|
|
| Climate Suggestions For The G8 From Tyndall |
| 07.27.05 (3:49 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
This week i got a report in the mail from the Tyndall Institute. The Institute is a respected scientific center for climate change research located in the UK. The report was titled Key8 for G8 and contained eight suggested areas that should be concentrated on in preparing for and dealing with the effects of global warming. In this story I would like to share those suggestions with you. Without you, the public, being aware of the scope of the problems that face us and the steps that need to be taken to at least lessen the damage done by climate change there will never be enough political pressure/support to enact the necessary measures until after it is too late.
The Institute believes that the G8 must work together to come up with policies for adressing climate change that are both politically acceptable and based on sound scientific evidence. The reason that this is important is very well illustrated in my last post which was about the Bush Administration's attempts to cover up or alter such evidence.
The Institue feels that the Gleneagles Plan of Action
is a landmark on the road to managing Climate Change. Now there can be serious discussions about a future world, post 2012. It is obvious that the G8 Nations are the obne's who must shoulder the lions share of the cost of Climate Change remediation since they are also the nations that contributed most of the greenhouse gas pollution to the atmosphere in the first place. Third World nations must be lent the support of richer nations to adapt to the changing enviornment.
Leaders of the G8 Nations. Image SOURCE.
The first suggestion was that "Climate Change solutions must be fair and just". This is of course an important consideration. COnsider Africa, with a huge population and rampant poverty it is hard to imagine that they could shoulder as much responsibility financially as North America could. But yet they will feel the effects of Climate Change just the same if not perhaps more simply because they dont have the modern convieniences (such as air conditioning or even electricity and clean, running water)that the G8 nations do in as widespread use. But by the same token these nations should have a voice in the plans that are being enacted to save the world as it is as much their world as anyone else's.
Image SOURCE.
The second suggestion is the statement that new evidence suggests that a low carbon economy will cost less than was originally thought. Recent reports said that reducing the carbon emissions in the UK from ground based sources would be totally offset by an increase in the emissions produced by increased air traffic. The Institute looked at a long range cost scenario based on their being "clusters" of necessary innovations that will occur between now and 2050. That being the case the total cost of carbon remediation is anticipated to be between 0 and 2% of the world GDP by 2050. and they are projecting that, by that time, the GDP in most countries will have risen by as much as 300%.
Image SOURCE.
The third suggestion is the statement that the UK (and other countries) CAN achieve their carbon reduction goals. As I mentioned it had recently been postulated that increased air traffic would erase the benefits of any other carbon reduction programs. Tyndall was the first group to include this additional carnbon into their calculations. They admit that meeting the reduction goals will certainly be more difficult but they believe it is still possible. They say that what is needed is a coordinated energy strategy in which economic growth is reconciles with substantial decarbonization of households, transportation and the energy production sector.
Image SOURCE.
The fourth suggestion has to do with the ongoing death of coral reefs around the world and specifically in the Caribbean. The death of the reefs are making these Islands more vulnerable to Climate Change. The Tyndall Institute has determined that coral reefs in the Caribbean have suffered and 80% decline over the past thirty years. A figure that they describe as "phenominal". The consequences to the local economies range from a reduction in tourist and sport diving revenue as well as reduced fish stocks and the reduction of the reef's effectiveness as buffers against intense hurricanes.
Map showing major coral reef bleaching areas. Image SOURCE.
The fifth suggestion is that we shift from emergency flood response to health care preparedness. Flooding is a fact of life almost everywhere in the world. As the rate and effect of Climate Change intensifies though there will be more severe and more frequent flooding in many areas. For this reason the Institute feels that we must address the effects of flooding in advance. This involves planning for such effects as drowning and injury, exposure to diseases, sanitation and access to food and water for people in these areas. This will involve the detailed analysis of the effectiveness of our current emergency response programs and a shift in thinking to preparedness instead of emergency response.
Image SOURCE.
The sixth suggestion is that the Institutes scenarios can help prepare for the future. The institute has developed plausible depictions of how climate change is likely to progress over the next 80 years. Based on this knowledge plans are being laid now by various organizations that will enable the infrastructure and peole of the world to adapt to these changes. Some of the predicted changes are that summer heat waves will be more frequent and intense, winters will be wetter and that the sea level will continue to rise.
Image SOURCE.
The seventh suggestion says that communities should be involved in decisions about coastal planning. In many parts of the world the coastlines are going to change with rising sea levels. The various players who are involved in planning the development of coastal areas are to be included in such discussions regarding the future. The plan is to combine education with dialogue and regional co-operation.
Image SOURCE.
The eigth and final suggestion is that the public must be intimately involved in this process otherwise they simply wont care about it until it hits them. People just don't percieve the climate change phenomenon as "danger" because they can't see it in their everyday lives. Until they are made aware of the reality of the danger facing us though workable solutions to the effects of Climate Change cannot be developed. So a bridge must be builtacross the gulf between public perception and scientific data. The Institute surveyed movie goers after seeing the disaster movie "Day After Tomorrow" and found that the watchers expressed a stronger but momentary motivation to act on Climate Change from watching the movie. More than this is necessary if we are to succeed.
Image SOURCE.
Note: A gentleman named Calvin Jones asked me to mention that he has started a blog on Climate Change which can be found at this URL http://climatechangeactio n.bl...
Other News TodayRalph Cicerone, climatologist and head of the National Academy of Sciences stood up yesterday and restated the obvious, in case anyone missed it: 1) There is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any other point in the past 400,000 years. (See our Climatetracker for the specifics.) 2) The vast majority of climate scientists belive humans [...] Some people seem to think so. Last month, the World Technology Network (WTN), in conjunction with the X Prize Foundation – the people who brought you space tourism – announced an X Prize for “innovations in energy, environment and transportation.” A $10 million prize will go to the person or group that reaches [...] If stem cells ever show promise in treating diseases of the human brain, any potential therapy would need to be tested in animals. But putting human brain stem cells into monkeys or apes could raise awkward ethical dilemmas, like the possibility of generating a humanlike mind in a chimpanzee's body. The North Atlantic right whale's future looks grim if the current mortality rates continue, according to Florida State University assistant professor of oceanography Douglas Nowacek and a group of fellow scientists from across the nation. HHMI researchers have determined that a gene present in mouse cells limits the number of times that a cell can divide. The gene is involved in senescence, a process that is thought to ensure that aging cells do not pass on harmful mutations. The researchers said the gene, known as SIRT1, suppresses longevity, and may play a role in regulating the aging process. Mechanical and biomedical engineers at Purdue University have developed specialized hydraulic machines and software to help industry create better and longer lasting implants for people suffering from spinal injuries, disease and age-related wear... The two-day seminar put in place by the World Bank and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) was organized to fight the effects of climate change caused by global warming and consequently poverty smart home energy monitors, even odd schemes for peer-to-peer energy sharing regularly grace our site.. and so many more alternative pathways for the energy to flow, gaming a "deregulated" system a la Enron becomes far more difficult. There's a lot of material here; it's not a casual read, despite the big, colo(u)rful pictures Epiphytes (plants without roots) are being investigated for their use as markers of climate change in rainforests. Monica Mejia-Chang from Cambridge University, UK, will present her research on how changes in photosynthesis and water evaporation in these plants could indicate the effects of climate change over the past 50 years. Living on the Earth, MA -... the old energy production of the mines, where the landscape was completely altered and changed to the new high tech and alternative source of energy that the .. will include features such as a 120-foot tall wind turbine that will produce about 5 percent of the store's energy and a rainwater harvesting pond designed to provide 95 percent of the water needed for irrigation. [...] Wal-Mart wants some of the features in the store's design to one day be viewed as standard, including waterless urinals in customer.. and climate control measures and alternative refrigeration units that are projected to save enough electricity to power 135 single family homes for one year. Investors along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park are pouring money into solar nanotech startups, hoping... Environmental Data Interactive, UK -This is the central message of a report by ... to the entire water and space heating demands of ... alternative, Greenpeace say that a decentralised system, based on .. Medis Technologies today announced that it has entered into a Cooperation Agreement with a broadly...
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Climate Change Research Distorted and Suppressed |
| 07.20.05 (1:50 pm) |
Due to some pressing personal matters involving a good friend I haven't been able to write very much of late. I decided to post some interesting articles from other sources until i get things straightened out. The following article is an excerpt from the 2004 UCS report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking:
Since taking office, the George W. Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming.
After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists, has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions of Earth’s climate.3 Yet Bush administration spokespersons continue to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4
In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five years.
Image SOURCE.
Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8 A front-page article in the New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.9
Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report, revealed that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including:
* The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [that] supports the administration’s favored message.”10
* The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself—that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.11
* The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.12
* The elimination of the summary statement—noncontrovers ial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”13
According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have been to insert “uncertainty...where there is essentially none.”14
In a political environment described by now-departed EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman as “brutal,”15 the entire section on climate change was ultimately deleted from the version released for public comment.16 According to internal EPA documents and interviews with EPA researchers, the agency staff chose this path rather than compromising their credibility by misrepresenting the scientific consensus.17 Doing otherwise, as one current, high-ranking EPA official puts it, would “poorly represent the science and ultimately undermine the credibility of the EPA and the White House.”18
The EPA’s decision to delete any mention of global warming from its report drew widespread criticism. Many scientists and public officials— Republicans and Democrats alike—were moved to decry the administration’s political manipulation in this case.
Image SOURCE.
Notably, the incident drew the ire of Russell Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford. In a letter to the New York Times, Train stated that the Bush administration’s actions undermined the independence of the EPA and were virtually unprecedented for the degree of their political manipulation of the agency’s research. As Train put it, the “interest of the American people lies in having full disclosures of the facts.”19 Train also noted that, “In all my time at the EPA, I don’t recall any regulatory decision that was driven by political considerations. More to the present point, never once, to my best recollection, did either the Nixon or Ford White House ever try to tell me how to make a decision.” 20
Were the case an isolated incident, it could perhaps be dismissed as an anomaly. On the contrary, the Bush administration has repeatedly intervened to distort or suppress climate change research findings despite promises by the president that, “my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based.”21
Despite the widespread agreement in the scientific community that human activity is contributing to global climate change, as demonstrated by the consensus of international experts on the IPCC, the Bush administration has sought to exaggerate uncertainty by relying on disreputable and fringe science reports and preventing informed discussion on the issue. As one current EPA scientist puts it, the Bush administration often “does not even invite the EPA into the discussion” on climate change issues.
“This administration seems to want to make environmental policy at the White House,” the government scientist explains. “I suppose that is their right. But one has to ask: on the basis of what information is this policy being promulgated? What views are being represented? Who is involved in the decision making? What kind of credible expertise is being brought to bear?”22
Dr. Rosina Bierbaum, a Clinton administration appointee to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) who also served during the first year of the Bush administration, offers a disturbing window on the process. From the start, Bierbaum contends, “The scientists [who] knew the most about climate change at OSTP were not allowed to participate in deliberations on the issue within the White House inner circle.” 23
Through such consistent tactics, the Bush administration has not only distorted scientific and technical analysis on global climate change and suppressed the dissemination of research results, but has avoided fashioning any policies that would significantly reduce the threat implied by those findings.
In the course of this investigation, UCS learned of the extent to which these policies seem to extend. In one case that has yet to surface in the press, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sought in September 2003 to reprint a popular informational brochure about carbon sequestration in the soil and what farmers could do to reduce emissions of heat trapping gases. According to one current government official familiar with the incident, the brochure was widely viewed as one of the agency’s successful efforts in the climate change field. The NRCS had already distributed some 325,000 of the brochures and sought a modest update, as well as proposing a Spanish edition.24
Notably, even this relatively routine proposal was passed to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for review. William Hohenstein, director of the Global Change Program Exchange in the office of the chief economist at the USDA, acknowledged that he passed the request on to the CEQ, as he says he would “for any documents relating to climate change policy.”25 While Hohenstein denies that he has been explicitly ordered to do so, he says he knows the White House is concerned “that things regarding climate change be put out by the government in a neutral way.”26
As a result of CEQ’s objections about the brochure, staff at the NRCS dropped their proposal for a reprint.27 “It is not just a case of micromanagement, but really of censorship of government information,” a current government official familiar with the case noted. “In nearly 15 years of government service, I can’t remember ever needing clearance from the White House for such a thing.”28
In March 2005 whistleblower Rick Piltz, a senior associate from the government office that coordinates federal climate change programs (now known as the Climate Change Science Program) resigned because he did not want "to sacrifice the ability to speak freely."29 Piltz declared that political appointees were working "to impede forthright communication of the state of climate science" and tried to "undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."30
The Government Accountability Project (GAP), a non-profit, public interest organization and law firm, is now representing Piltz. In June 2005, GAP gave the New York Times internal documents from Piltz’s office showing handwritten edits on several 2002 and 2003 scientific climate change reports. The edits increased and at times overstated the level of uncertainty associated with climate science. According to the New York Times, the edits tended "to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust."31
The edits were made by Philip A. Cooney, then chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, who formerly worked for the American Petroleum Institute and led the oil industry’s drive to prevent restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.32 Mr. Cooney is a lawyer with no scientific training.
In one example, Cooney edited an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, called "Our Changing Planet," by inserting the word "extremely" into the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult." In another instance, Cooney deleted a paragraph that projected reductions of mountain glaciers and snowpacks in a report examining the impact of global warming on water availability and flooding. In the margins he wrote that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
The New York Times story appeared around the same time that British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with President Bush to urge the united States to take a stronger role in combating global warming. To bolster Blair’s argument, scientific academies in 11 countries including the United States released a joint letter stating, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
Despite the scientific academies' statement, at the June 8th daily White House press briefing spokesman Scott McClellan rebuffed accusations that the Bush administration has actively sought to highlight the uncertainties involved in climate change science and downplay the link between the emission of heat-trapping gases and global climate change. The White House maintained that it is a normal procedure for political appointees to edit scientific documents.33
Two days after the original documents with Cooney’s edits were released, Cooney resigned.34 Just days later, Exxon Mobil Corporation announced that the company had hired Cooney for an unspecified position. The chairman of Exxon Mobil, Lee Raymond, has been an outspoken opponent of efforts to curb global warming. According to the Associated Press, Raymond has "come out strongly against the Kyoto Protocol and has repeatedly questioned the science behind climate change."35
Senate minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) have called for an investigation by the Government Accountability Office into whether Cooney "violated laws on falsification of documents and obstruction of Congress" in revising the climate reports.36
THE RESTORING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY CAMPAIGN
To date, more than 6,700 scientists, including 49 Nobel Laureates, have signed a statement decrying the current situation as unprecedented and calling for change. Scientists interested in joining their colleagues in signing the statement
should visit http://ucsaction.org/ct/-pLAr... .
Non-scientist activists who want to demonstrate their support for this campaign should go to http://ucsaction.org/ct/-dLAr... to sign the scientific
integrity call to action.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| The Climate Change News |
| 07.13.05 (2:31 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
Time to once again insert the measuring stick and determine how deep the poop has become in regard to climate change. It seems like every week brings us some startling new revelation or realization. But we press on with the business of day to day survival and we soon forget these little bits of information. For this reason it is imperative that someone (like me,) places new tidbits in front of us on a regular basis, so we don't quite forget what is going on in the world around us.
Leading off this week's examination of our changing world is the news that someone has finally told industries that depend on natural resources that, if they use up all these resources, there will be no business left to do. Ok seems like a no-brainer I know but sometimes it is hard to think outside the box when you are inside it. Exxon may be one of these shallow thinkers, at least according to the folks at ExxposeExxon.com who are calling for a boycott of the oil giant. Wells Fargo went so far as to adopt an environmental lending policy...whatever that means.
Picture of Joe Barton from: SOURCE.
How real is Climate Change you ask? Republican Joe Barton thinks it is all poppycock and is calling for inquiries and investigations into those chicken little climate researchers. Other politicians however are taking a different view of the matter. Former Vice President Al Gore spoke on Climate Change at a "no reporters allowed" function. His former boss, Bill Clinton has also spoken out recently in regard to his feelings on this issue.
All around the world political figures are starting to pay attention to the realities of climate change. Although the Kyoto agreement almost seems doomed after the recent G8 meetings there are more hopeful developments. For example, even though the number of smoggy days we are experiencing have tripled since last year at this time, but Ohio's top environmental official did at least point out publicly that the people can't wait another 20 years for cleaner air. But at the same time the EPA did reject a petition to strengthen smog regulations.In the end it might be local leaders who must lead the fight to save our planet.
As far as actual "warming" goes; London is running low on water as their drought continues. A young friend of mine from the UK told me the other day that they were having "hot, sunny weather". That is lovely except that she also pointed out that the normal summer weather there is ....rain. The EU estimates that they have lost 10.5% of their cereals crop due to droughts. The Riveria is said to be "ablaze" in a Mediterranian heatwave and almost all of Portugal is in the grip of a drought. The heat wave death toll in Pakistan has hit 175 as millions suffer there.
Image SOURCE.
To gague the health of our planet it is helpful to look at something as large, unchanging and eternal as the ocean. So, looking there we find that ocean temperatures in the North Atlantic have hit record highs. Ok maybe not unchanging I guess, especially in light of the fact that the ocean itself has now been found to have risen on full inch in the last ten years! Wow, ok that sort of grabs your attention, doesn't it? The OCEAN is an INCH deeper. Imagine the amount of water that would be required to do that. To put it into simple, redneck terminology; it would take a shitload of Coors to piss the ocean an inch deeper.
Image SOURCE.
Luckily experts have united to fight sea rises as warmer water heads north in the Atlantic. As a result of these changes the first indications that the Gulf Stream Current is actually slowing down have been observed. If that current stops what would be the result? No one is 100% sure but there is a lot of speculation that the future world may be much hotter than previously thought.
And oh yeah, if the Gulf Stream actually stops flowing? Something called Sudden Climate Change may kick in. To find out more about that topic read the book; The Coming Global Superstorm, or watch the movie based on the book; The Day After Tomorrow. Yes it is speculation at best but if it does happen, well then cross your fingers and wait.
climate change
The Environment
alternative energy
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Change The World Overnight? |
| 07.12.05 (12:21 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
Wouldn't it be nice if we could cut the amount of carbon dioxide we produce in half? And as a result of that action we would also double our gas mileage? Whew, imagine that. Suddenly the world's oil appetite would be reduced by 50% and by that measurement the lifespan of the world's remaining oil supply would be extended for double the current estimates. If only there were a way to accomplish that goal and if we could do it without huge investments in new vehicles or infrastructure developments. Surely if there was even the hint of that being possible, our best scientific minds would be working night and day on it, wouldn't they? Especially now in the world of changing climates and Peak Oil.
Apparently not because such a method has existed for at least several years now and there is not really any public hoopla over it and the rate of development of this method seems sluggish at best. What I am talking about is a process invented by a gentleman named Rudolph Gunnerman. What it involves is mixing water and hydrocarbon fuel together with a surficant. The resulting mixture is a milky white in color and can be used as a fuel. The mix contains form 30 to 55% water. Here is a copy of his patent on the process.
Image SOURCE.
The results are of course a dramatic lessening in pollution created by the fuel and an increase in fuel mileage because only half of the "fuel" is now the hydrocarbon. This fuel has been around since 1996 but after a short period of media attention it seems to have disappeared from public view and their consciousness.
"It's probably close to half again cleaner than regular gasoline, at
least," says Ed Glick, a planner in charge of the mobile sources section of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, which has studied A-21. "It'll meet the 2005 standards -- the gasoline that we're all using now wouldn't." Comments from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection from 1996.
Today the company that was founded to promote these Emulsified Fuels (Clean Fuels Technology, Inc) still exists in Reno Nevada. In 1994 Dr. Gunnerman licensed his fuel process to Caterpillar Inc for further development. Their ensuing battle with Caterpillar is discussed in this article from CFO.com.
After a little further research it turns out that Dr. Gunnerman was not really as much of an innovator in this respect as he has come to be thought of. Diesel/water blend fuels have been around since the early 1900's and many patents on this technology are said to exist. In fact the use of Emulsified Fuels was on the road to becoming commonplace in Europe as recently as 2003 as is evidenced by this report titled: Emulsified Fuels In Western Europe - An Overview(.pdf file). This simple presentation is quite informative and I recommend it to my readers as a great starting point in learning about this technology.
Image SOURCE.
It appears that there are currently four main companies who are producing and distributing emulsified fuels in Europe and California.
(1) Cam Tecnologie S.p.A.e which produces a product called Gecam.
(2) Clean Fuels Technology, Inc which is Gunnerman's company and which produces Aquadiesel.
(3) lubrisol with their PurINOX product.
(4) Total, with their product, Aquazole.
While all of these companies make a very similar product I notice that none of them make the same claims of fuel savings as the early Gunnerman reports did. Perhaps this is because all of them use about 10-13% water in their mixtures while Gunnerman was claiming up to 80% water in some of his mixes. So Emulsified Fuels may not change the world overnight but even without the fuel savings of the higher percentage water mixes the pollution benefits alone make these fuels something to be closely watched by environmentally conscious consumers.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Some Additional Random Thoughts On Hydrogen Peroxide Fuel |
| 07.11.05 (2:09 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
After I wrote yesterday's story on H2O2 fuel I had some additional thoughts on the subject which I felt that I should have included in that story. In a way it is just random thinking on other ways that H2O2 fuel might be used in more conventional mechanical systems. I don't think that it would be as easy as I am going to make it seem but I wanted to at least throw the ideas out there and see what happened.
One such use could conceivably be in electrical generating stations which use gas turbines to turn the generator. Since the rocket setup is to pass the concentrated H2O2 over a silver catalyst then it should be relatively simple to modify such a generator to use H2O2 fuel. Below is a diagram of such a generator.
Click on above diagram for a description of how it works from Duke Power
From that point it isn't hard to imagine being able to modify a jet engine to use H2O2 as a fuel as well. After all a jet engine essentially works on the same principle as a rocket engine. Fuel is fed into the combustion chamber where it mixes with inducted, compressed air. The burning is continuous and so modifying the fuel injectors and adding a silver catalyst screen to make it able to burn H2O2 shouldn't be too difficult thus allowing a jet airplane to use H2O2 fuel.
A simple description of how jet engines work is provided by NASA HERE.
What would be the benefit though of doing this? The most obvious one would be in eliminating all of the pollution that was produced by the engine. When using hydrocarbon fuels the byproducts of the combustion reaction are water vapor and carbon dioxide. It is carbon dioxide of course which is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming today. H2O2 on the other hand produces the byproducts water vapor and oxygen when it is used as a fuel. It is therefore producing zero pollution and would actually be adding oxygen to the atmosphere instead!
What about a car? Could the family minivan be modified to use H2O2 fuel? The basic 4 stroke gasoline engine could perhaps be modified in several fairly simple ways which might allow for the use of H2O2 fuel. If for example the injectors were modified to inject hydrogen peroxide over a silver screen at the time that combustion was desired I don't see why it couldn't work.
For a description of how 4 stroke engines work go HERE.
So there you have it, hydrogen peroxide seems to be a very interesting and potentially versatile fuel. I believe that more attention needs to be paid to it and to new and innovative uses for it as we lurch drunkenly toward a new energy economy.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Is Hydrogen peroxide Yet Another Hydrogen Fuel? |
| 07.10.05 (12:52 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
In all the discussion of various types of alternative fuels that is going on today there is one that is hardly ever mentioned, Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2). Yes, the same hydrogen peroxide that you put on cuts to "boil" out the germs. This may come as a surprise to many people but I think that it deserves to be introduced into the public forum for discussion as much as any other fuel source.
Hydrogen Peroxide Molecule from SOURCE.
Hydrogen peroxide is produced by several methods but in each method water is the raw material that is being converted into H2O2. I would like to point you to some reading material on the most common methods of producing hydrogen peroxide. I would also like to place special emphasis on the fact that hydrogen peroxide, which can itself be used as a fuel, can be produced from water by electrolysis just like H2 gas can but in the case of Hydrogen peroxide we can look at it as our hydrogen fuel being safely and conveniently stored by electrostatically clinging to oxygen atoms. Just like in a hydrocarbon our hydrogen fuel is clinging to carbon atoms.
(1) Electrogenerated Hydrogen Peroxide - From History to New Opportunities
(2) PHOTOPRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN IN NON OXYGEN-EVOLVING SYSTEMS
Co-produced hydrogen as a bonus in the photodegradation of organic pollutants
and hydrogen sulfide [This is a .pdf file]
(3) INDIRECT OXIDATION OF PHENOL ON GRAPHITE ON NI0.3 Co2.7O4
SPINEL ELECTRODES IN ALKALINE MEDIUM
(4) H2O2 Distillation
The most common use of H2O2 as a fuel in the past has been as a rocket propellent. In order to accomplish this use the H2O2 has to pass over a catalyst, usually a silver mesh. The catalyst causes the oxygen and hydrogen that makes up the H2O2 to separate into O2 and H2 which then recombine explosively to form H2O (water).
Image from Peroxide Propulsion dot com.
Here is a link to a hydrogen rocket powered car which can accelerate to 450 nmph in less than 4 seconds.
For that matter perhaps we could also look at H2O2 as a fuel for jet aircraft engines. Especially since jet exhaust has been blamed recently for a large amount of the CO2 emissions which are entering our atmosphere. At this point such discussions involving H2O2 fueled jet engines center around engines such as the military Quasiturbine burning a combination of H2O2 and jet fuel (kerosene). Please note though that sich bi-fuel jets are significantly more clean burning than traditional jet engines.
This is the most obvious example of how and why H2O2 can be considered as another cheap, safe and easy way to store hydrogen fuel which is readilly available to us NOW and which would not require much in the way of modifications to our current fuel storage and distribution infrastructure.
But can H2O2 be anything other than a rocket fuel? Yes it can and it has been demonstrated recently by the Chinese who built and demonstrated a H2O2 fueled car.
Image SOURCE.
"This car only emits water vapor and oxygen," said He Limei, project director for Shanghai Habo Chemical Technology Co., showing the Habo at an exhibition of ecologically friendly cars outside Shanghai. "It uses rocket technology."
Quote from: Source.
While this car may use rocket technology there is also the option of using H2O2 fuel in a fuel cell. The possibility of such a fuel cell has already been advanced and is under development. As long ago as WWII the German's developed a U-Boat power system which used H2O2. Even the familliar Internal Combustion Engine is being discussed in various forms that could potentially use H2O2 as a fuel. So in H2O2 we find yet another energy souce to power our future and one which definitely needs to be better understood by the general public so that it is considered when planning for the future.
Upcoming H2O2 events: 18-22 September 2005, 8th International Hydrogen Peroxide
Propulsion Conference, held in West Lafayette, IN. For
additional information, contact Professor John J. Rusek at
john.rusek@swiftenterprises.net.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| You Can't Always Get What You Want.... |
| 07.07.05 (1:48 pm) |
By Micael Johnston
2005
This week there were several news stories regarding the fact that you cant get more energy out of Ethanol than it takes to produce it. These articles present this concept as though it is something entirely new and that concept is one of the fundamental laws of physics. You cant get any more energy out of petroleum than it took to produce it either (in general terms). With petroleum though part of the energy was provided by the sun long ago. The energy we have to povide now is the energy to refine the raw product into usable forms.
In the case of Ethanol the Sun again provides most of the energy that is needed by powering the photosynthesis process, which is defined as:
(Taken from the DOE Biofuels website).
Image SOURCE.
The energy of the sun helps the plant to combine water with carbon dioxide to produce carbohydrates which are....hydrocarbons (with an attached oxygen atom), almost like petroleum in a more complex form. In fact petroleum is thought to have originated as carbohydrates in ancient plant matter. So whether the energy of the sun produced our hydrocarbons now or one hundred million years ago what is the difference? There is none.
In fact, other reports produced by various government agencies and institutions find that just the oposite is true, that you can get more energy out of ethanol than you put into it. These papers usually refer to ethanol produced from corn by distillation but also remember that you can produce ethanol from vegetable matter by fermentation again using the suns energy to power the process in the case of both distillation and fermantation.
Please note too that, once again we see hydrogen from water as being the preferred source of nature. Nature takes the hydrogen fuel from water, which is the "ash" of any number of H2 plus O2 reactions and combines it with a handy storage medium (carbon in this case) and it is a fuel again! The exhaust of your car is mostly carsbon dioxide and water vapor so photosynthesis takes those two waste ingredients and turns them back into fuel using the energy of the Sun which is all around us whether we use it or not and so it hardly matters if it takes 6 units of sun energy to produce 1 unit of alcohol fuel as we cant use sun energy directly to fuel our car, it has to be converted into something like alcohol first.
In other news of interest there is a blog called Sciencegate which is a collaborative effort by several science minded journalists. They are covering events at the G8 summit on a blow by blow basis and it makes for some interesting reading. Plus they have a nifty little educational tool/toy/gadget called the Climate Tracker.
I recently found another toy that will educate and facinate people of all ages who are interested in hydrogen energy. As some of you probably know the Spqace Shuttle is fueled by hydrogen and oxygen. The toy I am talking about is a functional model rocket made by Estes company.
Click on the above image top go to the estes page on this rocket.
The rocket uses the same hydrogen and oxygen fuel as the Space Shuttle and it is produced by the user from water using "propellent Crystals" which are included in the kit. I am surprised that more hydrogen oriented websites who have online stores don't retail this item.
alternative energy
Hydrogen
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Making Water Flow Uphill |
| 07.06.05 (2:56 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
Was the Live8 concerts a success? Depends on what you envision their goal to be. For me it was to show that large numbers of people could and would rally around a cause like global poverty relief and make their opinions known. How many people? Well estimares vary but Reuters reports that there were 26 million text messages sent supporting the concerts. Numbers like that make politicians pay attention.
For today's story I would like to show you a device I put together a couple of years ago. It wasn't really intended to be any kind of commercial endeavor. It was simply a record ofmy efforts to find some new and unique approaches to making water go uphill. It was written as a series of posts on newsgroups which I then strung together into a story and threw in some illustrations. In answer to the most common question that I get on this setup; yes it does work as described but no I never tried to produce electricity with it, just to get the water to flow. It was also kind of some musings on the concept of "free energy". I wrote it a couple years ago but thought it was interesting as I said just for the device that evolved out of it. I hope you like it:
I thought I would start with a definition of free energy. To me that means being able to get more energy out of a system than what you have to put into it. I have seen people really wrestle with that concept. For example, what about a rock rolling down a hill? Or how about a stick of dynamite? Or maybe a nuclear explosion/reactor? Do you get more energy out of all of those things than what you put into them? Yes, no doubt about it. Are any of these things either "overunity" or "Free Energy"? No.
Very simple. No. No matter how you slice them they are not. In all of these cases, MORE potential energy exists than what you extract from them. Also you can only get then to go in one direction. Look at the rock for example, it gives you a lot of power going down the hill but it is going to take you even more power to get it back up to the top of the hill again to repeat your cycle. Understand?
I got into this whole thing because I thought it would be fun to find a way to use the H2 in water as a fuel. In my brief involvement I have seen many ideas advanced (and gadgets sold) which purported to provide free energy but have yet to see any of them get consistently positive reviews or independent confirmation of their validity. So it remains a challenge. I thought it would be nice to give you all a real, simple free energy device that you could experiment with and that wouldn't be too pricey to build or too complex (or dangerous) for the average 12 year old to understand. So that is what I am going to try to do tonight.
The device, of course, involves water. If you are interested I hope you enjoy it. If not, delete it.
First I would like to turn your attention to a simple experiment which I am sure that you are all familiar with. Take a drinking glass and fill it most of the way with water. Next invert it into a shallow pan of water. What happens? The water hangs suspended inside the glass, seeming to defy gravity.
Want anti-gravity in your home, there it is. Why does the water hang inside the glass like that? Because if it fell it would cause the air above it to become so low in pressure that it would create a vacuum. So the air, in it's attempt to stay at standard pressure has enough attractive force to hold the water in place against the force of gravity. You have done the work once and created a self perpetuating system in which the water will stay in that place indefinitely haven't you? If nothing changes in the system it would last indefinitely, but eventually enough water would evaporate from the pan so that air could be drawn up into the glass and the water would fall. Still though do you see the beauty of this? How much energy is required to hold a certain
quantity of water in the air like that? Yet here it is, free, for a one time investment.
Ok, so that is a static system, sort of the the rock on the top of the hill. You can't get any useful energy out of it without having something moving to do the work right? And if you drop the water to get what energy you can out of it you have losses but can get something. Unfortunately you also have to expend more energy to get the water back up into the glass again if you want to continue the cycle with it right? Undoubtedly this system, as depicted above, can't generate any more power than what you put into it and is good for a conversation piece at best. Or is it?
What if you tried to get some energy out of it? What would be the best way to do it? I like a water wheel myself. Consider the state of the water within the glass. It's water. It's not thinned out like the air above it. I did this experiment and put a small tube into the side of the glass just below the surface of the water near the top of the glass. It isn't hard at all to get water to flow out of that tube. It is at whatever height you have drawn it to so it doesn't have to be pumped "up" to the outlet. It is already there. So it requires much less effort to pump water, from just below the surface, straight OUT of a container than it does to
pump water UP from a depth doesn't it? The only drawback is that you would have to use a pump which didn't let air back into the container while you were pumping it out. As you pump it out new water circulates into the container from the pan in the bottom.
What if you made the tank 30' tall? What if you kept the water level in it at 25'? Then had a 4' pool in the pan at the bottom? As you pumped the water out of the TOP of the tank it could fall 20' over a water wheel which is connected to a generator. A 20' water wheel can generate a LOT of power, depending on the water flow and the size of the generator which is attached to it. After all, what is a water wheel but a set of levers? Remember you aren't pumping the water UP 20' either. The air is holding it there for you already, you are only supplying the energy to pump it OUT at the desired rate. And again, once the water turns the wheel it falls back into the pan where it eventually is drawn into the bottom of the container again..... Maybe this is how Tesla figured to turn a water wheel with water the wheel pumped to it's top. So there, maybe you are starting to understand.
This isn't the free energy device I was talking about, that is still to come. This is a started which may be able to do the job on it's own. The next ones are even better. keep reading.
Ok, simple right? I built the last thing (sans pump and generator)and was surprised how little energy was required to suck water out of the top level of the water (actual sucking here). I didn't have money for a pump or generator to take the test all the way to completion but I believe it is pretty sound as described and you could duplicate it for under $2 or complete it for under $25 (working scale model). Now let's get on to bigger and better things.
First I want to show you a new type of container for the water. It is based on the same principles as the previous example but has added design benefits which will allow much more to be accomplished:
What you see is, again, a container. In the container is water and air. At the bottom of the container is an outlet with a valve on it. At the top of the container is an inlet. The dimensions of the container can be whatever you want (up to the 30' height limit for pumping water up by suction). For my experimental models I used Rubbermaid storage containers which are about 8" high and 6" square on the sides. I caulked the inside of the lid to assure an airtight seal. One very important note: In all of these designs NO AIR CAN LEAK IN FROM THE OUTSIDE. For my inlet and outlet I used aquarium tubing. The valve is a brass aquarium air line regulating valve. Be sure to caulk really well around the place where the tubing goes into the container. Remember: NO AIR LEAKS.
So, ok, if the valve at the bottom of the tank is closed, what happens? Nothing. What happens if you open the valve? One of two things. If the inlet at the top is open then air is drawn into the container from there and gravity pulls the water out the valve in the bottom. If the inlet at the top is blocked then water flows out of the valve and air is sucked back into the valve at the same time to equalize the air pressure. Are we ok with this so far? Good. I built three of these containers. I then hooked them together like this:
Hmmmmm. Looks sort of interesting, no? What does it do? Good question. Well, if you put a pump on the valve of the last container (I used a manual pump of the sort that you use to suck kerosene out of a can [$2 at a hardware store]) and caulk it real well, and then pump it, it sucks water out of that container. As the water level falls the air above it becomes thinner. Remember from the example of the inverted cup that air doesn't like this situation. It will try to draw in SOMETHING to replace the exiting water (notice NO water can enter at the pump). Since it can't suck air back in through the pump it does the next best thing and sucks the air out of the INLET tube. As the air is sucked out of the inlet tube the water from container number is drawn into the tube and eventually to the top of the tube where it spills into the first container. This is a pump. A natural one that depends on the action of the mechanical pump yes but this container is a pump.
As the suction from canister number one sucks the water out of canister number two the water level in that canister falls. When it does it sucks the air out of the tube from canister three and soon the water is flowing from three to two as well as from two to one. All of the energy that is being put INTO the system is the energy to pump water OUT of canister number one. Air is supplying the energy to lift and pump the water within the system. As long as the pump keeps pumping the air in the first container will remain diminished and keep sucking water in (as will two and three). The water will move between the canisters at the same rate that it is exiting the pump. So now the pump that is rated at say, 4 gallons per minute, is actually moving 4 gallons a minute through 3 openings for a total 12 gallons per minute.
I only put three containers on the system but the pump seemed to have no trouble with it so I'm not sure there is a limit to the number it could carry. Probably this is tied to the capacity of the pump. Remember that we are pumping water OUT from the BOTTOM of container number one and so, as long as the air has somewhere else (the inlet) to suck something in from, gravity is helping us move the water out! There is very little effort required by the pump to do this.
My next step was to add a holding tank so that I could connect container three to that as it's intake supply and as the catch basin for the pumps outlet:
So now we have a little complete cycle from intake to outlet. All in one neat, continuous loop. I thought I might be onto something here. So far we have natural forces helping us allow one pump to do the work of three, four if you count sucking water up out of the basin. By the way the basin was also a Rubbermaid storage container. I like them because they are sturdy plastic and they are transparent. Also please view the holding basin as being in front of the containers and not below it. The above diagram lacks perspective to make it easier to see.
The next step was to see how we could generate power with this device. Hopefully we can make enough to run our one pump:
As you can see it would be possible to run a total of 4 water wheel/generator combinations with this setup. Add more canisters, add equally more wheel/generators. Are we at overunity yet? The water was flowing into the containers anyway and the weight of the falling water turns the wheels so they put zero additional stress on the system. But wait, there's more. At this point let's imagine an electrical pump instead of the hand powered one...
-END-
alternative energy
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| The Philadelphia Live8 Concert |
| 07.03.05 (7:13 am) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
Yesterday I went to the Live8 concert in Philadelphia. I ended up going by myself because I couldn't talk either of my kids into going. One had to work and the other thought that watching the concert(s) on TV would be better. The only girl that I might have wanted to take at the moment couldn't go either due to prior plans and so I went alone. Not that it mattered though as once you are swallowed up by a crowd of 250,000 people you are anything but alone. I ended up pretty close to the stage with a group of college guys and that was where I stayed for the duration. Below is a photo that I found on Flickr which was taken from very close to where I was standing.
100_2137
Originally uploaded by ekrubmj.
I was very impressed with the efforts of the City of Philadelphia to make the concert an enjoyable experience for attendees. This effort was evident in every detail surrounding the event. I drove in on route 76 and there were large, light up signs along the road directing concert goers to parking areas which were outside the city. Once in the designated parking areas there were attendents to direct you and police security to watch your car.
Then, after parking, you were handed a colored map of the city and the event and the route you would be taking to get there. There were SEPTA shuttle busses that took you into the city and dropped you at the commuter train that was the final leg of the trip to the concert. The train let you out about 4 blocks from the stage and even at that range it was like getting off the train and right into the crowd. A round trip ticket cost $4.
Once in the concert area there were police everywhere but they kept to the edges of the crowd and were not bothering anyone. In fact the ones I talked to were very friendly and courteous. There were no searches of coolers or backpacks and no metal detectors. Just up to a million people (numbers vary) of all races and ages and shapes getting together to enjoy an afternoon of music.
The streets within the concert area were lined with vendors selling food, cold drinks, shirts and many other types of memorabilia and other um, "merchandise". One thing that caught my attention was a couple of guys selling photos of you with their very large, live Python. There were also the usual purveyors of various religious practices out in the street prosteletyzing. I noticed a Scientologist handing out bumper stickers and several Falun Gong passing out literature some young people from one Christian sect or another giving out free hugs and kisses and one very strange looking older man (white,pasty skin, disheveled clothes) holding a sign out in front of him like a small shield against the torrent of people passing. A sign that was sloppily hand lettered in black magic marker on white cardboard and which bore an angry anti-abortion message on it.
The music was very simply excellent. I particularly liked the Black Eye Peas, Dave Matthews (who did like 5 songs) and Linkin Park who played and did a duet with Jay-Z as well. This is of course probably due to their association on their new collaborative album titled: Jay-Z Linkin Park Collision Course.
Image SOURCE.
When Bon Jovi and Def Leppard took to the stage itsounded like the mid Eighties all over again and I thoroughly enjoied their performances. All of the Artists deserve a lot of credit for being there including Natalie Portman, Salma Hayek and Jimmy Smits who played MC at various times during the day. Toby Keith's being there at first seemed a little "odd" to me because of his previous enthusiastic support of putting a boot in the ass of the Afgani's or Iraqi's or whoever else Mr. Bush decided needed to die on any particular day. But I thought about it and figured that maybe he was seeing things differently now at least in relation to poverty and that is a good thing. After all, we all make mistakes, and so I joined the applause after he finished performing "Whiskey For My Men and Beer for My Horses".
So there is proof that, without certain political/religious leaders constantly finding ways to pit people against each other, we seem to be able to get along just fine in close proximity to each other. We have to realize that we can coexist in peace, harmony and cooperation. We have to realize though that it is "We The People" who have to do it. We have to decide on a course for our future, all of us. A future where every child born has the same chance a a decent education, housing, food, basic medical care and a way to make a living. Is it possible? Sure it is. Will it happen? That depends on the will of you and I.
What does this have to do with renewable energy or the environment? Everything. Because without us being able to come together to estsblish common goals for the planet and a common level of peace and respect for all creatures how will we be able to achieve anything else?
live8
live8 philly
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
| Weekly News Wrap Up |
| 07.01.05 (7:34 pm) |
By Michael Johnston
2005
Hey boys and girls, I haven't been keeping to my goal of one original story per day. Not because the news isn't there but because most of my time is spent on the necessary activity of making money to pay this weeks bills.
Wonderful little cycle isn't it? Round and round and round we go.... If you are fortunate enough to be in a job that you enjoy at least then you can say you are going round and round the little treadmill of the JOB (just over broke) lifestyle with a contented smile on your face. So until i break that cycle this is how it goes.
First step in breaking the cycle is to get more involved in the world around you. I have been trying to do that by supporting causes that I believe in. Tomorrow I will be going to the Live 8 concert in Philadelphia. I havent been to a concert in a long time and 6 hours of "no ticket needed music" in the streets of Philly in 90 degree heat is just to damn tempting to resist...
The server of the primary blogspace provider that I use (tblog) is really starting to get annoying. There are constant slow downs and freezes and parts of it dont seem to work etc, etc. I have been thinking about starting my own online magazine (on it's own server) that would be devoted to cutting edge science developments in a somewhat expanded arena to include such things as medicine, bioscience and physice. I believe that it is important for the citizens of the world today to understand technological developments at least on a basic level. Said magazine will also include cultural news like maybe fashion and music and movies. Something for everyone and an attempt to bring science into mainstream conciousness. I want an "edgy" sort of look to it and.... Oh well it is on the drawing board.
Another thing I am going to have to do this year is to put together some actual working systems utilizing H2 fuel which take advantages of some of the things that I developed while doing physical research. And yes, I am going to the hydrogen expo next year in California. :D
Before I get into the news let me just ask you to check out the Apollo Alliance's website and consider signing their petition to ask congress to do more to encourage independence from foreign oil:
"Take Action! Send a Message.Tell Bush and Congress to support a bold new plan for Energy Independence!
Tell the President and Congress to stop caving to big-oil and stand with the American people by embracing a modern day energy plan!" Click HERE to go to the petition.And while you are at it check out their whole site. It is a really worthwhile project and I am going to be more involved myself in the future.
In the auto world this week we saw some interesting developments. SOme of you may remember me mentioning sugar as a potential fuel as it is a hydrocarbon just like petroleum or (to a lesser extent with an oxygen atom added) alcohol. I ran across a company in Australia called ecopave who seems to share this vision of sugar being treated more like a hydrocarbon. Their use for sugar waste is to turn it into a binder for asphalt paving. Of course sugar is also what the Sun's energy turns into Ethanol alcohol (with the help of yeast)which can also be used as a fuel.
Speaking of Ethanol, With oil at $60, ethanol isn't such a corny idea , is it? Well motorsts seem to like the money saving aspects of Ethanol just fine as E85, Ethanol Fuel, Lures Price- and Eco-Conscious Motorists. By 2007, IndyCars Will Run on Pure Ethyl Alcohol, a Cleaner Fuel. Recently Congressional Representatives from corn producing states have been asked by their farming Constituents to make laws that will allow them to up ethanol production. After all they are looking to Brazil (where Ethanol is hugely successful) to see the future of Ethanol here in the US.
Of course there is always at least one fly in the ointment and in the case of Ethanol as a viable fuel that fly is named Tad W. Patzek, a geoengineering professor at Berkeley.
In a recent paper Tad pointed out the fact that it takes up to six times the energy to produce Ethanol as is then released when Ethanol is burned as a fuel. Hmmmm, no surprise there really. In any system that is used to produce energy the amount of energy produced is less than the amount invested to produce it. Even petroleum requires more energy to produce than is released when it is burned. Of course that extra energy is thought to have been provided by the sun millions of years ago.
What is the difference then if we use the sun's energy to produce Ethanol today for use as a fuel? None in my opinion, as we can't yet use the Sun directly to fuel our cars. Of course his assertion was that we need to use fossil fuels to produce Ethanol which is the same arguement so often used by other fossil fuel supporters when they talk about the energy required to produce hydrogen. We can use free solar and wind energy to produce ethanol and H2 from water just as easily as we can use fossil fuels my friends and when we do the whole arguement evaporates.
In other news I try to stay on top of new, fuel saving or other energy related products which are perhaps "less" than they are advertised to be. This week I noticed one such product crop up as a feature article in such online publications as theautochannel.com,
tv station WTKR's website and others. The article was titled: "Engineering Breakthrough Enables a Gasoline Engine to be as Fuel Efficient as a Diesel" and came directly from the company involved through the PR Newswire.
I thought that the claim sounded interesting to say the least and so I did a google search on the company to see if I could find a website for them with contact information so I could interview someone for a story. I did find a website for the company; National Fuelsaver Corporation. I also found a host of somewhat disturbing links to stories from various government agencies related to this company, it's founder and the products they sell. Following are some of those links, please read them and make up your own mind about these products before you buy them.
(1) EPA Evaluation of the Platinum Gasaver Device Under Section 511 of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The EPA decidd that:"Vehicle operation and performance were unchanged by the
device"
(2) Second EPA Evaluation of the Platinum Gassaver Device
Conclusion here was the same as the first time.
(3) Fuel Economy Fraud - Seattle Gas Prices
Blogger posts his opinion of the company and a link to further information.
(http://www.usps.com/judicial/...
The company's website is still offering the Platinum Gassaver for sale and the new device right along side it. I suppse with enough fauth the consumer can imagine that anything works. But in many cases faith only gets you so far.
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
|
|
|
