Get Rich Blogging!

Gotcha, didn't I? Seriously, this is the perfect place to illustrate the whether an activity makes economic sense.

I actively write three blogs on three very different topics: green roofs, economic efficiency, and management. One of my friends convinced me that I should write a blog because I could make a bunch of money. He was making $300 a day. While that seems like a fantastic claim, I saw the balances.

Guard against ID Theft with 15 Points of Protection from TrustedID, including our $1,000,000 Warranty. Click Here!

So, how does one make money blogging? The simple answer is ad revenue. Whether you use a service like Blogger or Typepad or Wordpress, advertisements on the sites, when clicked, provide a meager amount of money to the site "owner." Ehow allows you to write "how to" articles, while they provide the hosting and the ads. When people read your ads, they are also present ads from Google Adsense. While they don't disclose their payment formula, my guess is that readers need to click the ads.

Ads are often provided by Google Adsense, or folks act as affiliates for a company selling something. Both blog sites and Adsense have particular rules about their use. Adsense only allows three ad units per page. Blogger doesn't allow you to write things like "Support our Sponsors" or "Click Here!" Its reasonable, as using Blogger is free for the person writing the blog. Besides, Blogger is not for "commercial" purposes. Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

When I review the amount of time I have taken to write approximately 100 posts, as well as the supporting research and interviews I have conducted, the operation is completely in the red. In other words, I can't even think about quitting my day job, or buying that tempting cookie for desert at lunch.

So why do it if it isn't economically efficient? Simple, its fun. I enjoy writing, particularly about the topics I write about. I also enjoy learning about Web 2.0, content creation, and the metrics surrounding it. In short, its a hobby, not a job. If blogging ever becomes like work to, I am out. Trading time for fun is worthwhile, that's why casinos are still around.

Nuclear, French Style

Ah, the French. While I love to poke fun at them and their, um, French ways, I have to give them credit for their successful nuclear power program. There, I said it. The French do something right that isn't silly.

The New York Times ran a piece titled, "France Reaffirms Its Faith in Future of Nuclear Power" on August 17, 2008. In it, the explain how France got its act together, starting in the late 1950s, to be as close to energy independent as possible. The article states, "Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas." Certainly, this has helped smooth out many economic bumps experienced by those countries without such an aggressive nuclear policy. Additionally, think of how clean the air is without all of those coal plants?

Did I mention that nuclear power is clean, reliable, and cost effective? Here is where France really makes nuclear the best option: "He (senior aide to Jean-Louis Borloo, the minister of ecology, sustainable development and planning) said that France’s choice for a “closed fuel cycle” — reprocessing used nuclear fuel to recover plutonium made in the reactors so it can be reused — was safer." Too bad Jimmy Carter banned fuel reprocessing in the US. Spent fuel from first use has about 95% of its active ingredient left. Hey, recycling, what an idea!

Finally, the French discovered that having a successful power program is great for their economy. In some towns, the 60-year life cycle of a nuclear power plant, "...we have economic activity for two generations.”

HHO Sounds More Like HHype

In my previous post about HHO, titled "HHO or Hype," I was pretty balanced about my opinion.

Well, I am beginning to believe that HHO is more snake oil than I did before. I was willing to consider the possibility that the injection of hydrogen into the air mixture could improve combustion. Click Here to Shop 4wd.com

While I was also willing to accept that the turning engine would provide the energy necessary to perform the hydrolysis, nobody has been willing to submit to a true, third-party laboratory test.

Here is the full text email I got when I made that suggestion:

So, know anyone who owns a lab? I don't have the time to get labs to test
anything, or the money. By the time they get it done anyways, I will be
driving a hover car or using the transporter. We have logged hundreds of
hours ourselves, and we know what has worked for us. Good enough for me.
Everyone else will just have to take it or leave it.

Sounds a little defensive and cry-babyish for me. If you are water4gas, or Punchhho, or the makers of Hydro 4000, why would you not want a laboratory test?? Maybe it won't work as advertised? Mountain House Freeze-Dried Food

While I am willing to concede that lab testing is time consuming and potentially costly, can you imagine the boost in sales they would get? Also, these companies could make great acquisition targets. I would consider lab testing the cost of doing business. But hey, I am just a blogger, with an MBA, working for a Fortune 20 company.

Scooter Polluter

She loves her smog machine! Huh? Yes, an article in "The Idaho Statesman," spells it out in black and white:

"It's true. The cleanest scooter is still dirtier than a car," said John Swanton, air pollution specialist with the California Air Resources Board."

While scooters and motorcycles use less gasoline, they create more smog due to their lack of emissions controls. The article further states:

"Some motorcycles emit as much hydrocarbon in 10 miles as a car driven 850 miles, according to Environmental Protection Agency studies."

It all goes back to choices. If your concern is saving money on gas, a scooter or motorcycle is the way to go. If you are eco-conscious, the answer may be any of a number of choices, like the Hummer they mentioned, or even better, the hydraulic hybrid Hummer, when it becomes available! DriveTime - The used car dealership for those with bad credit. Apply online.

If you are going to buy a scooter or motorcycle, make sure you have the proper training, helmet and leather gear. I recommend Timot Leather, as I have seen how their products perform in actual accidents, which was spectacular! Additionally, make sure the scooter or motorcycle suits your needs and is certified by either the EPA or state environmental boards (like California). Taste the Purest Tea on the Planet – Organic and Fair Trade Certified Shop Numi Organic Tea

From the article: "... a rise in substandard Asian imports, Swanton said. These cheap and dirty scooters and motorcycles do not comply with EPA standards. In 2005, the EPA issued an enforcement alert warning importers and the public about non-EPA compliant motorcycles and scooters entering the U.S. market."

Finally, ride responsibly!

Electric Car Finds its Niche

In a brutally honest (and refreshing) piece in Reuters, titled "Electric cars -- It's the economy, stupid!" the author gives a real-world assessment of her Reva G-Wiz, pictured on the left. Guess what, it isn't all pretty, but that's not why I like the article.

The author purchased the car to be able to drive in London and avoid the congestion tax, as well as the $9 a gallon gasoline, and also take advantage of free parking. To that I say, "Good for you!" She wisely identified that her objective was to have self-determination in transportation and a cost that suited her budget.

From the article, "...I set up a spread sheet when I bought the car and I fill in the savings I make on the congestion charge, estimated on petrol and on parking... I sold my old car and I have now "made back" the expenditure on the G-Wiz through these savings... I "paid off" the car in March this year and am on the way to "paying off" the total amount."

So what' the catch? The car go only go about 40 miles per charge. Additionally, that 40 miles is really only in mild weather on flat roads. It has poor acceleration and is very small. The author also stated that going up hills was like riding a bicycle.

What this article really is about is choice, and that's what I like about the article. The consumer had a choice of the beefier car, but was faced with congestion tax, parking fees, and very expensive gas. She chose an alternative which saved her money and suited her needs. Long live the free market!!

Enjoy this Jeremy Clarkson ( of the BBC's Top Gear) video of his take on the G-Wiz. It is in about 2 minutes or so. He takes those two minutes to mock the French.

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.