Europe’s Palm Oil Devastation – Scorched Earth To Save The Planet

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Here’s a clip I missed -broadcast late last year by German ARD television in a news show called Report MÜNCHEN (Report Munich). H/T to Rudolf Kipp, who commented at another blog. See video in German:

Report München on biofuels

It’s yet another glittering jewel of an example of the destruction wreaked by the AGW cult movement. It’s scorched earth policy to save the planet. Meanwhile cult leaders are profiting as the world gets burned. The clip description:

Indonesia: Instead of rainforests, more and more palm oil plantations. Palm oil for our kitchens, cosmetics and biofuels. Report MÜNCHEN shows the latest pictures from Borneo and the ecological catastrophe taking place there. A devastating climate result is the bottom line. Yet parts of the EU-Commission obviously wants to cover this up.”

Biofuel deforestation produces 20% of CO2 emissions

It’s the destruction of the rainforest in the name of climate protection. Clearing the land to make way for palm oil plantations. Prof. Jürgen Schmid of the Fraunhofer IWES Institute:

“We have recommended the German government to completely stop its support of bio-fuels.

The ARD calls the clearing of forests in Asia:

An ecological catastrophe of unimaginable dimensions.”

Unfortunately, huge areas of jungle have already been completely cleared so that palm trees can produce a relatively minuscule amount of biofuel to burn in Europe. Burning the biofuels will reduce CO2 emissions a tiny bit. But this is all offset, and then far far exceeded, by the CO2 that is released from the large-scale deforestation. Prof. Florian Siegert, University of Munich:

It is estmiated that the deforestation causes 20% of the total CO2 emissions on the planet.”

Producing 20% of the CO2 emissions to save a few tenths. A proud result of the destructive AGW cult movement. What do the EU leaders have to say? They are covering this up. Report Munich received classified documents showing that EU bureacrats suppressed this information and kept it out of the public’s view. In an e-mail:

Hypothetical values from an indirect land use change should be removed from the texts.”

Sustainability swindle

EU guidelines do state that primary forests may not be cleared to make biodiesel starting in 2012. But Report Munich calls this labelling fraud. Deforestation of primary forests is not restricted when it comes to clearing primary forests for palm oil for the food industry, and as a result, only a shift on paper takes place. That means rainforests may be cleared away also in the future for palm oil for food. On the old plantations, palm oil for biofuels will move in. Now you see it, now you don’t.

That’s how EU bureaucrats are saving the planet from the climate catastrophe. ARD TV calls it “greenwashing”. Prof. Jürgen Schmid calls it:

Sustainability Swindle”

The Fraunhofer Institute presented their urgent warnings to the EU. But the devastating results were simply deleted in reports – whitewashed. The final report on biofuels was only 10 pages long, and there was no mention of the rainforest devastation caused by the EU’s biofuel policy. Infuriated by the EU, the Fraunhofer Institute added their disclaimer to the report:

The final presentation of the results do not reflect the views of the Fraunhofer ISI.”

When confronted by journalists, EU leaders were quick to duck the brutal reality and busied themselves giving sustainability awards to corporations like Mercedes Benz for building bio-fuel cars. Meanwhile, the German government is even now ignoring the recommendations of its own scientific advisory board, and intends to go ahead in boosting the use of biofuels by the year 2050.

Says Prof Jürgen Schmid:

The German government’s target is to boost bio fuels share as a fuel to 90%. That is madness.”

But destructive cults are mad. And that’s the way the green movement is going ahead. That’s how to save the planet: Just burn it!

The video report was produced by Thomas Kiessling, Mike Lingenfelser (29 Nov 2010).

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

101 responses to “Europe’s Palm Oil Devastation – Scorched Earth To Save The Planet”

  1. Pascvaks

    I’m just a little surprised that there hasn’t been a new cult formed in the past few years, one advocating the end of all international trade (along with MultiNational Corporations). Sure seems like an appealing idea. Everything and anything Germany needs/uses produced from internal resources. And, of course, the same would be true of every other country too. Well, like I said, I’m a ‘little’ surprised. Next to eliminating the “surplus population”, as Dicken’s Scrooge would say, or redistributing the “world’s wealth”, as the UN would say, sure seems like an idea who’s time has come, and yet, I don’t recall that it’s been seriously addressed by the Greens or anyone else. There must be something wrong with it that I just haven’t noticed. We probably need to eliminate civilization too, and go back to the good old days of being Hunter-Gatherers. (SarcOff)

    Everyone in EurAsia and North America needs to plant a tree every year they’re on the planet. It wouldn’t hurt Africa and the Middle East either. (If we can find a way to water them).

    1. DirkH

      Just google “Attac Globalisierung”.
      http://www.attac.de/themen/globalisierung-und-oekologie/

      It’s a major staple of German Leftism to blame everything that goes wrong on globalization. BTW, Organisations can become members of Attac. The DGB (German Trade Union Congress) and the SPD (Social Democratic Party) are members.

      1. DirkH

        “It’s a major staple of German Leftism to blame everything that goes wrong on globalization. ”

        “Globalization” as in “evil multinational capitalism”; not as in “UN-controlled world order” of course. The first is evil, the second is nirvana, as it would neutralize the (evil) US. “Globalisierung” only ever means the former in German polit-parlance.

      2. DirkH

        Attac also has a “blog” (Last updated after COP15) about climate and the international freedom fight for or against it.
        http://globalisierungsklima.wordpress.com/

        Looks like they dropped the climate ball in 2010. Funny attempt at using AGW for leftist agitprop.

      3. Bernd Felsche

        Odd that the SPD should blame all the problems on globalisation.

        The SPD a member of the Socialist International.
        You know, *THE* gobalisation initiative.

        e.g. from the SI’s declaration of principles:
        “4. The challenge of global change opens up enormous possibilities:

        – The internationalisation of the economy and wide-spread access to information and new technologies can, if brought under democratic control, provide a basis for a world society better suited to cooperation. It is obvious that a world family is no longer a utopian dream, but, increasingly, a practical necessity.

        – The technological revolution can and should be used to preserve the environment, create new employment and provide the means to liberate people from routine work rather than ruthlessly impose unwanted idleness.

        – On the basis of suitable and humane democratic structures, freedom, equality, security and prosperity can be achieved within the framework of a democratic world society.”

        Organizational cognitive dissonance.

  2. Viv Evans

    Has it occurred to the green warmist doom mongers that in their rush to have the economies of the developed world ‘de-carbonised’, with biofuels and solar panels, they are actually employing a very insidious form of colonialism?
    Devastating rain forests (I thought we were supposed to save them?), destroying species’ habitats (weren’t we saving species as well?) and exposing vast areas of land, not to mention huge numbers of people in China to industrial toxins which would have these self-said green alarmists scream for long imprisonments for any CEO who’d even dare to think of doing this here?

    I know it hasn’t occurred to them that ruining the economies of the developed world means there’ll be no money which they can spend on keeping Africans in their pittoresque little villages, cooking on dried animal dung and doing everything by hand, just as the greenie overlords want.

    Destroying the planet in order to save it – that’s what the green alarmists are doing.

    1. DirkH

      “Has it occurred to the green warmist doom mongers that in their rush to have the economies of the developed world ‘de-carbonised’, with biofuels and solar panels, they are actually employing a very insidious form of colonialism?”

      No, at least the German Greens and left groups have never mentioned happenings like when the World Bank is urged by Bill Clinton or Al Gore to refrain from financing a coal power plant in Pakistan or South Africa (this actually happened). It is also never mentioned in German news. I think the German Greens and leftists don’t know about it and don’t want to know about it.

  3. Ed Caryl

    Even Gore realizes ethanol was a mistake. Too bad he’s not out there trying to turn that around. We’ll starve, but we can drive.

    1. Jimbo

      They push for biofuels then blame global warming on food price rises. Exellent!

  4. Brian G Valentine

    The real weak link in bio-diesel hasn’t been mentioned here yet.

    That is the energy content, cost, and origin of the sodium methoxide (or methanol) required for the trans esterification of the oil.

    But I think we can get around this problem by wiping out forests for the destructive distillation of wood to make the methanol so we can wipe out jungle to make palm.

    Seems like the logical solution to me

  5. Ed Caryl

    Soon we will be at the point where there isn’t any forest to suck up the CO2. A long time ago, the tropical rain forests were referred to as the “lungs of the earth.” I don’t hear that phrase anymore. Why? And why isn’t there a hue and cry to save the rain forests to suck up the CO2? That end of the problem seems a lot simpler than screwing up the economy with carbon taxes. Especially considering that an intact rainforest is much more productive than the things they do when they cut it. How much of the CO2 increase is because we have lost rainforest?

    Rob & Dana, where are you with the answers to these questions?

  6. DirkH

    Pierre, this fits in well with the biofuel mania: Dr. Doom says the next big global crisis is rising food prizes.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-13/roubini-s-next-crisis-makes-food-for-thought-commentary-by-william-pesek.html

    “It’s not hyperbole when Nouriel Roubini, the New York University economist who predicted the U.S. financial crisis, says surging food and energy costs are stoking emerging-market inflation that’s serious enough to topple governments. Hosni Mubarak over in Egypt can attest to that. ”

    While Egypt did subsidize wheat for its population, costing 1.2 % of GDP, other staples have shot up in prize, such as tomatoes by 300%:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110210-708369.html

  7. Edwin Adlerman

    Razing tropical forests for biofuel was encouraged by the scientists who believe in AGW? Show me a single reference of an AGW-believer that encouraged palm oil biofuels…..

    It’s the same thing with then ethanol boondoggle….the only reason our current production standards came about is because of lobbying by the farm and agricultural interests. The first subsidies appeared in 1978 during the original energy crisis. In 1998 they were extended, but reduced. The big changes came in 2004 and 2005 with the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) and the Energy Policy Act, during an administration and Congress hardly supportive of the AGW view. It is the 2005 act which mandates the rapidly increasing amount of ethanol to be blended with gasoline, from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The same bill also increased the amount of coal available for production.

    As to Gore and ethanol, some of you appear to have elevated him to an all-powerful deity, despite the fact that he’s pretty much irrelevant to the AGW view. What do you want him to do regarding this issue? Single-handedly take on the farm lobby despite the fact he hasn’t been in Congress in 10 years?

  8. Edwin Adlerman
    1. Jimbo

      Edwin Adlerman
      14. Februar 2011 at 03:08 | Permalink | Reply

      Razing tropical forests for biofuel was encouraged by the scientists who believe in AGW? Show me a single reference of an AGW-believer that encouraged palm oil biofuels…..

      Does Dr. Tom Beer count?

      Dr Tom Beer leads the biofuels research area of the Energy Transformed National Research Flagship.

      He was a lead author and an expert panel member for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded half of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
      http://www.csiro.au/people/Tom.Beer.html

      The news archives also show this:

      “Palm oil can produce up to an 80 per cent saving in emissions provided it is sourced from pre-1990 plantations,” said lead author Dr Tom Beer of CSIRO. “The palm oil source is critical as product from plantations established on recently dried peat swamps or cleared tropical forest will in fact have higher greenhouse gas emissions than regular diesel due to factors such as land clearing.”
      http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1128-biodiesel.html

      More from Dr. Beer promoting the use of palm oil as biofuel.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127101930.htm

  9. nofreewind

    >Show me a single reference of an AGW-believer that encouraged palm oil biofuels…..
    duh! were you born yesterday?? “AGW-believer”‘s are for TRASHING THE PLANET – you haven’t figured that out yet? I am sure that if we looked through all the NGO’s AGW-believer literature we would find they ALL are for ruining this planet with all their WACKY idea. Ethanol is just one of them, every single idea they have is ruinous to our society and our planet.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/2008-most-mainstream-environmental-groups-support-biofuels-to-stop-global-warming/
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/earth-day-the-government-should-buy-biofuels/
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/alarmists-say-now-that-they-never-supported-biofuels/

  10. nofreewind

    This is along the sames lines as denying that the lefty politics giving a mortgage to every Tom, Dick and Harry who couldn’t afford one, was something invented by Wall Street. And of course they forced the banks, by Regulation, to give these mortgage “or else”.

  11. nofreewind

    >As to Gore and ethanol, some of you appear to have elevated him to an all-powerful deity,

    did you forget Al won an Emmy and a Nobel Prize for his “efforts” and that every single school-child in my nation, and mostly throughout the world has been forced to watch his movie countless times?

    1. Brian G Valentine

      The people responsible for that ought to be jailed for child abuse.

  12. nofreewind
  13. nofreewind

    NGO’s (aka “the crooks”) look to enjoy eco-friendly palm oil
    http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1123-wwf_palm_oil.html

  14. slimething

    Edwin Adlerman said:

    “Show me a single reference of an AGW-believer that encouraged palm oil biofuels…..

    It’s the same thing with then ethanol boondoggle….the only reason our current production standards came about is because of lobbying by the farm and agricultural interests.”

    http://tinyurl.com/6ee9ya2
    “The Truth about Ethanol

    Ethanol has a promising role to play in helping to solve many of the problems associated with gasoline use. While improving fuel economy is the most cost-effective, near-term solution for reducing global warming pollution, U.S. oil dependence, and Americans’ pain at the pump, there’s no one single cure for our problems. We’ll need cleaner fuels, more efficient vehicles, and smarter growth to truly clean up the transportation sector. ”

    Edwin Adlerman said:
    “As to Gore and ethanol, some of you appear to have elevated him to an all-powerful deity, despite the fact that he’s pretty much irrelevant to the AGW view. What do you want him to do regarding this issue? Single-handedly take on the farm lobby despite the fact he hasn’t been in Congress in 10 years?”

    Al Gore supported corn ethanol; period, end of story.

    Excuse me, but Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is/was required viewing in many school curriculum. Nothing influential there 🙂 Also, he gets press coverage every time he opens his pie hole; that tends to be the case with ex-vice presidents. He spent $300 million on his latest “campaign” for global warming. That’s a minor issue? Who financed that, the Farm Bureau?

    The Obama administration strongly supports ethanol production. No influence there either 🙂
    http://tinyurl.com/ycweopd

    BTW, Al Gore hasn’t been in Congress since 1992.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Sorry slime, but the VP is the President of the Senate. That makes him part of Congress.

      1. Viv Evans

        AFAIK, the VP of the USA is a certain Mr Joe Biden right now.

        Al Gore is neither the VP, nor is he even a member of congress.

        Never mind – it was such a long time ago, wasn’t it, and we all know that for a certain part of the population nothing that happened day before yesterday actually counts any longer …

      2. Ed Caryl

        We know that!! It’s easy to forget though when the VP only shows for tie votes. I wonder if there were any of those during his term? Just a passing thought.

  15. Brian G Valentine

    I don’t want to put something in the gas tank of my car that is advocated by somebody who makes my skin crawl.

    I just have a real problem with that.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      No problem there. Gas tanks are going to be a relic of the past before you know it.

  16. slimething

    “Sorry slime, but the VP is the President of the Senate. That makes him part of Congress.”

    Ah, no Rob. The VP is a member of the Executive branch of government. His only real function in Congress is tie breaking votes. We have what is called ‘Separation of Powers’.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Not according to Dick Cheney.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      The Vice President is mentioned in both Article I and Article II of the Constitution. If you read Article I you’ll see that the VP very much is the President of the Senate, but only allowed a vote in case of a tie.

      So, there is some gray area in the separation of powers with regards to the VP.

  17. slimething

    “No problem there. Gas tanks are going to be a relic of the past before you know it.”

    Oh really? Since I work in the automotive engineering sector, it sure seems like I’d have heard something. Maybe Obama, with all his knowledge in business and engineering, has it all figured out? Please share with us what this miracle replacement is for the ICE.

    Greenies are a special breed of kooks.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Perhaps you’ve never been told about ICE’s being only 30% efficient, as opposed to electric motors which are 90% efficient.

      ICE’s are soon to be history. There is battery technology due to hit the market in the next 5 years that will improve range for electric cars by 5X.

      Say bye-bye.

      1. slimething

        What are the 5x batteries? Why 5 years and why must these remain some sort of secret? Fill me in. I am familiar with the nano technology available currently. http://www.qsinano.com/

        BTW, I drag raced for 20 years. Sure it’s cool, but 11.5 is really not earth shattering.

      2. Bernd Felsche

        Where does the energy come from to run the electric motors?

        Electric motors are not 90% efficient over their entire operating range. Some are only efficient heaters at low speeds and high torque. BTDTGTTS.

        It is foolish to design electric vehicles, transport systems and society around batteries that are undeliverable, with completely unknown economics.

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Bernd… What are you talking about. Electric motors have this fantastic attribute that they have full torque from 0 rpms. EV’s don’t need transmissions because they produce full torque from 0 to 13,000 rpms.

          Go look at the specs on the Tesla Model S:

          http://www.teslamotors.com/models

          I’ve not ordered mine yet but this is my next car.

          1. Bernd Felsche

            Rob,

            All you have to do is to produce a non-fictitious electric motor performance diagram has 90% or better throughout it’s entire speed and load range. One from a reputable manufacturer. Of a motor that works from 0 to 13,000 rpm at all loads with 90% or greater efficiency throughout.

            When I called your bluff on the 90% efficiency, you change the topic to torque.

            It doesn’t *matter* if they have “full” torque from a dead stop. All the energy that’s going into the motor at zero rpm is 100% wasted because there is no mechanical work being done until the motor *turns*. Mechanical work is not done until there is motion.

            And the electric motor does need energy in order to build up a magnetic field, such as the magnetic field being dependent upon the current passing through the motor; which requires voltage to make it happen. So the motor draws electrical power (V.I) without there being any mechanical power (that being a measure of the rate of mechanical work being done; of which there is none) … so all the electrical energy goes into heating up the motor. (There’s a little energy stored as a result of the magnetic field but a motor is a poor energy storage element; inherently by design.)

            Further, you need to understand that the motor’s output torque can never exceed the available torque reaction on the output shaft. i.e. the torque is limited by the traction on the tyres. It doesn’t matter if the motor could produce more torque, because any excess will simply cause a loss of traction and a smoking of tyres.

            ISTR the Telsa being fitted with a 2-speed transmission; but having its first gear locked out on production models.

            One will also observe that the practical range of the Tesla (Roadster) is greatly affected by the manner in which it is being driven. To wit; if one drives it like an Elise, then the range is about a quarter of the advertised range, but the advertised range is possible if one operates it in the manner of a personal vanity/smugness advertisement.

            The Model S doesn’t claim 90% efficiency for the motor. The tinting of your glasses may cause you to think so. *PEAK* efficiency may be 90% or better if they design and build the motor with moderate competence. But like IC engines, the efficiency varies markedly with load and speed, depending on the type of motor and how it is being operated.

            I’ve had decades of applying electric motors to moving things and to keep them moving; professionally and as a hobby.

            Anybody with a sense of proportion has no choice but to laugh at the implication of the car parked under the “solar roof” http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric … because to charge the battery would take more than parking the car underneath it and plugging it in to charge in the afternoon, (night) and morning. Now, if you were planning to recharge the battery that way, you’d get a Sunday drive out of solar power. But not too aggressively and not every week.

      3. DirkH

        He seems to be talking about Lithium Air batteries. Rob, you could just as well spell it out and save me the googling.

        http://www.gizmag.com/lithium-air-battery/14720/

        Thing is, there are still some obstacles to overcome. 5 years? Dunno. I’d say 15.

      4. Ed Caryl

        The electric motor might be 90% efficient, but getting the energy to the electric motor is certainly not! The losses in generation, transmission, and charging the battery knock that down BELOW the ICE.

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Better check your facts there Ed.

          1) Power plant generation level is better than 60% efficient at it’s lowest.
          2) Transmission losses are less than 5%.
          3) The energy required to refine a gallon of gas would propel an electric vehicle about 20 miles.

          The only thing holding EV’s back in the past has been range capacity (essentially energy density). That has primarily been solved by the demands of the consumer electronics industry and now is about to take a huge leap beyond that in the next 5 years.

          Bye-bye ICE.

          1. Ed Caryl

            Rob,
            Your numbers are wrong by a factor of two, and we haven’t included battery charging. I’ll look that up next.
            http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm

          2. Rob Honeycutt

            Ed… Please look up “well to wheel efficiency.” You’ll find that the studies show that EV’s are about 3X more efficient than ICE’s.

            Beyond that, EV are gaining in efficiency by leaps and bounds while ICE have pretty much topped out.

          3. Ed Caryl

            Battery charging efficiency is 75 to 85% for lead acid and 90% for lithium.
            The number you quoted for generation efficiency is the loss percentage, and it’s on the low side.
            Multiply all the numbers together and you are below the ICE.
            Your 90% for electric motors is on a test stand dynamometer, not real world, and improving the efficiency a few more points is not going to help much.

          4. Rob Honeycutt

            Ed… You’re not looking at the full cycle for ICE. Well to wheel includes the energy required to drill, refine and transport the fuel before it ever gets to the car. And then you’re still left with 30% efficiency tank to wheel.

            What oil has going for it is energy density. It’s not efficient but you can pack a lot of energy into a small space.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Here’s a video you might like…

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

    3. DirkH

      Horsecarts. I mentioned them above already.

      1. Bernd Felsche

        I was thinking horse-apples.

  18. Edwin Adlerman

    How about showing me a reference that isn’t Steve Goddard? LOL.

    And all of you should read your “proofs”, as many don’t support what you are claiming. E.g., the WWF link is talking about ethanol in BRAZIL! Claiming that shows support for palm oil biofuels is plain stupid.

    And just as ethanol does not equal corn ethanol, biofuels do not equal tearing down rainforests to plant palm oil. Again, show me a reference supporting what was done with *palm oil* was supported by pro-AGW scientists. I’m still waiting!

    If you had actually read the UCS link you provided, it supports my position:
    ” If done wrong, the production of biomass for biofuels like ethanol could destroy habitats, worsen water or air quality, limit food production and even jeopardize the long-term viability of the biomass resource itself. The environmental impact of biofuels is comparable to certain agricultural crops. For example, the growing of corn has similar consequences whether the corn is grown for food, animal feed, or as a biofuel feedstock.
    The environmental impact is particularly high when forestland is cleared for monocrop farming of current generation feedstocks like corn. If done right, next generation feedstocks, such as mixed prairie grasses, may offer a lower-impact alternative, especially if grown with smart farming practices, such as no or low-till, plant diversification, and lower pesticide and fertilizer use”

    And yes, I meant ‘in government’ not ‘Congress’. Glad you catch the really important errors!

    >He spent $300 million on his latest “campaign” for global warming

    So? He’s still not in Government or Lobbying and that was private money from a non-profit organization. How much have Exxon-Mobil and the Koch Industries spent on lobbying and PR in the past 10 years (both of which live off of your tax dollars through massive subsidies)?

  19. Edwin Adlerman

    >Electric motors are not 90% efficient over their entire operating range

    Correct. But here’s the NEMA efficiency requirements:
    http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/MG1premium.pdf

    When you invent a combustion engine that matches those numbers, please give me a call!

    1. DirkH

      OPOC looks interesting, a rather small two-stroke motor. Bill Gates pours money into the company.
      ( I don’t know whether its efficiency will beat the power plant – transmission line – battery – electric motor combined efficiency. Just wanted to share this link)
      http://www.ecomotors.com/videos/introduction-ecomotors-prof-peter-hofbauer

  20. Peter Whale

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/#more-33954

    Dana and Rob I would like your comments on the content of the article above. I wonder if it is possible to comment on the science without commenting on the guy who wrote it or the site that hosts it. To my laymans mind it seems to fit and the comments are well worth reading.
    My apologise to you Peter for going off topic here but it does relate to the C02 article you posted a day or so ago.

  21. Edwin Adlerman

    >What are the 5x batteries? Why 5 years and why must these remain some sort of secret? Fill me in.

    I thought A123 claimed around that for the batteries they were developing, but I don’t see it stated explicitly on their website.

    Here’s one route under development that claims 5x higher capacity:
    http://www.nano-tech.gatech.edu/nmat2725_Nature_Materials_YUSHIN_March14.pdf

    It’s definitely not as much as a pipe dream, as say, (hot) nuclear fusion.

  22. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 06:48 | Permalink | Reply
    Perhaps you’ve never been told about ICE’s being only 30% efficient, as opposed to electric motors which are 90% efficient.

    ICE’s are soon to be history. There is battery technology due to hit the market in the next 5 years that will improve range for electric cars by 5X.

    Say bye-bye.

    No Rob, you say bye-bye
    I am hearing this mantra about super batteries over the past 15 years now.
    The development we need for a real killer application is simply not available and there is nothing substantial around the corner.

    Electronics producers from cell phones and lab tops only manage to increase their battery life by reduced battery use, not by better batteries.
    Why? Because there are no better batteries.

    I have also explained many times here that the car batteries need recharging and that we need about 10 Mw generated at the source (the power plant) to stuff 4.5 Mw into the batteries to make a car run for 15.000 km. So the efficiency of an electric care is determined by the way we generate electric power which in 50% of the cases is based on coal and
    in 85% based on fossil fuels (Natural gas).
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/07/will-electric-cars-finally-succeed/electric-cars-are-not-the-answer-to-our-problems

    Besides that, if we replace our entire car park with electric because we have the batteries, we need to double our electricity power generation capacity.

    How efficient is that Rob?

    Even the best hybrid on the market is beaten by a conventional diesel powered car if you test them under real world driving conditions and even if their performance is matched the conventional drive beats the hybrid in terms of costs and reliability. See the test between the Toyota Prius and the BMW 5 series Diesel at Youtube.
    http://www.supergreenme.com/go-green-environment-eco:Toyota-Prius-vs-BMW-520d

    Also read Burt Rutan’s assessment about electric propulsion in aircraft and why mass electric applications will never make it.
    http://rps3.com/Files/Ochkosh_2010_talks/Electric%20flight%20keynote.pdf

    This is what greeny cherry picking brings us Rob, a big bowl of BS far away from the real world.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Ron said… “Besides that, if we replace our entire car park with electric because we have the batteries, we need to double our electricity power generation capacity.”

      Oh man. You guys are so full of bad information.

      Think for two seconds. When will people charge automobiles? Right. In the evening and night hours. Off peak.

      When are power plants, particularly nuclear, running spinning reserve? Hm. Off peak.

      There are a number of studies out saying that we should be able to power a 100% electric personal vehicle fleet with existing infrastructure. No new power plants required.

  23. R. de Haan

    As for the palm oil madness currently pushed by the EU and our nutcase entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson from Virgin, who wants to fuel his entire fleet with palm oil I can only say this.

    The Palm Oil mandate is nothing more but a criminal act and if our EU officials could be prosecuted they would end up in court.

    As for Virgin I say boycott any services of this company.
    That will teach him.
    Companies hate boycotts.

  24. nofreewind

    >If you had actually read the UCS link you provided, it supports my position:
    ” If done wrong, the production of biomass for biofuels like ethanol could destroy habitats, worsen water or air quality, limit food production and even jeopardize the long-term viability of the biomass resource itself.

    I READ THE REFERENCE. “If done wrong”. Of course it is going to be done wrong. There is no RIGHT WAY! It takes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF ACRES to produce anything, and even then it is a negative return! THEY SUPPORT IT!! PERIOD. Either you are with it or against it.

  25. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 05:36 | Permalink | Reply
    “No problem there. Gas tanks are going to be a relic of the past before you know it.”

    Do you ever read the BS you write Rob.
    You’re incredible.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Just wait Ron.

  26. R. de Haan

    From Joe Bastardi Blog.
    This would make a good read for Rob because Bastardi exactly describes why Rob is wrong.

    SUNDAY 6 PM
    MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT EUROPE WINTERS TO COME IN HERE:

    WHY THE BACKING AWAY OF AL NINA IS SO DANGEROUS FOR FOLLOWING WINTERS..

    The dropping of the Pacific ocean tropical temperatures is the equal of turning down the thermostat in the house. The cold PDO does that in a longer term sense, but the sudden collapse of the warmth in the equatorial Pacific has a lag effect on global temperatures and you can plainly see that occurring now. When one considers the amount of heat in energy in the oceans, and how it is stacked into the tropical oceans, one sees why the co2 argument is so far fetched. For even in using the co2 feedback argument in the atmosphere it is miniscule, but if you allow the ocean to be part of the system, the amount of energy contributed by co2 is so small it cant be measured. The idea that the atmosphere would drive the ocean is like asking a 125 lb wrestler to wrestle a heavyweight. As I continue to dive into this, and watch the weather behave in the larger sense according to logic ( if not even faster than I thought) any allowance for the co2 argument I have painfully tried to be open minded about fades away.

    Consider how the brutal winters of the late 70s occurred. 30 years of cold PDO, 20 years of cold AMO a monster La Nina, then the the reversal to an el nino. Now think… what is going on with cold PDO cold amo, and la nina.. globally? Well pressures have to be higher than normal in the tropical oceans and lower than normal over areas favored for cold. This is why the winters are so warm in eastern N America in La Ninas, even with a cold AMO. I believe this winter had something to do with the same set up that lead to the winters in 1916-1918, low solar previous major high latitude volcano. But now think folks, what happens when the tropical pacific warmed the way it did with the ninos of the late 70s, after all this run up.

    Pressures low in the tropical Pacific correct? The air warms in the tropical pacific correct. but the globe, and the pattern has been stacked for colder for 20 to 30 years and then given an extra injection by the La Nina. So one is starting from a large scale perspective of cold. If the pressures are going to suddenly fall in the tropical Pacific, what happens elsewhere, where they were lower?

    They rise in the means. What happens to the AO..positive in La ninas because of the tendency of high pressure in the tropical Pacific, lower further north ( you see it finally taking over since mid Jan) . They reverse.

    What happens to the unsuspecting people of eastern North America?

    Katie can bar the door, but the cold is coming anyway.

    Europe is still up in the air, until the AMO shifts, but that is coming in the coming decades. But the fact is this. YOU ARE THE DENIER if you dont think the oceans play an enormous role! And if you think that trace amounts of co2 in the atmosphere will push around the entire ocean-atmospheric system.. you are delusional. Seriously. I mean I am bending over backwards to say, okay lets watch this global temp the next 20-30 years, but if you dont see in the end the oceans are the main control ( if one does not start with the true source, the sun) then you really, that is almost incomprehensible.

    Now the counter argument is that the oceans are warming because of the air above. Well then let me ask you this. How is the warming you think is occurring CANT EVEN FORCE THE COOLING OF THE STRATOSPHERE WHICH IS THE REAL SMOKING GUN?! A true positive feedback and tropospheric warming should be forcing a contraction of the stratosphere and major cooling. Nothing, nada, zilch. And the density considerations of the stratosphere are next to nothing compared to the oceans. So let me get this straight… you want to warm the oceans via the warmer troposphere above it, in other words have something with less energy push something around with much more, yet you cant even get the response first in what it should obviously be able to do?

    So what is the bottom line. We are setting ourselves up for some harsh winters in N america. Europe you are still a dice shoot, till the AMO turns cold, then look out. If this is all we can get out of the last 20-30 years with the deck stacked for warming, then we may be in major trouble given the globe today vs the 70s. Of course given the state of the world, today, its a moot point. People like me though believe that we should try to solve some problems that we can see, than these other ones, especially since the answer may be opposite.

    I got to thinking about the enso temp swings when one of the more brilliant meteorologists I have ever met, and a good friend of mine ( I will protect him and not mention his name) was talking to me about what was going to happen when the nino of 07-08 came off. I had just put out the forecast for the warm eastern winter, but after I researched his position I was ready for 08-09 and especially 09-10! The other parts of my triple crown of cooling may have helped out this year, but notice that the solar fanatics and volcanic vigilante’s only prevailed for a time. That is not to say they dont have their points, but they may grow larger with time. But consider this. Those 2 other wild cards factored in are why I am saying the bounceback winters from the nina, most like 12-13,13-14,14-15 could get the late 70s a run for their money, in which case the US economy may be up a creek without a paddle given winters similar to the late 70s with the economic demands of today would be a huge problem. Keep in mind, the nation was in an economic lull anyway then, but assuming we are going to go forward ( a bold assumption) then the weather may put that to rest. And when one looks at the globe as a whole, you can see my fear.. assuming you are rational. But what happens if we throw in the other 2 legs of the triple crown of cooling and we are 20-30 years down the road. You wonder why there are people worried about a mini ice age. Makes more sense to me than a trace gas in the atmosphere being able to push around the entire ocean atmosphere system. Nature will do what nature will do, and in the end, that may be the only answer that will come out of all this.

  27. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 18:06 | Permalink | Reply
    “Bernd… What are you talking about. Electric motors have this fantastic attribute that they have full torque from 0 rpms. EV’s don’t need transmissions because they produce full torque from 0 to 13,000 rpms.

    Go look at the specs on the Tesla Model S:

    http://www.teslamotors.com/models

    I’ve not ordered mine yet but this is my next car.”

    Don’t do it Rob,
    I took a Tesla for a spin at a promotion event for electric vehicles in Germany last year and I got it smoking within 8 minutes (overheated batteries) and did the same with a battery powered Lotus which lasted under ten minutes. You can’t achieve that with a nice Porsche which can be bought for a similar amount of money.

    The Tesla golf chart went into the garage and didn’t return for the remainder of the day. The Tesla is IQ = Inferior Quality
    Anyhow, it’s over a 100.000 US dollar price tag doesn’t cover the value of the money by a long shot.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Ron… That’s the Sportster. That model was actually built by Lotus and has been discontinued. The Model S is being produced in Fremont CA at the old NUMMI plant in a joint partnership with Toyota.

      The Model S is US$50k.

  28. R. de Haan

    Here is another Tesla promotion
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM

  29. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 18:17 | Permalink | Reply
    Ron said… “Besides that, if we replace our entire car park with electric because we have the batteries, we need to double our electricity power generation capacity.”

    Oh man. You guys are so full of bad information.

    Think for two seconds. When will people charge automobiles? Right. In the evening and night hours. Off peak.

    When are power plants, particularly nuclear, running spinning reserve? Hm. Off peak.

    There are a number of studies out saying that we should be able to power a 100% electric personal vehicle fleet with existing infrastructure. No new power plants required.”

    No not true,
    I have in front of me a report from the Dutch Government stating that in order to run electric cars efficiently in praxis situation there is need for a dense charging network allowing for a hook up at any occasion where the car is not in use.
    In fact there is a test project going on a we speak where the golf carts are used in a taxi project. These cars are all hooked up at the taxi stand during the day.

    The same goes for people using an electric car for home-work traveling.
    They will need to hook up the car during the day time otherwise they won’t make it back home. This means day time charging and it will happen more than you think, but hey, why do you think our officials want the Smart Grid?

    By the way at this moment we are seeing a huge threat for the electric car to develop.
    I saw this coming from the beginning.

    There is an electric chord running from the car to the power point and what now happens, just a few days into the taxi test run is that our youth simply cut the cable or steel it. Just for the fun of it.

    People should have known this in advance because in the Eighties and Nineties it was very hard to find working phone booth. Why?
    Vandalism. These are the practicle aspects of electric driving (among others) that could kill such projects instantly.

    But who cares, what should we do with a car that comes with the reliability of a lap top running under Windows anyway?

    The answer is: NOTHING

    This is ‘technological innovation” at the same level of wind and solar power and the tremendous palm oil scam which is discussed here.

    The Greens say they want to change the world for the better but the real fact is that they want to destroy it. Take away the economic base under our societies, destroy our natural reserves, our forests, and in the end humanity.

    As I said before, I am not against technological innovation.
    I use solar panels myself to charge batteries on a location where we lack a grid connection. But in order to change the world we need free markets, free enterprise and free people. No Government mandates and subsidies.

    And if you don’t understand or don’t want to understand this principle you don’t know anything of our past and how we got where we are today.

    We will be using the ICE for many years to come.
    Simply because there is still a lot of development potential in ICE engine technology and because of it’s price and reliability.

    We run the risk to be forced into a fossil fuel rationing or even prohibition scheme rather sooner than later and with this Green Technology we are not going to make it.

    You can poor this statement in concrete and save it keeps because this is how it is.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Again Ron. I wouldn’t be investing in any of the start ups who are doing remote charging stations. They aren’t going to be needed once people actually get a sense of how far they drive every day. Add to that new batteries coming soon, and the range for EV’s is going to be more than adequate for every use except long x-country trips. And for that, heck, rent an SUV!

      With newer batteries I don’t think companies are going to be extending range that much. Maybe at first while consumers get used to electrics. But later people are going to be more interested in lighter and cheaper over extended range.

      You say, “The Greens say they want to change the world for the better but the real fact is that they want to destroy it.”

      Ron, that’s just patently absurd. You know this is exactly what people said when “the horseless carriage” came out.

      You can go back and see where people were trying to make laws that required operators of early automobiles to have a flagman walk in front of the vehicle waving a large flag in order to warn horsemen of the coming vehicle.

      That’s you guys. We are the Henry Ford’s of today.

    2. Ed Caryl

      Rob,
      That means there won’t BE an off peak. Peaking power usually comes from gas fired plants. These would need to be replaced by something more efficient. You can spin it however you want, but there would need to be many more plants built.

  30. Ike

    Now, thats amazing:

    Worst Freeze In 60 Years Wipes Out Entire Crops Across The Southwestern U.S. And Northern Mexico
    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/worst-freeze-in-60-years-wipes-out-entire-crops-across-the-southwestern-u-s-and-northern-mexico

  31. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 18:18 | Permalink | Reply
    “Just wait Ron.”

    Just wait?

    Rob, I am waiting for 36 years for the climate catastrophe to happen.
    I am waiting for many years now for the first empirical evidence that man made global warming is real.
    I am watching battery development for over 15 years now and the miracle solutions simply don’t emerge.
    I have visited solar panel plants and saw how they were made and wind mill factories and I have listened to all the Green BS about sustainability
    and the coming Green Paradise which will be ‘Hell on Earth’ really and now you dare to tell me”No, just wait”!!!!!!!!!

    Really Rob, excuse me when I say I really can’t stand the rubbish from you and your warmist friends any longer.

    I have had it.

    No matter what technical insights or facts I put in front of you, you simply ignore them and jump out of the discussion with a cheap shot like “we only charge batteries at night” or a dead end street like “No, Just wait”.

    Really Rob, you’re an empty suit blabbering cheap propaganda and that’s it. Maybe you can sell your hubris to your friends but not here.

    I really hope you get the message this time.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Hang on just a few more years Ron. You’re going to be impressed.

  32. Ed Caryl

    He won’t. He’s a true believer. He is fully invested. If AGW goes down, he goes down with it. His reputation will be shot, and his business will likely suffer for it.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Fair enough, Ed. But on the other hand, if I’m right (and all the research suggests I am) then you guys are going to look like the silly guy waving the flag in front of the model T.

  33. R. de Haan

    Pierre there also has been an NDR documentary about the subject last year.

    There were local people who used to live from the forrest before it was turned into palm oil farms and they were literary starving.

    A palm oil farm mono culture is like a desert.
    It doesn’t provide anything but palm oil.

    Just remember that this is the land of the big apes, the oerangatan, a incredible diverse wild life and one of the last forrest people that really know how to live from the forrest without destroying it.

    This is a really big disgrace and we should stop it.

    Most of the oil is burned and processed in Germany and we really should do something about this.

    We desperately need to get rid of this Government and quit with the EU.

    This is a decission we have to make one way or another because they are taking the entire house down anyhow, even if we don’t do anything.

    In other words, we have nothing to loose.

    I have put the subject of bio fuel production and it’s devastating effects on the table on many occasions but turning the subject into a article is the best way to go.

    So thanks for publishing this.

  34. DirkH

    Rob: “We are the Henry Ford’s of today.”

    I don’t think so. The Ford T competed against horse carriages; the electric cars will have to compete with future ICE cars. VW announced a 1 liter Diesel per 100 km car with a 2-stroke TDI motor – maybe similar to the OPOC i mentioned above (speculation on my part); for 2015 or so.

    With respect to the power usage: This morning i did the numbers in my head – how much electricity would i need if i replaced my car with an electric one, same power, (55 kW), same km per year. So i would end up with an extra need for electricity of about 300h*55kW (The ICE kW are measured at the wheel so the inefficiencies of combustion are already factored in; i would need to replace the motor against a 55kW electric motor – at least that’s what i assumed) or about 16500 kWh which is about 5 times my current yearly electricity usage. (We Germans usually don’t heat electrically nor do we use A/C)

    So, no matter at which time people would charge their electric cars, it would require a grid capable of moving 5 or 6 times the charge around, and an according increase in generator capacity. (For Germany, from about 140 GW to, say 700 GW peak).

    These peak factors might be reduced a little through some intelligent scheduling but the numbers are so massive that i see little chance of it happening in the next 100 years.

    These numbers also show the sheer amount of energy we constantly move around using pipelines and tanker trucks. Probably, including heating, that power is 10 times higher than all the electric power moved around (very very rough estimate; for German conditions).

    I see nothing of this mentioned in the arguments of the electric car proponents (Rob, i don’t mean you but the activists, researchers and companies who propagate electric cars).

    1. DirkH

      Maybe the real profit opportunity is not in electric car startups, but in good old electricity providers.

      How much would my 55kWh electric motor cost me, running for 1 hour on full power? 55*0.23 Euro; about 12 Euro. ATM, i run my 55kW car on LPG, costing about 6 Euros for an hour of realistically fast driving, … Well, there are always intervals where you can’t exploit the full motor power, so let’s be fair and say i’d get this hour in the electric car for 9 Euro.

      Doesn’t sound like a deal to me – i didn’t even factor in the battery cost. They will have to make electricity much much cheaper or wait patiently, maybe peak oil will come some day and make the electric car attractive.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Do a little bit more math Dirk. Your confirmation bias is bringing you up short.

        1. Ed Caryl

          No Rob, yours is.

        2. DirkH

          I am open for corrections, and it is possible that i made a mistake – if so, please point it out. You know, i am not ideologically against electric cars, far from it. I’m interested in the economics and the technologies that would be needed. If batteries become a better energy storage than hydrocarbons, fine. Numbers don’t lie – i didn’t do Mannian statistics, at least.

  35. nofreewind

    Batteries to power an electric car? HILARIOUS. Did you ever go to a business meeting and see the fleet of laptops EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM hooked up to an outlet, because after 6 months their batteries are basically junk that only work for 30-45 minutes. Why don’t we start with making a laptop battery that lasts before we move on to saving the world?

    1. DirkH

      The quick aging of many laptop batteries is often exacerbated by the fact that most laptops (except the old IBM thinkpads) do not use proper charge management. You can greatly lengthen the life of your Li-Ion battery if you don’t charge it beyond 80%. Bad design, in many cases.

    2. Rob Honeycutt

      Funny. My new MacBook Pro gets almost 8 hours on a full charge. Just 4 or 5 years ago a brand new notebook got 3-4 at best. Part of that is better management but part of it is better batteries.

      Actually, here is a better example. Radio control planes. 5 years ago an electric RC could barely get off the ground. They were used solely for gliders to get a little altitude. Today electric RC planes are crazy! Crazy fast, quiet, and fly for quite a long while.

      You want to see better batteries in your laptop, wait until you see what the automobile industry is going to do. In the next decade your laptop is going to get very very light, thin and it’s battery is going to last days, not hours.

      Thank nanotechnology for these coming gains. They are figuring out how to better organize ions within batteries in ways that will allow quick charging and also allow for much higher efficiency with discharge. They’re going to be something more akin to ultra-capacitors but ones that have a much greater energy density.

      Google Lithium air.

      1. Bernd Felsche

        Hmmm… Lithium and Oxygen.

        Now there’s a potentially-stable combination of elements. After combustion.

  36. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 21:01 | Permalink | Reply
    Fair enough, Ed. But on the other hand, if I’m right (and all the research suggests I am) then you guys are going to look like the silly guy waving the flag in front of the model T.

    No Rob, you are waving the flag in front of the model T.
    -Your climate problem isn’t a problem but a political doctrine
    http://green-agenda.com
    -Your Green Technology sucks
    -Your Green solutions for bio fuels sucks
    -Your entire perception of the battery powered electric car sucks
    -The way you present your arguments sucks

    In the mean time we are three blocks ahead of you concentrating on real problems and real solutions.

    The political base promoting the AGW scheme is crumbling, green investors, even the World Bank are running for the exit.
    http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/30603.html

    Obama will have a single and last Presidency and the his Agenda is terminated.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/11/breaking-house-bill-unvieled-late-friday-cuts-epa-budget-by-3-billion-block-funding-for-all-current-and-pending-epa-climate-regulations-for-stationary-co2-sources/

    Europe will lack the financial power to finish their Green commitments.
    Spain already failed, so will the UK and even Germany is forced to reconsider policies.
    We already see the big switch back to fossil fuels (shale gas) for power generation and who is leading in Europe? Germany Rob, the country where the Green hoax took off.

    As for the latest on wind power:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/the-futility-of-wind-power/

  37. R. de Haan

    Rob Honeycutt
    14. Februar 2011 at 23:57 | Permalink | Reply
    Funny. My new MacBook Pro gets almost 8 hours on a full charge. Just 4 or 5 years ago a brand new notebook got 3-4 at best. Part of that is better management but part of it is better batteries.

    Marginal developments Rob as you can read here:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-06/gm-to-use-new-battery-technology-for-electric-cars.html

    We need a killer application and it isn’t there.

    Yes, we will have a new chip set soon running on light.
    It will run for a week on a simple AA battery.
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/190777/ibm_aims_to_replace_copper_chip_interconnects_with_light.html
    And it would stop battery development in the entire electronics sector if it wasn’t for the wifi connection that still suck power.

    As for your Macbook Pro, I have one myself, see what your battery performance brings after two years of use?
    I have my third Macbook Pro now and non of the previous models survived with the original battery after two years of use.

    Exchanging the battery of a lap top is no problem but for a car?
    It’s madness Rob and if you are really honest and scrap the subsidies granted to the producers and buyers there is no economic basis for electric cars or hybrids for that matter, even if the gasoline hits 6 euro per gallon (which is currently paid in the Netherlands)

    Even Toyota has not earned a single dime with the production of it’s Prius and they already build over one million cars.

    The entire green hoax will come crashing down as soon as our political establishment runs out of other people’s money.

  38. R. de Haan

    Edwin Adlerman
    14. Februar 2011 at 08:52 | Permalink | Reply
    >Electric motors are not 90% efficient over their entire operating range

    Correct. But here’s the NEMA efficiency requirements:
    http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/MG1premium.pdf

    When you invent a combustion engine that matches those numbers, please give me a call!”

    Edwin Alderman,

    Nobody denies the efficiency of the electric engine.
    What we question is it’s weak point which is the battery and the power generation to charge the battery.

    If you add up the benefits of the modern ICI and the electric or even hybrid car the modern ICE simply wins in terms of efficiency, flexibility reliability and costs. The same goes for wind and solar power generation.

    In the past honest competition decided what technology was the best.

    Today socialist governments providing massive subsidies have taken over.

    This is a devastating prospect because it forces us to adapt technologies that won’t deliver, consume huge amounts of capital and will reduce our ability to compete (earn money, acquire wealth).

    We all know that a wealthy society takes better care of it’s environment than a poor society.

    You only have to board a plane and visit the third world to know how correct this assessment is.

    That’s why we have to return to free markets, free competition and free people to push our civilization forward again.

    Thanks to the Green Scam our development has been halted for at least 30 years now and if this process continues we will return to a state of permanent decline at a massive scale not seen since Medieval times.

    I really hope you understand this.

  39. Ed Caryl
    1. DirkH

      The prize is fantasy. Hydrides all contain some kind of metal AFAIK, so instead of CO2, your exhaust would emit, what, Aluminium oxide? I see some challenges with this idea.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close