American standard of "what benefits the most, is good for the country". Unfortunately, our present leadership looks at the rural picture along the lines of "there's not enough folks there that can hurt me in an election...nor contribute to my campaign"...so lawsuits, versus affirmative support in the legislature for rural issues, become the new "control". 

Big problems, like this energy crunch, require big solutions...and big solutions require a plan...and we need leadership to create that plan. Not everyone is going to be happy...especially today with all the lawyers we got just sitting around waiting for a juicy one. 

As I posted when some of us got our $1200 bonus check from the IRS in May...that $68,000,000,000 might have been better spent on infrastruture improvements in the US...because it would have fixed things that need fixing...and employed folks here....and put the money into OUR economy (versus China's). IMHO, that was a bad plan... Consider what might have been done with regard to this developing energy crisis if that money had been spent to put solar power generation in somewhere....or a wave generator...and coal gasification to give us more liquid energy that can be transported through our existing pipelines (which ethanol can't be). We just need a plan...


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike

No. I don't think we're on opposite ends at all. All I'm saying is we can build three nuclear power plants in much less space than the equivalent amount of land required for wind farms and/or solar to produce the same amount of power. Which then that land not used remains open for other uses. Not to mention that the fact that those three power plants are at much less risk of being taken off line because of weather damage.

Although I figure that coal fired plants would be faster to bring online.


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Mikey for President. 

Of the UN Climate Change Action Group that is. 
They could surely do with his vision.


----------



## Ltotis (Jan 3, 2008)

Mike, 
Here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts a company has proposed putting a wind farm off Cape Cod. The well to do NIMBY's and environmentalists are howling against it. A company wants to put a NAtural Gas Terminal in Fall River, MA and the NIMBY's and environmentalists are against it. 
LAO


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Ltotis on 07/06/2008 7:13 PM 
Mike, 
Here in the People's Republic of Taxachusetts a company has proposed putting a wind farm off Cape Cod. The well to do NIMBY's and environmentalists are howling against it. A company wants to put a NAtural Gas Terminal in Fall River, MA and the NIMBY's and environmentalists are against it. 
LAO 


Is it too much to ask people to be specific? Who are "the environmentalists?" I'm an "environmentalist," and I'd be delighted to see a wind farm off cape cod. Don't know about the Natural Gas terminal in Fall River--I might be in favor and I might not. I'd have to actually investigate the objective facts first. Then maybe I can start "howling."


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 07/06/2008 7:47 PM
Posted By Ltotis on 07/06/2008 7:13 PM Is it too much to ask people to be specific? Who are "the environmentalists?" I'm an "environmentalist," and I'd be delighted to see a wind farm off cape cod. Don't know about the Natural Gas terminal in Fall River--I might be in favor and I might not. I'd have to actually investigate the objective facts first. 




Venting...you know, THAT is a good question. Many of us are...or at least have those kind of concerns on our mind...but that term "an environmentalist" has become associated with those who express what I'd call extreme environmental views. In many cases, that slur is not warranted. 

For example that natural gas terminal that Larry mentioned. In my view, natural gas terminals are NOT big environmental issues...they're just a facility with a pier that off loads natural gas from ships and put it in pipelines. Really, not a big deal. BUT, my own NIMBY senses would come out if one of these was proposed near where I live. Second only to nuclear weapons, liquid natural gas carried in ships is the next most powerful potential explosion. This is NOT a facility you want to put near any highly populated places. 

Now, given that, I suppose even folks with regular environmental concerns would be worried about environmental impacts IF a hugely massive explosion were to occur. I think that point of view is BS. I mean...we're gonna ban a facility because if it explodes it will kill the birds??? Give me a break...if it explodes it's gonna kill lotsa people if it's put in the wrong place. This is a NIMBY issue...and not an "environmental" issue. If the facility were an anchoring buoy located 100 miles off the coast with a pipeline to shore...NIMBY issues would be resolved...then we'd see the "but you might make a whale go deaf if it happened to be near there when the ship exploded". This is the extremism that is being associated with good sensed folks that embrace environmental issues for good reasons. 

Taken to the extreme, anything that moves dirt could become the kind of "environmental" concern that the natural gas terminal would have...and if taken to the extreme would shut down commerce anywhere. In fact, as I started above, I believe the slur related to environmentalism is related to those that will do damn near anything to stop change...even if the change is good for the society at large...and perhaps bad for a local situation. 

Unfortunately, the polarization of our society in recent years...and forgetting the old mantra of "doing good for the masses"...has led to the defamatory term by those that are less "environmentally opined". I look at some of the things that the "environmentalists" are doing to stop or delay "good" projects...and I see something other than environmental concerns. Clearly, as in my discription of the natural gas terminal, environmental concerns would likely be minimal for normal operations...but the NIMBY group (who'd I agree with) might cite all kinds of environmental impacts...and inflate their importance...when all they're really worried about is getting blown to bits. 

The one environmental action I find MOST OFFENSIVE is the point of view to completely deny access to public lands. We are beginning to see this all over the western states. Sometimes it is because "they" don't like hunters. Sometimes it's because "they" don't like hikers. Sometimes it's because "they" don't like surveyors...cause that portends change...maybe. Sometimes it's because "they" don't want the land developed. Sometimes it's because the "visitors" have a history of hurting things. There's lots of reasons...but denying access to large parts of our country just to deny access really pisses me off. 

This is preemtion without consideration...and it's anti free...meaning the antithesis of a free society. I find it unAmerican frankly. The people that promote these points of view ARE the "environmentalists" that people slur...and for a reason IMHO. They've earned it... 

Balance is what we need...between the needs of society and the need to maintain our environment. All this talk about wind, wave, and solar power IS about that...so are means to bring more natural gas here...it's eco friendly compared to other fuels. 

Hydrocarbon fuels are going to run out, become too expensive to use, or too expensive to "unpollute" (i.e. coal) in the our foreseeable future. We need a plan to make a significant shift in our energy generation industry to more environmentally friendly sources...like nuclear, solar, wind, or sun. We just need a plan...and someones (plural) to incite us to go that way. 

On the subject of trains...did you know that the proposed High Speed Train in California is now been tasked to study whether that 250 mph train system could be an energy negative system...and a pollution negative system? The CA HST commission is studying whether putting solar cells all along the roadbed would provide NOT ONLY enough power to run the whole train system...but to sell excess power to the communities...AND sell CO2 credits (because the train is electric. This could be the first MAKES A PROFIT public transportation system in the US in a long time.


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Common Sense. (And I'm not talking about the Thomas Paine book.....Or am I?) 
Anyhow, something the majority of our society has shown they have little to no knowledge of nor ability to practice and follow in probably 60 years. Neither side, the "Left" or the "Right" has a clue about it. The majority of those in control or the "wannabe's" as well for that fact. But it does seem that somewhere entrenched in the "Middle" it is still alive and well. Too bad it's the left and the right that are in the tug of war over things. Take them and their "interests" out of the picture and we might just stand a chance at a future that any of us will recognize. 
Seems so simple (maybe too simple) but IMVHPO.....That's all it will take ia an effort at common sense. Too bad common sense doesn't ultra-maximixe a bottomline (well it could if used properly) or line the pockets of the....................../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, 

I don't know if you're aware of this, but coal and coke gassification has been around since the first oil crisis in 1973. The current problem with IGCC (coal and coke gassification) is also one of how to tax it. I don't know the ins and outs of that. I did do testing for new ball mills for the replacement of some older mills in Deleware at one of the refineries. Turns out that the IGCC process ends up with +10 MW of electricity that gets sold back to the local grid. Its not 100% efficient, but its pretty close. (heat loss, amonia, and other harmful chemicals are by products) Gassification is a fairly complex process (read expensive) that only rears its head when oil prices are high. Historicically, the price of oil drops and people drop the idea of gassification. Maybe not this time, however. The plant did look like a Chem E's wet dream, so NIMBYs are not going to like it. 

For the first time, I saw E85 for sale, at $2.95 a gallon. This was near Strasburg, PA on July 4. Interesting. Maybe it is time we don't give money to farmers anymore to plow their fields under. Instead, they now have a cash crop. Is that so bad? Food prices are already linked to oil, as in, delivery from farm to market to grocery store. Unless you go to their farm stand, which I find has the same or higher prices than my already expensive grocery store. (family business was a fruit stand, so I can't buy bad produce.) I have found a way to beat the system with the baby food. I make it myself. A bag of apples will make three ice cube trays of apple sauce. At 4 to 6 cubes a day, that bag of apples ($4) will last me almost 2 weeks. I do the same with pears, peaches, bananas, and instead of paying $.50 a feeding, I'm paying more like $.10 a feeding. I guess we all have to tap the creative genes. 

I'd like to see the development of alternative fuels along the lines of the Moon Shot program. However, I think it will take a huge cash infusion from the government, same as with NASA, before it gets off the ground. There is no alternative fuels lobby in Washington, and that's who runs the show. There is a big 3 lobby and an oil lobby. Are we really that surprised that we haven't had any new developments in 100 years in mass produced automobiles? What did we have 100 years ago? The use of gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine dates from the late 19th century. Electric generation as we know it today was done by Tesla in the late 19th century as well. Its a lot more efficient than DC power, when it comes to long distance transmission. 

Here's another idea that might work, might not. Some of us pay money to belong to a gym. A lot of folks use the areobic machines, like bicylces, treadmills, elipticals, etc.. What if there was a way for folks to bring batteries and charge them based on the power generated by the machine. Have a standard type battery (like those 18v batteries used by power drills, etc..) that folks could charge as they work out. Bring your iPod, plug it in and charge it. Same with the cell phone, or anything else that is essentially battery powered. 

Going with the wave theme. I wonder if it'd be possible to capture the energy from pushing keyboard keys. I use a computer keyboard all day long, and even though we're probably talking about 4mm of travel, over the course of 8-10 hours, that would possibly add up. It would increase the price of a standard keyboard from about $10 to probably $1000. But, it might allow your laptop to be recharged without the plug. Just a thought. Practicality is another thing altogether. 

Maybe these are not enough of an impact, but I would think that at this point, small things are going to start to pay off. 

As for the hookers, they're completely cut out of the picture for me (unless they're trying to pay me, which has happened. yech!) As I told the one in Hong Kong in 2002, "I'm six and a half feet tall and the tallest guy for a square mile. I'm not paying you for anything!" Turns out that having a wife is a lot more expensive than a girlfriend which is certainly more expensive than a hooker. Some of you have noted the expenses associated with ex-wives is higher than with a wife. Still, I get to keep her (bad and good) for a little longer than an hour and she does fold my laundry. 


Whoa that was a rambly message!! 

Mark


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 07/07/2008 11:25 AM
Mike, 
I don't know if you're aware of this, but coal and coke gassification has been around since the first oil crisis in 1973. The current problem with IGCC (coal and coke gassification) is also one of how to tax it. I don't know the ins and outs of that. I did do testing for new ball mills for the replacement of some older mills in Deleware at one of the refineries. Turns out that the IGCC process ends up with +10 MW of electricity that gets sold back to the local grid. Its not 100% efficient, but its pretty close. (heat loss, amonia, and other harmful chemicals are by products) Gassification is a fairly complex process (read expensive) that only rears its head when oil prices are high. Historicically, the price of oil drops and people drop the idea of gassification. Maybe not this time, however. The plant did look like a Chem E's wet dream, so NIMBYs are not going to like it. 





The coal gassification I was talking about was the one that converts coal into jet fuel/diesel...because we need to address where the liquid fuel comes from after oil becomes too expensive. It's a newer processes I believe. The problem with coal gassification in general is that it emits a huge amount of CO2...which is an environmental no no now. The processes that the USAF is trying to get going in Montana injects all the waste CO2 into the ground...deep...where it stays forever. I thought it was a power consumer too...versus a power generator. Don't really know. 

Now...the coal has to get to this plant...and it has to be dug up...and THOSE will generate big environmental concerns...and...it's making just another hydrocarbon fuel...which of itself causes pollution. Somehow, the "plan" has to deal with that too. I can't see any solution that doesn't partially depend on hydrocarbon based fuels...because they're portable. 

On the subject of ethanol, we're not going to farm our way out of the future energy shortfalls using the farmland we have now. To begin with, using corn is dumb. It's easy because it's easy to get the sugar out of the corn...ergo cheap...but it raises the cost of food as folks have pointed out. Dumb. What is needed is a way to grow and harvest grasses (e.g. switch grass) from ground that is NOT normally planted...hillsides, rocky flatland, and such...and then convert it to ethenol. There are two big problems with the second approach...the "distilling" process has not been put into use on a large scale and it's very different from the corn based ethanol approach...and the need for new kinds of "farm" machinery that can cut grass on a slope...or over rocks...and get the grass to market. The good news is that there's a LOT of ranch land that could be converted to grass growing for fuel...while still supporting cattle and sheep ranching. I'd LOVE to see our farmers and ranchers become not only the food source for our country but also the energy source too. 

And we need to invest in infrastructure to transport this ethanol. You can't pump it through our existing pipelines which were designed for pumping oil and gas products where some water in the line doesn't matter...oil doesn't mix with water. Ethanol does however...very easily. I think that whomever has had a gin and tonic would understand that...or a scotch and water. 

Again...point out the challenges and make a plan. Beat up your legislators...vote em out.


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm persuaded that we could make a huge difference by small economies. If every house had a solar panel we would not even be close to off oil, but we'd be using a lot less. I know a lot of people here hate them, but compact flourescents save a ton of energy for a lot of applications. Near me runs the remains of a small freight line, the W&OD. It's not a bike path. If you ride your biek out to the next town, you can see how the bike trail runs along an old industrial corridor which included a lumber yard, a stamping mill, etc. They all used to be on the rail line. Now the lumber mill gets its lumber trucked in. Why not put home depot near a rail spur? Reverting to the model we used for most of the century, where heavy industry was near rail, would go a long way towards reducing consumption.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike, 

This is what I'm referring to: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Gasification_Combined_Cycle 

Read down about the reliability of these generating stations. True, they do use a lot of energy in the autoclave, but they also capture the residual heat and convert that to steam to do the work of generating small quantities of electricity. We have been doing a lot of testing on the grinding side (in the chart, we're the rod mill.). Problem with coal and coke is that it is hydrophophic and will thicken to the point of being unpumpable above 60% solid, depending on how fine you grind it. There are people and projects out there trying to improve this process so that this is an alternative to the current coal fired power plant model. 

Also, just some food for thought: I have read that 66% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from 50% of our generating stations. These are the coal fired power plants. In the last 5 years or so, Flue Gas Desulfurization has been pushed pretty hard at those plants. Previously, those plants were allowed to buy CO2 credits for their clean plants. Not anymore. All those plants have to have less than 3% CO2 emmisions by 2010 or 2012. That's good news for us, since we make grinding mills that will grind the limestone or slake lime on site. 

Yes - we have to dig the coal out of the ground and it is a hydrocarbon. Yes, we're digging up the limestone as well. However, the process yields gypsum which is used in the making of walboard. So, it is recycled and we get lower cost walboard (theoretically). 

Nuclear - as a Mechanical Engineer- is the more efficient cycle. However, the uranium has to be mined and enriched. Then, there's the problem of what to do with the spent cells. 

Wind - ever been to Manhattan? its always windy there, seems like. They should have turbines between all the buildings, stack them vertically! Some might not like the look. Imagine those NIMBYs!! LOL! 

Mark


----------



## wigginsn (Jan 9, 2008)

I've been following the latest efforts of this company. Choren Industries - can't do the hyperlink thing yet, Google them and there is plenty of material out there. 

They may be the one of the companies developing the process that Mike is referring to. They are in the early stages of commissioning their first commercial production facility that will turn almost any biomas to diesel, jet fuel and small amounts of petrol. 

Interestingly they are using processes developed early in the 1900's and were extensively used by Germany during WWII to produce their fuel stocks. 

Cheers 
Neil


----------



## Road Foreman (Jan 2, 2008)

Guys, 

Go here.. 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/congress_fiddled_with_warming.html 

BulletBob


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

There are numerous articles on the USAF proposal to use part of Malstrom AFB to convert coal to diesel or jet fuel. This is a LOW sulfur coal to diesel conversion process...not the one discussed above. It's focus is on making LIQUID fuel from coal. The part where it talks about the environmentally concerned opposing the development concerns those that oppose ANY increase in the production of hydrocarbon fuels. The part NOT discussed in this artilcle is the part about all the CO2 emissions from the facility being injected underground...so, except for the fuel produced and burned later, the plant is targeted to be CO2 neutral. That would be HUGE improvement from an environmental standpoint. 

http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1308384/air_force_eyes_coaltoliquids_plant_in_montana/ 

The biomass to fuel approach is something I was actually involved in when I was a Science Advisor for the military. This is a reasonably small plasma operated system that takes in biomass (read that as garbage) and converts it to fuel and basically, powder. The powder is useful for making building material. The fuel output can be refined into many of the lower level refined products...jet fuel, diesel, etc. I understand there are two LARGE experiments going on with this process now...one at a 10M chicken chicken ranch and one at a large hog farm. If these tests work out, my expectation is that your local garbage company will become an energy producer. So far it really looks like it works. 

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007-03/prophet-garbage?page=1


----------

