Hey Mark,

Great video.

I think that the problem has a lot more to do with car manufacturers being in bed with the oil companies than technical issues.

Until the major players in the gas industry have devised a way to make as much money with hydrogen cell vehicles as they currently do on our fossil fuel vehicles, I don't think they'll "allow" the car manufacturers to make hydro cars.

If you've seen the movie "who killed the electric car" they show GM crushing hundreds of electric vehicles that were perfectly fine. Claiming that nobody wanted them which is a load of crap.

It is sad really to see what is in the best interest for humanity and the environment to be stifled by those in power.

I am hoping that with enough exposure to the masses of the viability of modern technology, people will rise up and pressure the car manufacturers to do the right thing rather than to cater to the will of the gas giants.

Interesting video Mark, maybe we will see a non-fossil fueled economy in the next 25 years...

I disagree with your conclusion though.

Wars are almost always fought over territory.

This behaviour is hard wired into pretty much every living animal which of course includes us.

We'll just have hydrogen powered tanks instead to settle our arguments.

Still one good upshot for the West at least will be us having zero reliance on the Middle East and Russia for our oil and gas.

Bad for them though as their economies would spectuacularly implode!

Hey Mark- looks good, I agree about the tardiness of government etc- with the will, it will be done!

I just posted a song on myspace (http://www.myspace.com/edbassingthwaighte)

about what it will take for us to change the world to change...

Enjoy! ed (Free download, too!) and for any of your friends...

Cliff,
It seems to me that "territory" can encompass more than just a piece of land. And the source of our necessary fuel is definitely a "territory". So we should do all we can to promote other sources of fuel/power so we don't have to rely on others for our own security and peace of mind. Not to mention having to worry about our children laying their lives on the line for someone else's "territory".

Cathy

Hey Mark- I think the logical conclusion, aside from waiting for support to what is clearly the best way forward toward peace and a better environment, we should start a new auto manufacturing company and plan to take this concept to market.

For real.

-Lee

Note from MJ: Hey Lee, good to see you here. I like the way you think! It seems that the car manufacturers will play ... They are building these cars right now and will build more as demand increases. What is needed is the hydrogen infrastructure. There are "hydrogen highways" planned in a few places around the globe, but many of them it seems are reliant on Petroleum. Have you ever heard of "genetic folding?" People are donating the processing power of their PS3's for genetic research. What if we started a similar project where private citizens worked to build this infrastructure themselves? We could offer instructions for clean-energy hydrogen fueling stations, people could build them, and then they could donate the hydrogen to any vehicle that drives by. Or maybe it could be turned into a cottage industry - profiteering could be avoided by industry self-regulation. Well, maybe. Anyway, there is the seed of a huge idea there.

Its interesting that BP is now branding itself as Beyond Petroleum. BP comes up No.1 on Google for this term.

Mark,

I'm not sure on how to post to this blog. But here's a link for another source of clean energy for cars:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html

Mark,
A couple of months ago I made a comment on this blog expressing my irritation with your left-leaning rhetoric on politics and government. Today, I don't think I'm quite where you're at but I have to say that you have really challenged me to think through some of my previously held beliefs in these areas.

I have been a life-long card carrying conservative republican - but last week I put my card through the shredder in disgust with my party. I am certainly not a liberal or even leaning democratic but I have to wonder, what the hell is the hold up with these idiots in Washington? It's like they live in a bubble and the sound from the real world can't penetrate it.

The reality is, if we don't take steps to end our dependence on foreign oil our way of life will be destroyed (ie. War, Environment, Economic, etc.). Keep on building this awareness and soon perhaps we'll finally reach a tipping point that Washington can't ignore (it's already working on me).

Joshua Immel

Note from MJ: Hey Joshua, I hear you. Just remember, this isn't a left/right thing. It's more of a reality/fantasy thing. Unfortunately, the dialogue has been adjusted in our country such that anyone who questions the version of reality presented by the mainstream media is framed as being "far left" by the "right." But frankly, the left in our country is just as corrupt as the right. And the lines have been blurred such that there really isn't any substantive difference between the two in action. There is a slight difference in the rhetoric, but when it comes to the decisions (like the one based in the belief that bombing Iran is a path to world peace) there are all in lockstep. And guess what: the only candidate I have any trust in right now is a Republican: Ron Paul. Check him out and watch his performance in the tragicomic Republican debates. The Democrats won't bring us peace. Maybe the time is ripe for an Internet-based groundswell to elect the "unelectable." Oh, and here's a good book for you: "Dying to Win." Check it out if you want to question the underlying assumptions of the war on terror.

Hi Mark,

Unfortunately, Tara hits the nail on the head. We're getting worse gas mileage than the Model T. The only thing technology brings to these clowns is the ability to obfuscate a VERY simple process (internal combustion), make more ways of wasting energy, and make sure parts wear out almost immediately after the warrantee period expires

I have an uncle who I've only spoken to on occasion who is retired from ARCO (in Washington State). He told me years ago, that the Oil industry has "Men In Black" who take care of problems in these "inventions" areas.

Ever wonder why they're ALWAYS talking about fueling stations instead of on-board electrolysis? They have GOT to keep that central control over fuel. Otherwise, people will ignore the energy dictators.

After viewing your video, I followed some of the links on YouTube, and came across a video talking about Stan Meyers and his water-powered dune buggy. Looks like he figured out how to autonomously produce the hydrogen as-needed. No storage bladder, no filling station, and no distilled water needed. This was in 1998, for Pete's sake! How far have we gotten since then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIgOn1kRw5s&NR=1

Looks like the MIB got to him first. RIP, Stan.

"...was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother, Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp.s The Military was going to use this technology in their tanks, jeeps, etc. He had patents on his invention and was ready for production. Only $1,500 to equip your car! See the Videos above. No gasoline, just water. Stanley said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelf his idea. Stan said, "no, this technology is for the people." Who you suppose poisoned Stan? A jealous onlooker? Do you think the Oil Corp.'s are happy to see a converted car running for FREE??"

Full Text:

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Hey Mark,

Man am I glad you've taken this issue on.

Given your PhD (or is it tenured professorship? :-) in viral marketing and the huge community you have developed, I foresee some great things happening in the near future through the power of the net and this blog. Thank you.

EdW posts about a guy named Stan Meyers who invented what is essentially a self contained hydrogen fuel generator in a car. I hadn't heard of Stan or his not-surprising untimely death before, but I do recall a similar story back in the 70's.

I believe it was Popular Mechanics (might have been Popular Science) that spotlighted a car that got 72,000 miles to the gallon - of water.

Apparently the inventor had figured out a way to atomize water molecules into their component parts, create a suitable mixture and then inject it into the combustion chamber.

There was no storage tank for the hydrogen. It was created on-demand, thus virtually eliminating the chance of explosion. Not to mention the obvious - no filling stations!

I never heard another word about it, though I had expected it to make all of the top headlines and news shows across the globe. I imagine the device and the inventor went the way of Stan Meyers. Too bad we didn't have the net back then...

What it all comes down to is greed, power and control on the part of big business. But there are some inroads being made in the "cottage industry" of fuel production, as Mark alludes to.

Have you heard of Willy Diesel? It's Willy Nelson and his partner's new grassroots bio-diesel company in the midwest US. Locally grown crops like corn are converted into fuel oil. Local refineries produce it and local stations distribute it.

It costs a tad more, but most people are willing to pay it simply to break the shackles big petrochemical corps have on them and the world.

Clearly not as environmentally friendly as hydrogen, but far better than petroleum and all the dependencies we have developed around it.

And I totally agree that Ron Paul may be just the man the US needs as their next president. Anyone who has consistently said that he wants to do away with the IRS and the Federal Reserve clearly has the people's interests in mind.

Peace out.

Note from MJ: Hey Russ, it is going to take the full support of quite a few people to get Ron Paul in office, but I think it may actually be possible. Unfortunately there is a base level of education that everyone needs to get before they realize the sense of what he's saying. If you watched the Republican debates you'll see that we have a really long way to go. If people believe that "all Arabs are the enemy" and that "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" the war on terror as it is makes sense. It's going to take a huge concerted effort on the part of a lot of people.

Mark that 'toy' would be great for schools. It could help start kids thinking about alternative fuels before they have thought about having a licence. If it comes as a kit, even better, as they can see how it works as they put it together.

Further to my post (and your comment), I absolutely agree that it's the real issue is in the infrastructure. Over here in the UK, it seems (anecdotal experience, don't quote me on the stats) that approx. 1 in 10 fueling stations have an "autogas" fueling option - a cleaner fuel, and a price difference of approximately $1 per liter (3.8 liters to the gallon... so $3.80 difference a gallon!)

Despite the obvious cost savings, and the positive environmental impact, a fraction of people use it. I'm not even sure the reason is wholly the cost of conversion (approx. $4K for a car). Even businesses boasting large fleets seem hesitant - again, because of the lack of infrastructure support.

No-one wants to end up in the middle of nowhere with an electric car, with the only pump in sight dishing out diesal!

But you know, it occurred to me that very few people even know what "Autogas" even means. I'll admit my own ignorance - it was only last year I spotted it in a fueling station venturing out of town, and had to turn to the wisdom of a friend to fill me in. There was no "buzz" surrounding it - no wonder there's so little take-up.

In my head, it seems to the answer is three-fold:

1) Developing a buzz (smart marketing)
2) Getting support from those with a vested interest to help
3) Incremential introduction

This sounds like the kind of thing that would go down in a treat in the green-conscious, hip-minded, techno-pioneering state of California.

There are plenty of people there who would jump at the chance to contribute infrastructure, and with the right buzz and legwork, the uptake from a general (and dare I say, less environmentally aware) public could be induced by appealing to thrift - the cost savings of the new way vs. old.

I tend to think of most things in computing terms (the geek that I am), and I think there's some cross-over lessons from the computing world. The majority of the world are running Windows platforms, that the Linux ("green") crowd would be quick to say it's expensive, slow, appeasing the corporate machine, and bloated. Much like the fueling options of today.

The alternative exists. It's free. It could save you money. It's touted as being infinitely more powerful. There is infrastructure there to support it (a mass of support groups). And you can download it right now from any number of websites, at zero cost.

Yet, the uptake is still low, for the general public. Why? Because Windows is the easy choice. It got there first. It's installed as standard in most purchased computers (cars). Your friends know how to use it. It appears easier.

My argument here is not that Linux is better than Windows (!), it's that people tend to take the path of least resistance, and when talking about introducing something so radically different from what we are used to know, the company/group responsible for handling that undertaking really have to play to good psychology... make the conversion and process easy.

I bet if there was a free neighborhood Linux technician who promised to come round to your house and install a "better" operating system, show you how to use it, and hand you a check demonstrating your cost savings, Joe Public would jump at the chance of something better at lower cost.

My point? The burden can't be placed on the general public. As always, they remain oblivious (by and large). They will continue to fill their fuel-fuzzling cars with whatever is the norm.

But, plant this seed somewhere right (California seems to be the epicenter of cool - the source that other countries soon follow, technologically and socially), put the right infrastructure in place, start a buzz, make it easy to reap the benefits, and this is something that could start to capture the imagination of governments and manufactuers worldwide that are perhaps a little hesitant to be the first to try it.

Maybe that's just innane rambling - admittedly, I have no direct experience with statistical data to back-up what amounts to anecdotal foresight. But I know if I was going to attempt trendsetting ANYWHERE, it'd be California.

Note from MJ: Inane rambling like that, and a little bit of belief from someone crazy enough, is what changes the world.

Forgive me, Mark - I'm at the risk of being blacklisted for comment spam, here, but your idea set off some sparks.

I don't know if it's a naive simplification of the processes and problems that are the current debate, but the entrepreneur in me was deeply inspired by the idea you mentioned akin to the protein folding (or indeed, any of the distributed computing power projects... like Seti@Home).

"P2P", wholly independent fueling infrastructure!

Is it not just as simple as...

1. Choosing a "cool" starting base to seed this idea (California? For all the eclectic, brilliant, intelligent, diverse, techno-affluent people and reasons mentioned in my last post)

2. Starting a website that offers people the chance to own their own fueling station business, subsidized by sponsorship (or some kind of franchise opportunity). The government already subsidize installing solar panels in homes, with finance options that represent lower monthly repayments than the fuel savings... maybe that's a start to latch onto?

The company could install the required set-up, actively scout out strategic locations (to ensure even availability of "green fuel"- I envisage an "Enter your zip code to see if we're looking for people in your area..." type box on the website), obtain all the required financing, etc.

3. Set up a central payment system with a unique membership fuel card (in much the same way that cafes have taken up the chance to offering Internet access by buying into BT "OpenZone" agreements - tens of thousands in the UK). They have the kit, installation and ready-made income opportunity all provided for them (remember: Make it easy! That's the key), and thousands upon thousands of otherwise techno-illerate cafes, restaurants and pubs now offer Internet access.

Give these cards out for free at fueling stations or online, and set-up merchant terminals (owned by the company, for guaranteed merchant approval � not all independent) to accept all the regular payment methods.

Process payments as a central company (much like Shell/BP) and distribute profits to those involved. Of course, they can check stats and download income statements all via the website!

4. Because payment is centrally managed and fueling profits distributed to partners monthly, it may make financing/subsidizing easier. Again, the easier it's made for everyone involved, the quicker the uptake... leave the complexities to the companies that build this scheme.

5. Create a social dependence on the concept of green fuel (building upon current social debate), and use that to leverage the support of socially-positioned, general public companies who all want to make money out of it (AOL, Coca-cola, McDonalds - free fueling with your burgers!). Tap into existing cultural honey-pots.

(In the UK, there has been a big war against the "size zero" fad of late. As a result, fashion models, magazines, clothing companies, celebrities and just about anyone who can cash in on the bandwagon of popular social debate, have taken it upon themselves to support the "fuller figure". Of course, it's all tosh - what they profess and what they think are two different things... but they know there's money to be made with popular opinion so everyone seems to be spouting their mouth!)

Make it a you-vs-us issue... those opposed WANT to destroy the environment, right? :-) (hey, whatever it takes).

6. Everyone cashes in on it, in the true spirit of capitalism (the only currency for truly gaining mass support, is it not?). Car companies build the cars in demand, general companies create promos around the "buzz" (green fuel), and the company responsibility for putting it all in place, makes the whole process turnkey and easy for the uptake (there's immense fortunes to be made... but those fortunes could easily be funneled into further green incentives, that go beyond the road).

(Incidentally, there are already many companies touting the "green" benefit, ever since the global warming crisis hit the headlines. HSBC bank now offers "green banking". Sun Microsystems offer "green" web servers. Silverjet's company philosophy is to plant the number of trees required and make charitable contributions to the right organizations to diminish each flight's carbon footprint... there's no reason this can't, or shouldn't, be good for business).

7. Get the backing of celebrities and politicians, who can seriously advance their social stature by voicing (and agreeing with) popular opinion.

This is such a clear-cut issue. It isn't religion or politics being questioned. It's whether or not the environment matters. It supersedes all political, religious and moral boundaries. Who would possibly answer NO? That should make uptake all the more easy.

8. To top it off, make the whole thing accessible online. Users can check their fuel balance, pay costs by ACH/credit card if they have a fuel card, build up a point balance to redeem at stores (sponsored by big business, with an incentive to increase sales). All that good stuff.

Maybe it's a radical idea, maybe they'll say it'll never work, but did any other bold vision in history start out easy?

It would seem that the timing is right to introduce such a concept...

Rabble or reality? Who knows... see how that floats.

-Lee

Note from MJ: I think you're definitely barking up the right tree - that's one of the ways it would work. We would just need to make sure it didn't become yet another source of profiteering. If the fueling stations were independently-owned a price war could keep the cost down. We'd just have to avoid people coming in and setting up some kind of quasi-price-fixing apparatus. That's why the ultimate motivation might just have to be philanthropic. If it's profit people will get in for the wrong reasons and charge more than gas. If you created one of these stations and donated the hydrogen - perhaps there could be some tax relief? An organization could be set up that would make that seemless to the fueling station owner. My personal belief is that energy should be free. As should all of our basic needs (not talking communism here - I think we'd move into what I call a "Luxury Based Economy" or as my dear friend Jacque Fresco suggests - a "Resource Based Economy."

"...re-allocate some of our "defense" budgets..."

Dear Mark,

Protecting the people from physical aggression is the only valid purpose of a federal government (military, courts and prisons).

The best way to bring forth the fuel cell cars is to elect a president that will cross out the government's programs to "help the people" and the massive regulations that came with those "well intentioned" massive spending programs.

A new and better America without these regulatory webs of "good intentions" "for the social good" would release entrepreneurial geniuses to bring us fuel-cell cars. This archaic regulatory web throughout the economy has paralyzed and trapped new technologies such as the fuel cell car. Regulatory control has been woven throughout every nook and cranny of the business world.

When this regulatory web is finally gone by electing the right president, technology will be free and it will take off like the unregulated computer industry.

TP

Note from MJ: Hey TP, I agree with 99% of what you say. However, I think it's possible for governments to get behind beneficial programs without over-regulating or stifling us. If, for example, the government were to get behind an initiative that build an infrastructure to make energy freely available to everyone, the impact would be huge. As for defense budgets - I totally agree - but a lot of what we spend on "defense" is really "offense" and totally unnecessary. If we build infrastructures that make us less dependent on what's going on in the rest of the world, we could actually defend ourselves with a fraction of the cost. Just look at the military spending in the US since the war in Iraq started ...

Lets be honest here. Until the government figures out a way to tax it, alternatives fuels are a pipe dream. So if you really want to see this water car a reality propose a tax structure first.

Note from MJ: I'm not sure if I agree with the underlying presupposition here ... Why can't people do this on a private level?

I like the enthusiasm for electric cars and I don't want to be negative but the solar panel by itself would have powered the car! As a toy it's great. Though like the hats you see with a solar panel turning a cooling fan: Small-scale it works but it doesn't scale well because the required power for a car increases non-linearly with increasing size (somewhere between parabolic and cubic). Lee is right with his Linux versus Windows analogy: The triumph of the IC engine, like Windows, is actually a triumph of mediocrity for the sake of standardisation and ease-of-use. The lesson to learn is that the electric car needs to be able to do the same that the IC engine does before it is universally accepted. That means cheapness, off-road ability, hill-climbing, cold-starts, quick refueling and yes inexpensive infrastructure. These are the reasons why the IC engine initially triumphed over the electric car and they mostly still remain to be solved. For several good technical reasons (ie not monetary reasons - there is no lack of money for hydrogen research), hydrogen fuel cell cars are still farther out than battery cars and the main problem, as it has been for 100 years, is a cheap, powerful long-life battery. I've said here before that I'm sure that the Al-Air cell is the real answer to that. We'll be able to show you that though in a couple of months time.

Note from MJ: James, I'm sorry, but I think you may be a bit misinformed here, unless I misunderstood you. First, hydrogen cars are here - right now. Look up hydrogen fuel cell car and you'll see that they are readily available - not just in toy size - but even in SUV size. As for batteries - well, hydrogen fuel cell cars don't require batteries - they run on the power generated from the fuel cell. The limiting factor here is the production of the hydrogen. Technology in the car itself is most certainly not the limiting factor as we have cars now that can go 300 miles on a tank of hydrogen. Again, we just need to mass produce them to bring down cost. Next, we need to mass produce the hydrogen - and as I've demonstrated we have available methods for doing that. As for your technology, I'd love to see a demonstration when you're ready. I am contacted by alternative energy companies all the time - very few of them come through with an actual demonstration ...

This is a really interesting brainstorm of ideas and comments, and I'm loving it! Hahaha

I do believe that this idea of a independent/philanthropic group of enthusiasts/volunteers is great!

Like Freeware, but in a slightly new sense of the world. Just taking the freeware open source model as an example though.

I believe it would be relatively simple to start a public license project on alternative fuel innovations. Get people talking in forums and sharing schematics, adding to each others ideas and problem solving through online think tanks.

After-all, it'd be kind of hard to suppress ideas that are public license, open source, freeware. Particularly with people worldwide contributing and accessing it.

If some solid alternative energy methods and techniques studied and developed, then we'd have some solid instruction sets on building freeware fueling stations, vehicle adaptations, and other alternative creations (How to build wind farms from recycled materials, solar panel setups, etc...).

It sounds good to me. People helping people, and web 2.0 facilitating it's accessibility & growth.

Mark
Misunderstood rather than misinformed :). A million dollars will buy you a hydrogen fuel cell car. I don't call that "readily available" but yes perhaps I wasn't clear. By "farther out" I meant "likely to be in widespread use". We can mass produce hydrogen but an infrastructure of hydrogen generators/compressors may never be practical costwise and the system uses up a lot more energy than it gives out so it is very wasteful (largely due to the compression process). We could use that solar (or wind) energy much more efficiently by charging a battery. Hence the practical route forward envisaged by most car companies is to produce the hydrogen in situ, which is the focus of most current hydrogen fuel cell research. This of course is the technology that always seems ten years away. Interestingly the Al-Air cell turns out to be one of the better ways to produce this "hydrogen on demand" system but in a slightly different way. As an aside, the Al-Air cell is actually part fuel cell, part battery as it can be mechanically refueled but not recharged. We envisage using our excess hydrogen to power a hydrogen fuel cell with the two cells being complementary: Al-air cell uses water and produces power+hydrogen. H2 cell uses hydrogen and produces power+water. Perfect sense.

Note from MJ: Hi James, I acknowledged that they were quite expensive if you had read the post - the point is mass production can get the price down quite easily. That's basic economics. Further there are fuel cell adaptations you can do for about 100K right now ... As for storage, well the hydrogen itself acts as a sort of stored energy in a sense, doesn't it? It's one way of harnessing the natural solar/wind/etc. and making it readily available for later use. You could store the energy directly as you say, but as you also say the problem is with battery technology. Hydrogen fuel cells are right now. Nothhing tomorrow about them. As for the network of hydrogen generation "never being practical" I take it you are a soothsayer as well as a scientist? ;-) If your technology can come to market faster - well, stop writing here and get to work! Come back here when you have something ready to show and I'll be the first to trumpet your praise.

Crazy talk are not crazy if everyone (from personal to government) level do something about it. In Malaysia (my country), you have GLC (Goverment Linked Companies) that its job is to extract fossil fuel out of the earth... Are the government willing to reduce that company profits (which of course, reduce the money government receive). With Revenue of 44.28 billion USD (2006), isn't that much for a small country like Malaysia? You can look for more information about this "company" I talked about by searching about "Petronas" in Google.

Just check an interesting video about climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

The hydrogen energy sources -very appropriate toppic.

They wheren't to happy about hydrogen here in Iceland. The hydrogen station didn't produce as much hydrogen as expected and it took a long time to fill the station. Sometimes the bus just stopped in the middle of the street, out of fuel.

I haven't seen the hydrogen buses for quite a while.
It doesen't look to good if two buses in a small country can't use one hudrogen station.

Note from MJ: That's great feedback. Do you have any sources for this story? I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater ... There have been combustion engine designs in the past that simply didn't work - if we had thrown out combustion on that basis the world would be a different place.

WHAT? Remove one of the root causes of war?!

Mark, you HAVE gone mad. What WILL all those defense contractors do? Sheesh. Have a heart, Mark.

And... on a more serious note...

RE: Lee/Mark private citizens build it ourselves: Let's go. I'm in.

Joshua: Consider registering as a Libertarian AFTER Ron Paul gets the RNC nomination. Don't think he will? Work to make it happen. In between, have a gander at Murray Rothbard's book, "For a New Liberty... The Libertarian Manifesto."

Mark, I'm officially donating to you my tagline, as it suits you both in spirit and corporeality:

Mark Joyner, "Mowing Down Mediocrity in Pursuit of the Extraordinary."

Now stop with this nonsense - I can't get anything done with you out there in the ether creating this mental ruckus!

Note from MJ: Val, Simpleology is the antidote to the mental ruckus I create here ;)

PV (photovoltaic) cells costs are coming down, but that is just to say that PV generation of electric power is now "only" about 10 times as expensive as coal or natural gas. Wind remains about 3 times as expensive, but that is partly due to the infrastructure costs of a large 'utility' having to transmit it over large distances. "Personal" (i.e. "home") wind turbines that can generate about 20kilowatts can be purchased for about USD $7,000. Installation can run another $3000. But consider if new homes were all equipped with their own wind powered turbine generator. It would about about $10 to the cost of monthly mortgage payments (YMMV depending on local lending rates). Then regular hydrolysis of 2(H2O) into 2(H2)+ 02 is a near zero cost item. Honda has installed two hydrogen stations in Southern California. The "public" station uses PV panels to split water. It takes about a week to "refuel" itself enough to fill 3 hydrogen test vehicles. The other system is a home energy station that takes natural gas and uses it to a) power furnaces (heating), b) make electricty (for cooling and lighting), and c) make hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars. This one has no time lag, but, as I pointed out, it is still using "natural gas" (mostly methane) which is a fossil fuel. I have seen home hydrogen (common hydrolysis) filling stations advertised for about $3000 currently, but they don't have the kind of safety mechanisms built into them that commercial filling stations have for the hydrogen connections. Storage is not a major hazard, it's just compressed gas. Leakage from the storage tanks is more likely to cause a fire than an explosion, but the tanks are heavy. A really promising new ("novel") technique for producing hydrogen from water has been demonstrated recently using a combination of 13 catalysts not normally found together in nature, and simple starch. There is a link to the info in my article at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=28159 if you are interested in some preliminary details on that. Quite interesting if it proves out I feel. Sincerely, Stafford "Doc" Williamson

Note from MJ: Hey Doc, wow - now that's the kind of information we need around here. You are welcome here any time, sir.

Mark,
Thanks for your kind welcome. I have to offer and apology and a correction. The $7000 wind generator was only 5kw, still plenty to run an average household, though perhaps not one that is 6000 sq ft. and containing 9 kids. I apologize that my memory was faulty.
Allow me to make it up to you. Here's a link to an Ebay sale that lists several Wind Turbine generator sets, of which the 10Kw version sells for a little over $7000.
http://cgi.ebay.com/CE-HS10K-10kw-wind-turbine-with-tower-off-grid-inverter_W0QQitemZ170123135239QQihZ007QQcategoryZ121837QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

That is for a FOB (Factory order basis) in Shanghai, China, shipping is extra, assembly not included. To run an ordinary household you would also need an "adapter" that allows you to switch to your wind generator supplied power and "off the grid" (your utility company). These run in the range of about $1200, but can be expensive to install (another $1200 or more).

Here's whole mess of Wind Generator Manufacturers if anyone is getting serious about the subject.
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/Wind_Generator.html

Best regards,

Stafford "Doc" Williamson

From the Jun 07 Road and Track magazine, page 170:

A "gas" station near UC Irvine dispenses hydrogen at $4.99 per Kg (about the equivalent of 1 gal of gas.) It has nozzles for 350 and 700 bar and will eventually install a third for liquid hydrogen.

Assuming that a fuel cell is twice as efficient as an IC engine, that's roughly equal to $2.50 a gal for gas.

The product is 99.999% pure and the station can do about 5-10 fillups a day. I don't know if this is the same station that Doc W mentioned.

According to the Cal. Fuel Cell Partnership there are now 23 hydrogen stations around the state with 14 more in planning. More than 165 fuel-cell cars are in operation there. GM, BMW, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan are getting in on the fun.

I wanted make a distinction about car's running off of water because I've seen it alot: Unless it is a steam engine which doesn't use water for fuel either, combustion engines won't run off of water. Water in combustion chamber= hydrolock(in most cases) It's what happens when you try to compress an incompressable liguid. This usually means a damaged engine. Water is already oxidized and so it can't burn. A combustion engine can, however, burn hydrogen that is taken from water in a separate process.

I am very interested in retrofitting combustion engines with an affordable hydrogen injection system which I have yet to see. I found this info product in clickbank and almost went for it until I read it:

ctrl C, ctrl V,this:

http://www.wam-a-bam.com/hydrockickbank.html?hop=0

First of all it said run your car on water, which I just explained, and then it goes on to explain as a bonus you can destroy your mass air sensors, and possibly hydrolock your car with the bonus of "how to inject water into your intake with UltraMist"--AWLSOME!!! Show me how to destroy my engine! That's not to say that maybe it does show you how to synthesize hydrogen from water and make a storage and injection system retrofit for your car. BMW has been working with direct injection hydrogen systems, and made this race car:

http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/h2r_racer.htm

I've got a 2001 BMW M5 that I have already partially modified, that I would love to make a showcase for a hydrogen injection system retrofit, I don't have the money or time yet to make it happen. Maybe if My internet profits start kicking into gear...

don't take my word for it: research, cross-reference, self-discover.

Charlton

This site presents interesting papers on the oil topic:
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm

Who benefits from artificial scarcity and controlled resources?
Who sponsors the noisiest proponents of "Peak Oil" and "fossil fuel" theories?

Hi

Looks good! Very useful, good stuff. Good resources here. Thanks much!

G'night

Ouch ouch ouch! Defence spending is such in "iffy" subject! I personally agree with you Mark. I'm from a military family but my government (Australia) keeps wasting money on military equip that doesn't work (funds which could be better spent on fuel cell initiatives.. etc).

Now I've moved to Auckland NZ and am astounded by the traffic even worse than at home, and the volume of left-over cars discarded by Japan.

I think what we need is education, to all INCLUDING the little guy, about it all because they vote too and if they don't understand they'll just stick with whomever they voted for last time...

While I am a HUGE fan of alternative energy I think you should understand that the solution is more complex (and paradoxically more simple) than you think.

First fuel cells are really a poor solution due to the requirement for fuelling stations.

Electric cars make much more sense...especially if you're going to use solar panels to create the energy.

But just using solar panels to create energy is not a total solution either...it takes energy to create a solar panel...quite a lot of energy.

So while it's a step in the right direction there is another much more important key to the whole energy equation that's not so popular but absolutely vital.

Reduce consumption and create sustainable communities where most of the needs are met as close to where they're consumed as possible (thus eliminating most energy use).

In other words grow a large portion of your food needs on your property or within easy walking distance of your property.

Work at home or within easy walking distance of your home.

Put schools at the center of every residential development with shopping centers and sports centers, medical centers and most commerce next to the schools with all that surrounded by homes.

That way you eliminate most of the need for motorized transport (you walk or ride a bicycle which is far healthier anyway).

Western society is, unfortunately, based around the concept that the accumulation of physical goods and increased consumption is good.

This concept is fundamentally flawed.

If it were true then overeating and obesity and all its health complications would be a good thing.

We're an obese society that needs to become more lean and efficient both in our eating habits and all our other consumption habits.

And we need to embrace things that have real value instead of assuming that amassing more material goods is the solution to our problems.

That was most interesting reading! You, young people, as well as Mr. Stafford "Doc" Williamson, have so many valid ideas. Of course, as it has been stated the solution is very complicated. So, why not combine all the modern contemporary knowledge talked about and go, think back, way back. How did mechanization started? Remember the primitive windmills, primitive water-powered engine? Use the most elementary natural resources, the primitive knowledge plus the modern advanced discoveries already accomplished,and if and when combined, would and should certainly, lead to a solution to our problem.
All you, young people, our priceless possession of the future, have to do is get "that burning desire" to accomplish it! There are so many valuable discoveries, combine them - orchestrate them and that will (must) provide the most wonderful "music" (project). And "miracle" is bound to happen.
You have to put your heads together for the sake of your families, your beloved children, whom you cherish so much - don't put all the wight on their shoulder when they grow up! Do it now!

Mark,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I wonder what BP is really up to now. Keep me posted!

Note from MJ: Warning - attempt at spreading misinformation to sell an info-product follows ...

Hydrogen is very dangerous and if your hydrogen powered car were hit and the storage tank ruptured, there would be a massive explosion. Right now you can get the info that I've used to build a kit to more than double my gas mileage. It creates HHO on demand and uses all that it makes as it is made. No storage tank, no danger. Take a look at this website and you'll understand that this technology is here now and it works great.

SPAM LINK DELETED

Note from MJ: For the truth about the safety of hydrogen: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid205.php -- Dan, if the company paying you commissions is advising you to advertise like this you might want to find a more honest company to work with.

Have you seen this water fueled car made in japan?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWFbYz2zwRo

What's the point with hydrogen? It's much more energy efficient if you'd just straight use the electricity (whatever the way it's generated).