HHO or HHype?

**READ THE UPDATE HERE!**

With gas at $4.00 a gallon, who isn't thinking about ways to make the daily commute a little cheaper. I have a friend who runs a blog called "HHO Gas" and has been talking about this stuff like crazy. Shop DriveTime First! Bad credit, no credit, no problem. Apply on-line.

The pitch goes, "Run Your Car on Water," or improve your gas mileage by adding hydrogen gas to your air intake. Lots of claims have been made that it will increase fuel economy by 60% etc.

Being the natural skeptic, I decided to look into this. I have read several articles both pro and con on the topic. HHO gas, more correctly called Brown's gas, or Oxyhydrogen, was the precursor to acetylene. It is flammable and was also used before incandescent light bulbs.

But will it improve your gas mileage? While you can check out the biggest hawker, water4gas, I also saw a good news report here. The news team in Florida used a product called the Hydro 4000. They tested a vehicle and found that it improved mileage by about 10%. It also required that the driver put a cup of distilled water in the system about every 60-80 miles. Guard against ID Theft with 15 Points of Protection from TrustedID, including our $1,000,000 Warranty. Click Here!

I further checked with the Better Business Bureau about the maker of the Hydro 4000, 1 Freedom Inc. Here is a link to the report. While there are no customer complaints, the company has been warned to stop using the Better Business Bureau logo.

While there definitely is a lot of hype around the issue and no 3rd party laboratory has provided an analysis, there is some indication by some parties that it may work. Yes, that is less than a definitive answer, however, I need more proof.

Your Garbage, My Money

While many of my regular readers may think that I am opposed to all things green, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I believe in doing things that are cost efficient and effective, like green roofs. You can read my blog, Clean Air through Green Roofs .

I am a big fan of recycling, particularly those things that make sense to recycle, like steel and aluminum. However, when it takes more resources to recycle than it takes to make the product from scratch, I am skeptical.

In the July 24th edition of Business Week, there is an article titled, "Cash for Trash." It discusses how not only are traditional waste management companies making money from recyclying, but venture capital money is going to firms, "...which includes everything from materials recovery to sewage biotechnology..."

There is a simple "why" to the question of increased recycling.

"The calculus is simple: As the prices of oil and other raw materials rise, recycled products become more attractive. Consider that 8% of global oil production is siphoned off to make plastic each year. Recycled plastic, however, requires 80% less energy to produce. Recycled aluminum burns up 95% less energy. Recycled iron and steel use 74% less, while paper requires 64% less."

So there you have it. Recycling now is worth it! Is anybody surprised? They shouldn't be. In a world of ever shifting commodity prices and consumer tastes, new markets show up to take advantage of any disequilibrium. When the cost of oil and metals goes down, don't be surprised to see recycling businesses fade away, just like in 2002, when "Mayor Michael Bloomberg, ...suspended the city's glass- and plastic-recycling services in 2002..." Things change, markets change, tastes change and generally that's good, because that's how markets are made.

Nuclear, India Style

India is not only one of the world's largest countries by population, it is also on of the largest consumers of electricity. However, India suffers insufficient power generation and distribution networks, making stable and continuous power a very hard target.

In the July 24 issue of Business Week, titled "All Eyes on India's Nuclear Prize," the article, while focused on who is getting business to build 30+ reactors, also spells out India' commitment to clean, nuclear energy.

When it comes to spending about $100 billion of government money, one can bet on controversy. Additionally, when that money is to spent on building safe, reliable, clean, nuclear plants, one can count on the leftists to scream the loudest.

So, should one be suprised when the article states, "Communist members of Singh's coalition opposed it and walked away from the government, forcing a confidence vote on July 22." If one followed the news, they would see that Singh survived the confidence vote.

Lest anyone question the need India has for power, consider this quotation:

"And as the economy expands, New Delhi hopes to quintuple nuclear energy production. "Demand for electricity is so large," says R.B. Grover, India's chief negotiator for the nuclear deal, "that we can accommodate all countries" willing to help build capacity.

All the best to India and its nuclear power expansion. If they are successful, perhaps the can reduce the number of coal and oil plants and really reap the fruits of clean, safe, and reliable, nuclear power.

Germany Loses its Mind-Follow Up

First, thank you to all my readers. I hope you are finding the posts worthwhile and occasionally humorous. I pride myself on the research that I do for each post, as well as my professional experience and Masters-level education. And yes, nuclear energy is safe, very safe.

I would like to post a comment to one of my posts on Germany's decision to decommission nuclear plants in favor of wind farms. Again, thank you for your comments.

Anonymous said...

I hope nobody reads your ramblings, mate. You clearly ignore the horrors and suffering that Chernobyl caused and still continues to cause to Eastern Europe. Nuclear energy is not safe, period. Anyone who says so is ignoring the number of accidents around the world that get reported 2-years after they happened -- or never if they can conceal it (Russia?).

We -- Germans -- simply do not trust the people working in nuclear power plants. The technology may be alright, but the human beings inside are no computers, we all make mistakes. Chernobyl was no technical issue, but a series of very unlikely human errors. As long as we are in control, nuclear power is not safe. OTOH I wouldn't even think about giving a computer total control over such a thing.

And please, stop bragging about your superior common sense, when it sounds more like some down-home-hokum. You clearly have little facts at your hands as you continue to accuse every other person on this planet to have none.

Look at some pictures of the people dying in Chernobyl and read about their stories and then remember that it was a human error that can and will happen again. Maybe this could teach you some compassion.

And while we're at it, just buy a bike and use it instead of a car and choose home appliances by their energy usage -- the German build ones are pretty good at this, maybe then you can understand that our environment is pretty dear to us.

So, if you research nuclear power generation globally, you will find that the Russians failed to build a secondary containment unit of reinforced concrete, which is standard for ALL Western nuclear plants. If they had done that, the deaths and devastation wouldn't have occurred.

The French and the US have managed to run nuclear plants without fatalities for over 30 years. Guess what, that's a lot safer than flying in a plane or riding a bicycle!! Human error is real. However, with proper planning and risk management, nuclear power generation remains the cleanest and safest, without exception.

We pray for the souls of the dead and injured from Chernobyl, but also place the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of the haphazard Russian builders.

Only Because Its Funny...

Is that Al Gore with the chainsaw?

Common Sense vs. Ethanol

As I wrote in a previous post, "Adding up the Cost of Ethanol," the production of ethanol takes more fuel than it creates, it uses 10,000 liters of water for the 5 liters it returns, and it is made by using food crops. As you can imagine, this is about one of the worst strategies for decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Finally, responsible adults have started to speak up. Governor Rick Perry of Texas has asked the US EPA "...to temporarily waive regulations requiring the oil industry to blend ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline." according to the New York Times. His contention is that ethanol is causing food prices to sky rocket, including animal feed. Of course, farmers and ethanol producers don't want any waiver.

Some big names have lined up on both sides of this issue. "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, has introduced legislation calling for a freeze of the mandate at the current level, saying it “is clearly causing unintended consequences on food prices.” The measure is co-sponsored by 11 other Republican senators, including John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee." Some could argue that these Senators are in the pocket of ranchers and the preeminent boogie man, "Big Oil."

That same argument can be applied by those who are against the waiver, namely Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. He has been a major recipient of ADM largess. Grassley has stated that support of this waiver is "treasonous." Sure, treason. Good grief!

There is another way to look at this, though. Corn farmers are claiming that fuel costs, as well as those for fertilizer have gone up, thus his prices have to go up to cover his costs. That is reasonable. They also claim that they geared up to meet the regulations and demand for ethanol. If that demand changes because of a change in regulation, then they are stuck with way too much corn. While I sympathize with argument, hey, that's business. How did every liquor manufacturer feel when Prohibition went into effect? The same is true for Freon and other things that regulation has changed the market for.

So what does all of this mean? Probably not much. Oil is still expensive. Anything that uses petroleum and its associated products are going up in price. With or without ethanol, the cost of a bushel of corn will probably stay fairly high, because of the cost of fuel and fertilizer. However, it is good that folks are finally catching on that ethanol is a loser.

Oil Speculation is Good!

Does $4 gas get you down? How about those high airline fares? I have heard the cry, "Quick Congress, do something!!!" Airlines have sent emails and taken out ads decrying speculation, yet if I recall, all airlines buy oil futures. Yes, buying futures is the same as speculating, and it is good!

In the 22 July edition of the Wall Street Journal, there is an editorial titled, "An Energy Sarbox." The editorial clearly details the 40 hearings Congress has had and all of the associated hand wringing. Before we go any further, the future purchasing of commodities is good for all consumers. It allows for businesses to plan how much of any commodity they will consume in the future, and for what price. It allows these same businesses to set stable prices. Additionally, it allows for contracts to be made on future outputs at fixed prices.

Back to the knuckleheads in Congress, the article spells out how the left goes back to the old power play book. Declare a crisis, then move in to increase power.

"Instead of merely increasing funding and manpower at the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission, it vastly broadens the CFTC's regulatory purview. It also orders the CFTC to distinguish between "legitimate" and "non-legitimate" traders."

So what happens when US lawmakers make doing business in America too expensive and difficult? They leave. So, if Congress wants to "wring the speculation out of the market," they are going to run all commodity exchanges out of the country. Yes, that would be the NYMEX (New York Mercantile Exchange) and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Guess what happens when things go overseas? You got it, they can't be regulated. So much for regulating "speculators," Congress!

Nuclear, American Style

I have written about nuclear power on two occasions, "Build Wind, Drop Nuclear? Germany Loses its Mind!" and "Nuclear, Silver Bullet or Money Pit." While I generally have a positive outlook on nuclear power, I must agree with William Tucker, author of "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Can Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Long Energy Odyssey," which is due out in September, as to how the US can do it better.

In the 7-12-2008 edition of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Tucker writes an editorial titled, "Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power." He outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the current energy situation in the US, and points out how coal, while abundant and efficient, creates significant amounts of CO2 and other pollutants. He also clearly spells out the costs and inefficiencies of solar and wind.

What makes Mr. Tucker's discussion unique is that he points out the need to allow investors to decide whether to invest in nuclear, and not just rely on subsidies. As I mentioned in my "Silver Bullet" post, some companies have decided not to pursue new nuclear plants. For nuclear to be successful, a stable, regulatory environment must be in place, as well as re-allowing the recycling of spent nuclear fuel.

Government, yes I said government, can help out in both instances. Regarding regulation, the US government has improved and streamlined the process for building new plants. Now all it needs to do is overturn that genius president, Jimmy Carter's ban in fuel recycling. Tucker gives an easy to understand example. France, which has produced 80% of its electricity needs from nuclear over the past 30 years, recycles its spent fuel. The waste product fits in one small underground room. Imagine if the existing spent fuel could be recycled for fuel, as well as industrial and medical purposes, not only would nuclear power be even less costly, but actual waste would be reduced.

Let's here it for more clean nuclear power, as well as nuclear recycling!

Sacrifice for Thee, but Not for Me

I will let this video speak for itself. Al Gore goes to give his energy speech (read tax, tax, tax) in Washington, and arrives in a fleet of Lincoln Towncars. One of which idles for 20 minutes, while running the AC.

Thanks to AmericansforProsperity.com (http:\\www.americansforprosperity.com)

Guess what?! I've got a fever, and the only prescription... is more cowbell!

Like Christopher Walken says in the Saturday Night Live sketch, leftists around the world say about taxes. However, it really goes something like this: "There is some made up crisis, and the only prescription is more taxes!" Or government control, but you get the picture.

In a previous post, "I'm the Taxman, Yeah the Taxman," I detailed how the United Kingdom is looking for more taxes to make the UK more "green." Not to be outdone, the wild man from Tennessee, Al Gore, according to CNN, "...has pushed for polices that would reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, such as greater energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources like wind and solar energy. Gore has also advocated for governments to tax the emission of carbon dioxide."

Why is Al Gore promoting this? Because he is a big fan and shareholder in a carbon credit business, but I digress.

Green taxation, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, has been around for 15 years. It seems that they want taxes to:

* to generate revenue to pay for damages created from past pollution and for measures to reduce future pollution

* to change behavior

* combine(s) a significant pollution tax with a major restructuring of the tax system to make the overall economy more efficient. This process is called "tax shifting."

While they recognize green taxes are regressive, that is they hurt poor people the most, and not folks like Ted Kennedy and Barbara Streisand, the ILSR states: "One way to deal with the inequities resulting from an across the board carbon tax would be to return a significant portion of the revenue to the low income community for energy efficiency."

Well look what we have here. It is all just another income redistribution scheme with a helping of Nanny State on top. So there you have it, the earth is falling apart! Tax everybody! Leftists have the answer! Do I need to put in a sarcasm tag?

Gee, Ya' Think?

While not specifically questioning green technology, today's post is about oil prices and the crystal clear example of economic efficiency/supply and demand.

The AP, via Yahoo!, posted a story titled "Oil prices tumble again on US surprise supply jump." As you may or may not know, the price of a barrel of oil has fallen approximately $10 in the last two days. As you also may or may not know, oil is sold on the world market in US dollars. While the discussion of using oil as a hedge against a weakening dollar and inflation is legitimate, the story highlights the real cause, people just aren't consuming!

From the article:

"The Energy Information Administration reported that U.S. crude oil supplies rose by 3 million barrels, or 1 percent, last week. That is the opposite of the 3 million barrel draw analysts surveyed by energy research firm Platts expected. Gasoline supplies also leapt unexpectedly."

So, there you have it. People and businesses are just consuming less. Whether it is gas at $4.08 a gallon, or crude at $146, people and businesses have reached the point where they will no longer bear the price, and thus supply is increasing. Provided that consumption remains flat or continues to decrease (globally), prices will continue to fall.

And guess what, the US government and states still collect about $.26 a gallon. However, they are concerned that reduced consumption will cut into their revenue stream.

Hybrid Hummer Hums

**Read the follow-on article, "Big Green Trucks!" and learn about flywheel hybrids here!**

Huh? A Hummer hybrid? Yes, the picture you see is of a Hummer H1 Hydraulic Hybrid. Hybra Drive Systems and Gates Corporation built this Hummer H1 with a fully hydraulic power train. Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

So, what is an hydraulic hybrid and what should anybody think about them? Much like any other hybrid, there is an gas/diesel engine that is mated with another motor powered by some other source. Most passenger car hybrids are gasoline engines with battery-powered, electric motors, while hydraulic hybrids don't use batteries, but rather hydraulic accumulators to store energy. Hybrid batteries are store approximately 1.3 Kw/hr, while hydraulic accumulators "...have power densities of roughly 500 kW/kg, according to Jim O’Brien, founder and chief technology officer for Hybra Drive Systems, a start-up focusing on the development of hydraulic power trains." (found at DesignNews.com)

They work this way, from Design News:

Design concepts for hydraulic hybrids vary, but the car’s engine powers a hydraulic pump motor, which charges a high-pressure accumulator. The accumulator, in turn, drives one or more additional pump motors connected to the wheels. A second lower pressure accumulator completes the hydraulic circuit. Depending on the design, there may be one pump motor to drive a pair of wheels through a differential or one pump motor per wheel for an all-wheel-drive version with independent torque control. During braking, the pump motors on the wheels reverse themselves, re-charging the accumulator and capturing energy that would otherwise be lost to heat.

OK, so why is this better than an electric hybrid and why isn't it available today? For one reason, it will be easier to dispose of hydraulic fluid than it is to recycle hybrid batteries. Secondly, because they are just so efficient over battery hybrids. Would you feel better if you had more energy? Try FRS® Healthy Energy™ Free*!

"Kargul (Technology Transfer Director at National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab) says the gains came from three sources — running the engine at its sweet spot, operating the vehicle with the engine off and capturing braking energy. The regenerative braking capabilities of these systems... can far outshine the electric hybrids... made possible by the high power density of accumulators. Kargul says the EPA’s hydraulic hybrids typically capture at least 70 percent of the braking energy otherwise be lost to heat. He estimates electric hybrids capture more like 20 to 25 percent, because their batteries... have comparatively poor power density. “You would have to triple the size of the batteries to come close to 70 percent,” he says.

Although hydraulic hybrids are now being used in pilot programs on mainly commercial trucks, there are passenger cars being tested also. The current delay to mass acceptance is that the hydraulic pumps are big and expensive. Additionally, the most efficient system will have to do away with the typical, mechanical transmission.




While these challenges aren't insurmountable, they do allow for battery hybrids to rule the roost, so to speak. Fortunately, the free market is learning about this concept, and have begun to catch on. Parker Hannifin, Siemens and Eaton Corporation are the leaders in providing the hydraulic components, not to mention successful companies in their own right.

A Tribute To the Late Tony Snow

If you live in the US, you are aware that former Presidential Press Secretary, Tony Snow, passed away this weekend. His passing and my tribute to him are relevant to this blog because, in the words of Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday, "He would unfailingly challenge the premise of many of the questions. I'd never seen this before in a press secretary,..He challenged the premise and told them that they were wrong in the narrative or the storyline that they were tacking, and this caused the president's supporters, those who had seen it, to stand up and cheer." In this blog, I challenging the premise of the conventional wisdom "solutions."

Vice President Dick Cheney had this to say:

"He had this rare combination of intelligence, of commitment and loyalty to the president that he was working for, but also this great love of going out behind that podium and doing battle with what in effect were his former colleagues. And it was this capacity that he had to be unfailingly polite, to maintain good humor under the most trying of circumstances, and do it, I thought, better and more effectively than anybody I've ever seen in that post," Cheney said."


President George W. Bush presented these remarks:

"Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend Tony Snow," President Bush said in a written statement. "The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character."

Here are the links to some of his colleagues' tributes:

Britt Hume:


And the White House Press Corps: