I feel like this technology is totally supressed.

We have the power to rid ourselves of the usual power grid. You know? When they send you a bill for $95 a month even when you took pains to shut off every light and power cord.

But the Power Grid don't like that.

"We can't live without oil!" (snicker).

"A black man cain't never be an NFL coach." I heard that shit too.

I heard a lot of "cain't never" coming out of ignorant mouths.

So what is all that goo under rich people's investments?

Nutty bastards in robes.

Nice video. I agree with most of it.

I'd like to remind you that plenty of immigrants starved to death in the United States around 1900 without any "socialist policy destroying the economy". With the exception of railroad land grants, the USA was nearly laissez-faire until 1906. Monopolies thrived anyway.

If you want a recent example of price-fixing by suppliers whose initiation did not require government help (but ending it did require government help), look up the SDRAM collusion scandal of the early 2000s.

OPEC's openly stated goal is to control oil prices by collusive production-limiting, so it's ridiculous to call that a "tinfoil hat" allegation. They succeed because demand for oil is not very elastic and their competitors cannot easily increase production. Also, irrespective of OPEC, the price of oil will continue to rise as the limited worldwide reserves are consumed and demand continues to rise. OPEC and the United States are playing it well by conserving their reserves. The price of oil, relative to gold, will probably double by 2020.

And I do support nuclear power. Don't be so insolent as to presume that any left-leaning person you meet online supports every plank of the Green Party Platform.

A large conglomerate can drive all its competition in a particular niche out of business by selling at a slight loss. Or the conglomerate offer to buy the competitors first, and then run the holdouts out of business. Then they can raise prices to whatever they want and make a profit more than enough to compensate for the earlier loss. Some new capitalist will presume that he can sell the product cheaper, so he will waste the overhead cost of market entry before getting run out of business by the larger company selling at a loss again. Then the larger company goes back to selling at very high prices without any competitors. In any market with high entry overhead costs and impracticality of long-term temporal arbitrage, a monopoly can thrive without government help.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." - Adam Smith


Industries such as tap water, sewers, and electical grids are natural monopolies. There is not one place in the world where you have a choice of which tap water grid to connect to, or which sewer network to connect to, or which power grid to connect to.

If this tech is so simple to install and maintain perhaps it could see use in developing nations as a means of providing power for remote areas which are not attached to any sort of power grid?

Anyway, great sift. It doesn't appear to be particularly related to solar power though, as far as I can see anything could power the conversion process.

Thing is, I know somebody who has a wind turbine and it goes from producing too much power to too little or none at all. When he has a surplus it gets pumped onto the national grid and he gets compensated by the power company. So, its not like the excess is being wasted, and the money from the power company pays for the electricity he uses when the wind drops, so he has no real need to store the energy he produces. Ofc, in an ideal world everybody would have a wind turbine, and then you would need an energy store for when the wind drops, but while renewables are in the minority...

Anyway, gogo energy independance.

My main problem with this plan is that it just trades dependence on oil for dependence on natural gas, and still requires a massive investment in wind to just break even on our electrical power grid, not to mention a shift in automotive technology, and a refeuling question to answer (though I'm guessing the plan is to make a filling station from your own home's natural gas lines).

He's right to say it's not the permanent fix, and while it doesn't solve all our problems, it sounds like it'd reduce overall carbon emissions, and ease some of our problems with the price of oil.

I question the validity of asking the auto manufacturers to make two shifts, one to natural gas, and then to all-electric later, though my understanding is that a shift to natural gas wouldn't be too difficult.

All in all, it isn't that bad of an idea. The benefits may outweigh the costs, and it might actually alleviate pressure at the pump while we work on a conversion to fully-electric cars.

However, looking at his website, he isn't making public any sort of cost/benefit analysis, nor does he directly state what role he's looking for government to take, he looks like he's just trying to garner grassroots support for his plan, despite the lack of detail, and that seems suspicious to me.

Saying that we should all switch to clean technologies is a very idealistic statement, yes it should be done, but it won't be done in the short term. I personally believe that nuclear power is right now the best short term alternative to continued consumption of fossil fuels, with a long term plan of switching to cleaner technologies.

Nuclear power can be readily tapped into over the power grids and is substantial enough to supply entire cities, this not true for the various techs like solar, wind and so on. More development is needed in those areas. As for nuclear waste, it is a problematic issue but the waste produced is less readily influential on the environment if stored and disposed off correctly. I have read papers on research to actually break down the waste into something else. Other then that I wouldn't mind sending off a rocket or two to burn up around the sun (just an idea).

But even then we are replacing one sort of pollution for another, instead of smoke stacks or nuclear waste we would have large wind generation farms, large tidal wave areas in the sea, or large fields of concentrated solar generators.

However all these technologies still rely on a fossil fuel process for components, so what we term clean technology isn't really because various components are derived from fossil fuels, if not for power in their manufacture then for the manufacture of various parts like plastics and so on.

It's all well and good to say it, but it is all down to prep time... and also cost.

I quite dislike Pizza Hut, Dominoes etc. BUT find a nice local (non chain) pizza place and for $5.90 you get yourself a damn nice pizza with no creation time on your part, and cheaper than the ingredients alone would cost you.

Yes we (me myself and my kids) make pizzas ourselves sometimes, but I'll be buggered if we a) have the time to always do so, and b) can afford the ingredients to always do so.

Really, rallying against any and all food stores is getting a little ridiculous choggie... are you sure you wouldn't prefer to be on a ranch, off the power grid, off the interweb, disconnected from all living things? It certainly sounds that way sometimes.

The laws of thermodynamics imply that their radio wave generator is using at least as much energy as the fire is producing. There's no way to reorganize saltwater into chemicals with higher total binding energy (unless a nuclear reaction occurs). He basically just invented a cool new method of electrolysis. It will only be useful for cars if he can separate and store the hydrogen & oxygen before they react.

The reporters in this video are ignorant like George Bush -- hydrogen from electrolysis is just an energy medium. The energy for electrolysis has to come from somewhere, typically the electrical power grid, which in the US is powered mostly by fossil fuels. Non fuel cell electric cars are satisfactory -- we need to work on more environmentally friendly ways of generating power for the grid.

I would have to agree and disagree here Theo, I believed in the same thing, that any amount of aid is warranted. But the fact is that such methodology should only applied in critical situations, the fact is the willingness and dedication is never there when it comes from the foreign nations, there is a knee jerk reaction at the onset of something terrible which is slowly replaced by something else. I mean look at how the world is just standing by watch Darfur self implode. This does not mean I don't support aid programs to it, I just support aid programs that actually factor in what they are trying to do and not try cause more harm by being there. Such as Oxfam, EWB and others http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Road-Taken-Mdecins-Sans-Frontires

Yes America and such has resources and the same can be said of Canada, but one must also remember these nations were developing nations at one point as well. There was no Great British empire giving aid donations to the New World colonies when they emerged (Boston Tea party?).

Africa is not devoid of natural resources to develop itself, it was colonized specifically for it's natural resources (North and South Rhodesia).

However there is problem when you have the interference of aid agencies. Let me give you an example, the provision of electrical power is very important for the development of any economy. Thats a given fact. Development of such power grids and the lines to support them in Africa was funded by NGOs at first, only what this gave rise to is an infinite loop of waiting for more donations to spread the power grid further. People didn't think about raising themselves out of the problems themselves, it became "let's wait for the NGO to do it", and unfortunately there are hundreds of idealistic organizations out there waiting to come in.

This is totally against the way the same issues were settled in Canada and the US during it's development phase after Nicola Tesla's provision of AC power to the Western world over DC by Edison. The Canadian goverment knew that provision of electrical power to all communities in Canada was an important developmental issue, so they would develop the system via goverment subsidy and provide the service to the population at a loss to itself. This is how cheap, affordable electrical power was provided for.

In Africa what happened in various projects was that local electrical power is provided for in localities by NGOs, the goverment then basically sits on it's hands waiting for NGOs to modernize the countryside. However such development is not sustainable in the long term. The reason the goverment subsidized power grid layout worked in Canada was because you had development from centralized localities outward and not a splotch of various power generators all over various communities the NGOs went to.

My basic point is this, yes aid is good, but only aid that is properly vetoed against it's actual effects on the local populace and development as a long term goal. Aid that is looking to end it's own presence in the developing world so it can become developed.

The sad fact at the crux of it is this. NGOs are beholden to themselves. It is profitable for them not to do their job properly because how else are they supposed to raise money for issues. AIDs is always mentioned as the biggest killer in Africa, its not, it's malaria. But how media sensational is malaria compared to HIV/AIDS? NGO's always use their altruistic aims to cover up serious flaws in their application and usage. Look at United Way, just recently found out to spend more then 50% of it's allocated fund raised cash to basically pay itself and inflate its own growth. The whole Live8Aid fiasco a year ago, where did the money go? How was it applied? Does the average person know? No. It's always going into Africa, like it's some blackhole for cash donations.

This is why I like the approach of Melinda and Bill Gates foundation that is strictly self regulating. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) is the largest transparently operated charitable foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates in 2000. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the United States, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

Asian economies in the Eastern rim were also poor and underdeveloped just 50 years ago. Look at how sound goverment policy, education and proper investment in infrastructure has allowed places like Taiwan, South Korea, other Asian Tigers to thrive. There were no NGOs or AID agencies there to do that right?

farhad2000

Wrong. Battery technology still sucks and we'd just be more dependent on powerplants. On top of all this, we don't have the power grid for something like a fully electric car to work for everyone.

That movie is full of shit.