For me the hype against Nuclear power may be an example of a difference we may have. Many years ago I read about a new style reactor that would require NO containment building. It used nuclear pellets; it used Helium as the heat medium; it was small and modular (no large financial initial investment); it has no coolant or control rods; and it rans at a constant 1500/1600 degrees C. Now to me I couldn’t get this type of plant fast enough because this was going to get me to electric cars faster.

I have been an advocate of Fuel Cells for a very long time, but only as a means of getting to electric cars. Now I’m not sure. We are doing so well with the newest batteries and Ultacapacitors that I am no longer sure the fuel cell is needed at least for cars.

If one looks at Bush’s Energy Bill, the key was a 30 year plan to develop an expanded natural gas intra-structure. Then it is believed Hydrogen would replace the natural gas. Now if you have distributed power systems using fuel cell power stations, fuel cell could still be of value. One of the main problems of electric is overhand power lines; where under ground gas distribution does have as many natural weather type problems. As an example, my power has been out many times, but my gas has never stopped under any conditions.

Envision an unlimited Hydrogen supply system using an already in place underground distribution system. You would or could have a home fuel cell for electric power. A small storage area for storage of hydrogen, which would store Hydrogen made from the power from the solar panels on the roof. Your hot water and cooking heat would be gas (Hydrogen). You would have 100% of the heat go into your house and self humidify; in fact there could be gas heaters in each room. Now since you have all of this, you could also have a fuel cell APU in your electric car.

Who knows what will generate the Hydrogen. It could be Fusion, Fission, or closed loop coal processes. It could even be Solar, whether by sun or wind. We need to think how we want the system to work and not what will supply the system. The system requirements are time and money in order to put in place the underground gas pipes and would never make money. Therefore, there is little reason for individuals to generate the delivery systems. This is the one place I would like to see government get involved. Like roads the delivery systems of energy should be paid for by the government. They could also (I have a problem here – “provided” it does not seem to be the right things – they could do something like “promoted” but we need more then words), but the one thing we don’t want is the government to run it.

My passion for electric cars has gone from Pro fuel cells to ICE Hydrogen Engine electric Hybrids to just plan old electric CARS again. I can not see a need to rush out and go with a Hydrogen economy with these new 40 year 10 minute charge batteries or Ultacapacitor systems coming out now.

One last comment on global warming, as you may have guessed by now, I am not an advocate. I have many ideas and beliefs. I also believe that discussions on this subject are like discussing religion or politics, where it usually has no end. I only wish to point out one fact and you all may have the facts better then I do, but a resent release, which I have not seem, indicated that man has most likely had little to do with or can reverse global warming. I heard the author had sighted Methane (or something like that) as the primary cause of global warming and only fixing that would help resolve global warming. I heard the same thing in 1976 that at a luncheon lecture at the University of Illinois; however, the professor added Nitrites based on fertilizers and ammonium as the other additional cause, but NOT CO-2. He sighted as termites the primary source of the Methane; I would add plant eating animals to the list.

Now I ask you what is the real agenda here about global warming? Is it cutting CO-2 or industrialization? If there is a real problem, it will be industrialization that will fix it not the once red now GREEN anarchists. The problem is that there to many people listening to anarchist about what is wrong and not trying to fix the problems. What I am happy to see here at this site are good people with good ideas to share, so we can know what is really happening toward cleaning and improving our whole.

Well, thanks for letting me rant and I hope we all will see a lot of new great products coming out this year and I hope one of them is from EEstor!!!

Tom McGreer, Green Works

Marietta, GA

PS: i’ll try to log in again, but i have not had good luck there!

Tom, you are right, the type of car we are talking about is from many aspects the right way to go. The same applies to the conversion of cellulose based bio-mass to bio-methanol. The further development of the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) may in combination with the before going and battery developments provide us “The holy grail” for new generation vehicle propulsion. The beauty is that we are in the Netherlands proceeding to get those development tracks materialized. It may, taking the enormous amount of cellulose based bio-mass you have in Canada, be of interest to find out what kind of co-operation may be possible with parties in your country to combine our methanol/gasification expertise with renewable forest exploitation for energy production purposes in your country. Converting to renewable forestry and bio-methanol production may become as interesting or even better than development of tar sands !

Referring to our beloved politicians and investors: no investments if there is no money to be made. There is however a way out if politicians have the courage to really use “the stick and carrot”: we will tax you heavily when you do the things that are against the public interest, we will use that money to stimulate developments that are in line with public interest.

Simple in its reasoning, more complicated to get it done, but not impossible if their is enough public pressure and sense of urgency to resolve climate problems.

Jan Heetebrij, The Netherlands, a strong believer in a renewable, economically strong and better society

As for the Methanol, that is a great idea and add to that converting it to Hydrogen for fuel cells. In any case whether we make Ethanol or Methanol from cellulose this IS the way to go. There is a small group that have been using corn (die) and or now expanding to the whole plant. They will get 27% more Ethanol, but using 83 % less energy plus all the feed by-product. This is just a small example of the plants going online in the next 3 years, ant that greaty!!!!

However, please explain how Mr. Bill, AL, and who ever “Stern” is had anything to do with this. Explain how they helped NanoSolar to get $100 mil to build a 1 Billion dollar 430 MegWatt solar cell production plant, which may be the second biggest thing of 2006. So what was the biggest, IPEC

If the oil greedy had not let the price of oil get over $50 to $55 for the last 2 years, the investment community would not be investing in all these new ideas.

Government can only set favorable rules, but when the money people see the financial benefit, that is when things can be changed.

My predictions are that electric car production, with or without an on aboard APU, will be come real by 2010. That because of third generation Solar Cells, by 2010 we should be down to $2 to $3 per watt and by 2012 it should be down to $1 or less. NanoSolar will be the biggest manufacture of solar cells.

For me personally, by 2008 I hope to be building a contracting business, which can design and install power recharge stations, whether for electric or hydrogen, and solar systems for home owners.

Regards, Tom

Reacting from The Netherlands, Stephen Dion does not ring a bell with me. Without knowing details I can well imagine what’s goning on. A lot of big talk, a lot of perceived action, closely watched by custodians of the established order, guarding the paradigms, serving their interests and preventing to “rock the boat”. A lot of time and money is subsequently often being wasted without realizing goals. Plenty of examples available. The same overhere. Paradigm breakthroughs and leadership is what we need. Present breed of politicians often serve their own interests first instead of primarily serving the society they are supposed to be serving. In democracy it is difficult to change that vicious circle. Disasters, calling for leadership are nearly inevitable to change the tide. History can learn us a lot. The book of Jared Diamond “Collapse” is worthwhile to read if you want to learn from the past.

Jan Heetebrij, The Netherlands, a strong believer in a renewable, economically strong and better world

- financial: all major financial institutions with a paragraph on sustainability dedicate 10% of their investments in a 10yr, 4% ROI skunk work status fund. That will deliver a market voice, to allow leadership to steer us away from the dead water we’re in globally.

No lawyers or short-term blind spotted economists and managers. Also public office recognizes its inability to tackle what needs to be tackled NOW.

- staff: let the best of class (vision + proven sustainability-in-action track record) forge a coalition of the willing (sorry Dubya) to give humanity a lease on life. Engage best of class marketeers to brand what’s done. This has potential to change the hearts of the Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Russians.

This happens when they look at how Canada, the US, Australia and the EU overcome their lethargic and hypocritical stance re RES. Make their economies prosper by reducing their ecological footprint and again stand firm for human rights world wide.

On a more general note, what about reversing the burden of proof: why could Jan’s ideas not be implemented?

Emil M

- With reference to Solar power I like to draw attention to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) as the most efficient way to convert solar into electric power. This complements PV which is better fit for local application. An area smaller than the Benelux (Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxemburg) in the Sahara can supply the whole of Europe with electric energy. The technology is close to maturity. The long distance HVDC transport technology made great strides and is ready to transport the energy from the place of conversion to the place of consumption. Many weblinks are available to support statements;

- The “methanol economy” of Nobel Price Winner George Olah is not referred to and really needs attention. His approach can be basis for a totally different (bio) fuel approach. For more details see weblink http://www.techreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=biztech&sc=&id=16466&pg=1 . This can be combined with the production of bio-methanol from cellulose based bio-mass which is abundantly available and is easier and cheaper to produce from that base material than bio-ethanol second generation. That approach will make renewable forestry feasible, which can be of great significance for Canada, will not compete with feedstock supply, can change the bio-fuel world totally and can replace the very disputable hydrogen society future. The Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) can, when ongoing developments are properly completed, complete the picture;

- the electric vehicle via the Direct Drive/In-wheel technology is, instead of the hybrid approach, the real paradigm breakthrough. Fuel savings of more than 60% and harmful emission reductions of more 80% are proven. The technology is there and ready to be used. For more details see weblink http://www.e-Traction.com and references to the Mitsubishi In-wheel Electric Vehicle (MIEV) program. When we combine this with the features of the methanol economy and the DMFC we are facing a development with a potential to really “Change the world”;

- decentralized power generation “Power from the community” opens a whole range of renewable applications and energy savings. The technology is there and waiting for application. This again requires a paradigm breakthrough, not the power company but project developers and city boards need to take initiatives to mobilize the society to act accordingly. Such an approach will accelerate involvement of citizens, face them with reality and motivate them to participate, save money and serve the renewable society.

The bottom line: the technology is there, we need the leaders with vision to get the message across. I cannot wait to see them entering the scene in 2007. Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Stern are in any way good forerunners. When we look to World War II and the enormous effort then mobilized by Roosevelt to beat the Japs and the Germans simultaneously then that is the kind of leadership we need now and are badly missing.

Canada and The Netherlands have several things in common. It may be a good moment to test joining forces on the referred subjects.

Let us all not only hope, but put in our best effort as well to preserve our precious world !

Ir Jan C.G. Heetebrij, The Netherlands, a strong believer in a renewable, economically strong and better society

“This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one: the being a force of nature instead of a feverish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.

I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live.

Life is no brief candle to me; it is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it to future generations.”

G.B.Shaw