Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power

Hydrogen Stored in Safe High Density Pellets 889

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the get-you-where-you're-going dept.
sunbeam60 writes "A group of scientists are going to present their breakthrough in hydrogen storage this Wednesday. In contrast to previous storage mechanisms, this method binds hydrogen to a pellet which is completely safe to handle at room temperature. While bound in this medium no hydrogen loss occurs, enabling hydrogen to be stored cheaply for indefinite periods. When needed, the extraction of hydrogen is relatively simple. The pellets exceed all criteria set by the US Department of Energy for 2015, enabling a car to drive more than 500 km on a 50 L tank (13 MJ/l)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hydrogen Stored in Safe High Density Pellets

Comments Filter:
  • by BiAthlon (91360) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:03AM (#13498733)
    Ok, so I read the article and it's fairly light. The question I have is how do we get the hydrogen back out?
    • by dsginter (104154) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:22AM (#13498888)
      The question I have is how do we get the hydrogen back out?

      The linked article calls the stuff "AMMINEX" which sounds like yet another ammonia hydrogen storage [google.com] scheme. I won't comment on their implementation but others have failed here.

      The next problem facing hydrogen as an energy carrier (NOTE - never use the term "energy source" when referring to hydrogen because it only carries energy that has to come from somewhere else) is the fuel cell, which requires costly noble metal catalysts (i.e. - platinum). The whole electrolysis process is highly alkaline so conventional metals are quickly fouled.
      • Of course, some technologies, such as the hydrogen engines BMW is planning to release shortly, are basically conventional internal combustion designs optimized to use hydrogen as a fuel. These avoid the problems which can arise trying to make small, efficient and reliable fuel cells.
        • by VernonNemitz (581327) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:31AM (#13499523) Journal
          That's BAD! Total energy efficiency, if internal combustion is used, is horrible:
          The figures I have to work with are:
          50% conversion efficiency of fuel energy to electricity in large power plant.
          66% conversion efficiency of electrolysis to make hydrogen.
          66% conversion efficiency of making electricity in fuel cell.
          95% conversion efficiency of electricity to motive power.
          35% conversion efficiency of internal combustion to motive power.
          SO: Total efficiency of a direct-burning fossil-fuel car is 35%
          Total efficiency of fuel cell car is computed as 50% x 66% x 66% x 95%, or about 21%
          Total efficiency of a hydrogen internal combustion car is 50% x 66% x 35% or about 12%.
          • Hey, and what percentage is the energy required for converting earth oil into fossil-fuel ? You need lots of energy for that ! So your 35 is pretty close to 16 I think.
            • by cev (572524) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:54AM (#13499800)
              While you're at it, you can add the same factor for converting earth oil/coal into fossil fuel for the power plant. It's a wash.

              CV
              • by Golias (176380)
                Very well put.

                The only advantage to electric vehicles is that they open up the possiblity of using alternate enery sources, such as Solar and nuclear power, which currently would not allow you to mount the original power plant on the car itself.

                You don't gain any efficiency at all. Not everybody is aware of that fact.
                • by Spy Hunter (317220) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @03:41PM (#13502742) Journal
                  You don't gain any efficiency at all [with eletric vehicles].

                  You don't think one centralized fossil fuel powered turbine plant, operating with a huge economy of scale, with the latest efficiency technology and pollution scrubbers, running at one speed all the time, is more efficient than thousands of poorly-maintained piston engines, purchased more for their power than their efficiency, constantly being started and stopped?

                  The efficiency gain could be significant, even if electric cars were powered solely by fossil fuel-generated electricity. Furthermore, the pollution could be significantly reduced, and located where it is not as much of a problem (away from city centers).

                  And another huge advantage is that the energy source can be *changed* at any time, on a moment's notice, simply by switching power plants. We would no longer be dependent on any single energy source to the extent we are on oil today.

              • While you're at it, you can add the same factor for converting earth oil/coal into fossil fuel for the power plant.

                Not all power plants use oil/coal/fossil fuel. Hydroelectricity, wind power, solar power, nuclear power... the whole point of all this is to allow *other* sources of power into a car.

          • by Phanatic1a (413374) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:44AM (#13499679)
            If you have a way to generate the hydrogen that's cheap enough, you don't care about that inefficiency. Heck, the efficiency of a gasoline-powered IC car is about 12%, but people don't care, are are only beginning to care about the inefficiency now that gas is as expensive as it is.

            To make hydrogen meaningful, you need a way to generate large quantities of it cheaply, which basically means using nuclear power as your primary means of generating electricity. I mean, sure, you could get it by cracking hydrocarbons, but since your goal is to get away from needing hydrocarbons, that doesn't help much. And if you use nuclear power as your primary means of generating electricity, you can make enough hydrogen that 12% efficiency from an IC engine is just fine.
          • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @11:02AM (#13499900) Journal
            1. the efficiency of getting increasingly harder oil from the ground.
            2. The efficiency of refining the oil.
            3. The high cost of maintence of an internal combustion engine.
            4. The very low efficiency of getting the CO2 out of the air.
            • by UnapprovedThought (814205) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @11:51AM (#13500446) Journal
              1. The gruesome inefficiency of shale and other sources people are turning to
              2. The fuel lost while trucking fuel around (versus generating it locally)
              3. The fuel lost by spills due to the need to store it, truck it, ship it and pipeline it
              4. The impact of environmental degradation and cost of restoration (est. $400 trillion)
              5. The cost of wars and political distortions due to resource conflicts
              6. The fact that the atmosphere is not an infinite CO2 sink and so eventually the efficiency of burning hydrocarbons will degrade noticeably
            • by Hard_Code (49548)
              Yeah, the situation changes a lot when you change the timescale. Fossil fuels are finite (and if they are not "finite" they are at least naturally renewable in vanishingly small amounts), so after you use your last drop, the fancy equation demonstrating efficiency becomes useless. *When* they run out we'll have to do *something*, so it is a little gratuitous to argue against the efficiency of the alternatives.
          • by Malc (1751)
            You're comparing apples to oranges. How much energy does it take to get petrol to the pump?

            Consider the oil sands in Alberta. (They give Canada the second largest proven oil reserves in the world.) It takes a huge amount of energy to extract the oil from these sands (through boiling). It costs [energybulletin.net] about $10 to extract a barrel of oil from them, compared with $2 to pump it in Saudi Arabia. So here I've given two examples that suggest the cost of getting oil, and I haven't even mentioned transportation and r
          • by N3wsByt3 (758224) <Newsbyte.freenethelp@org> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @12:06PM (#13500598) Homepage Journal
            "50% conversion efficiency of fuel energy to electricity in large power plant.
            66% conversion efficiency of electrolysis to make hydrogen.
            66% conversion efficiency of making electricity in fuel cell.
            95% conversion efficiency of electricity to motive power.
            35% conversion efficiency of internal combustion to motive power."

            So, when I finally want to drive my car, it is 50 + 66 + 66 + 95 + 35 = 312% of inefficiency! My God! My Car will drive backwards at more then three times the normal speed!!
      • Actually there is new technology in the fuel cell market that uses a significantly cheaper polimer based panels. But internal combustion is still an option.

        Also, even if we are getting hydrogen by using energy created at centralized coal processing plants we are still creating less polution then everyone running gas. And with distributed power generation on the rise, people could be creating their own hydrogen by using excess power generated by solar roofing during the day.

        -Rick
        • even if we are getting hydrogen by using energy created at centralized coal processing plants we are still creating less polution then everyone running gas.

          How do you figure this? Coal is more carbon-intensive than gasoline, so burning coal to produce hydrogen puts more CO2 into the air than burning the equivalent amount of gasoline.

          Coal also produced more sulfur and mercury emissions than gasoline and creates toxic and caustic ash that must be disposed of.

          Finally, coal mines cause more environmental d

          • Which do you think is easier: Controlling emissions on a few dozen coal burning power plants or controlling emissions on a few hundred million automobiles?

            Not to mention the fact that any source of electricity can be used to create hydrogen, and wind power is cheaper over 20 years megawatt-for-megawatt than coal. (Google it.)

      • by AndersOSU (873247) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:00AM (#13499232)
        I think that the catalyst problem is more solvable than the more fundamental problem of hydrogen source. It bothers me to no end when people tout hydrogen fuel as pollution free. It's not. You only move the source of pollution away from the highly visible tail pipe.

        There are two sources of hydrogen, electrolyzing water, and stripping it from hydrocarbons. Both of these sources suffer severe drawbacks.

        Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell. This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants... Wait isn't nuclear bad? At least that's what the majority of the public thinks so it won't happen. The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power. Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.

        The other option is, well ironic. We need fuel cells to free ourselves from foreign oil. So we'll get the hydrogen from hydrocarbons. We'll call them hydrocarbons, so that Susie Homemaker won't immediately pick up on the problem that hydrocarbons are foreign oil. Sure it can be more efficient from wellhead to power, which is undeniable a good thing. The problem is that if it works it will reinvigorate the commuter culture here in America, which will exacerbate the problem.

        In conclusion the hydrogen economy is uneconomical, and will never happen. But then again the same is true of ethanol-blended fuel, so we can always prop it up on free government subsidies.
        • by Ryan Amos (16972) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:14AM (#13499358)
          You answered your own question there. The hydrogen economy is *not* uneconomical, but the fossil fuel based method of making it is. Fossil fuels (coal, petroleum distillates, natural gas, etc.) will run out. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but probably in our immediate offspring's lives. They will become scarce in our lifetime, and very expensive. When this happens, economics takes hold and the cheapest solution appropriate for a global scale will be used.

          Nuclear power is a short-term solution. It's pretty clean, nuclear reactors are safe (at least far safer than gasoline refineries; if you live on the southeast side of Houston, you know what I mean.) We'll eventually figure out how to make fusion work, I think it's only a matter of time. But the nuclear/hydrogen combo is pretty clean compared to the double whammy of coal/gasoline. And soon to be much cheaper in comparison.
        • This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants... Wait isn't nuclear bad?

          Well, sorry for the tree huggers, but right now nuclear is the ONLY power source that we have that can produce enough energy to get us off fossil fuels and is viable in the long term.

          Solar is too inefficient with current technologies. Wind doesn't
          • by shotfeel (235240) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:55AM (#13499808)
            Solar is too inefficient with current technologies.

            Although, depending on how you think of it, we've been using stored solar energy all alone. AFAIK, the best solar cells available are plant cells. Using solar energy and storing it in hydrocarbons. When the plants are fossilized, we get fossil fuels.

            The question in my mind is, can we simply bypass the 'fossilization" requirement. Wired had an article [wired.com] about one possibility a while back.
        • by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:36AM (#13499562) Journal
          [...] dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell

          You are correct. The reason it is economically viable is that the human race has at least two virtually unlimited supplies of the very energy we need to break the hydrogen loose and today they go unused in any real capacity. That energy source is either solar or nuclear. Other sources could be viable as well eventually, such as geothermal.

          The issue is that we need an energy storage and transportation method that works within our current tech development. Using hydrogen for portable power and electricity for stationary power is feasible as long as we can use an energy source that is plentiful and currently underutilized. Hence, solar or nuclear are the only real possible solutions right now. Solar would be best, considering the Earth receives 5000 times as much solar energy as we currently use in oil equivalents. Nuclear fusion might be a good alternative but I withhold making any concrete statements until we manage to get our first commercial reactor going. Modern nuclear fission reactors are perfectly feasible and safe as long as we manage to keep them out of the hands of terrorists (Note: The US has ZERO modern designs in operation -- we still use highly dangerous designs from the 50's and 60's).

          So, in the sense that it takes more energy to break apart hydrogen than you get back from recombining the hydrogen, you are right. But it is practical to use hydrogen as an energy carrier because there is so much under utilized energy sources at our disposal, sources that do not make very good portable energy supplies by themselves.
        • You only move the source of pollution away from the highly visible tail pipe.

          Correct, but it is much easier to put a large scrubber system on a Hydrogen 'factory' than it is to put that scrubber system on a car. The factory scrubbing can be much more complete and it makes less weight for the car to drag around.

          Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can

  • Power (Score:5, Funny)

    by b00tleg (603482) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:03AM (#13498735)
    If you crash into another car, do you get to steal the car's pellet and absorb its power?
  • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:04AM (#13498738)

    There seems to be information in the summary that is not substantiated in the referenced article:

    While bound in this medium no hydrogen loss occurs, enabling hydrogen to be stored cheaply for indefinite periods.

    The article referenced mentions nothing regarding hydrogen loss (or lack therof).

    When needed, the extraction of hydrogen is relatively simple.

    Is it? Again, nothing in the article about the extraction process.

    So where did the submitter get this extra data? If this data is correct, we'd appreciate a link.

    If, however, this detail in the summary is unsubstantiated, we'd appreciate less speculation in the future.
  • Airships (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrogers (85392) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:04AM (#13498739)
    The new pellets could also bring about a renaissance for giant hydrogen-filled airships, or as they will now be known, beanbags.
  • by Martix (722774) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:04AM (#13498743)
    will be good for solar homes if it can be reused and is easy to fill and use...didnt see how it releases H2 from it when stored or how...went to the link but very intresting to say the least if its as good as they claim
  • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:05AM (#13498744)
    ... they decided to coat these pellets with a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder.
  • by utexaspunk (527541) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:05AM (#13498746)
    COAL!
  • by ReformedExCon (897248) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:06AM (#13498756)
    The article (advertisement) is pretty short and doesn't explain the technology in much detail. I wonder how much a "full tank" of hydrogen pellets would cost. And would the extra weight of the pellets be significantly detrimental to the car's performance?

    When you go to the pump, do you swap pellets with the gas station attendant? How flammable are these things?

    What if I swallow one? Is it non-toxic?
  • by DaFork (608023) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:06AM (#13498757)
    I won't be buying any of their power pellets if they taste terrible.
  • Extraction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by D3 (31029) <daviddhenning&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:06AM (#13498760) Journal
    Sadly not much detail on the extraction process. Good ol' water can store a lot of hydrogen cheaply but getting it out is a PITA. Still, it'd be nice to pull up to a station and just drop a pellet (or bag of pellets) into the car and drive off again. D
    • This technology would render gas stations obsolete. Why would you need to drive to such a station in order to drop a small pellet into your pellet tank? It's completely unnecessary! You could easily buy a bag of these pellets from your local hardware or grocery store, and refill your vehicle in the comfort of your own garage!

  • interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rayde (738949) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:06AM (#13498762) Homepage
    i see huge potential in a fuel source that could be stored in this manner. Imagine a world where you could just buy a box of fuel pellets at the grocery store, since it's safe enough to keep in the aisles. My guess i that this could potentially do away with "gas stations" as we know it, leaving them to scrounge around for the few remaining gasoline-powered cars, and becoming more and more relegated to doing service and maintenance.
  • by CyricZ (887944) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:07AM (#13498763)
    The main thing to consider is the economics. More to the point, how will the existing oil/energy companies financially benefit from such technology? For if they don't have an interest in this product, it will never come to fruition, regardless of its technical merit.

    • The main thing to consider is the economics. More to the point, how will the existing oil/energy companies financially benefit from such technology? For if they don't have an interest in this product, it will never come to fruition, regardless of its technical merit.

      Yes, yes. Sort of like VOIP will never happen because the old-school phone companies won't like it. Or DVD players are just a fad, because theater owners don't like them. Etc.

      I'm always astounded by the imaginary power that people assign t
  • I Wonder (Score:4, Funny)

    by .tardo. (790129) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:07AM (#13498766)
    If I feed this to my dog, will he fart lightning?
  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:10AM (#13498790) Journal
    ""A group of scientists are going to present their breakthrough in hydrogen storage this Wednesday."

    Seeing as neither the article nor the summary give any specifics, why is a press release being passed along as an article?

    Why not wait until they've presented their findings, and then submit an article with more information?

    Whoever submitted this article is probably interested enough in the subject to search for a better article come Thursday or Friday -- and if it gets on /. again, I, for one, will not cry "Dupe".
  • I need information (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:12AM (#13498802)
    The linked article gives very little information. So, while I'm super stoked by this ( it's a really, really important development ) my questions are:

    1) How do they get the hydrogen back out? Do they crush the pellets ( destroying them ), do they heat them, etc.

    2) Are the pellets re-usable? Or do you have to get new ones? And if they *aren't* re-usable, can the carrier material be re-cycled into new pellets?

    My concerns would be that if the material isn't re-usable/re-cyclable we'd end up with vast landfills full of crushed or otherwise useless carrier material, in which case this is hardly a boon.

    On the other hand, if it's recyclable, I can see the oil companies being very happy with this, since you could go to a hydrogen station and dump your used pellets and "refill" with a dump of charged pellets. The station would send the used pellets to a recharging or recycling facility. I say "oil companies" because they've already got quite an infrastucture, and would probably be willing to make the investment into such facilities, since it would maintain their quasi-monopoly on automotive energy distribution.

    Still, the appeal of safe hydrogen storage is great.
  • all wet (Score:3, Funny)

    by tjic (530860) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:13AM (#13498813) Homepage
    I too have come up with a scheme to

    * bind hydrogen
    * that is completely safe at room temperature
    * has no loss of hydrogen
    * thus enabling cheap storage
    * allows for simple extraction of hydrogen

    I use a proprietary process involving oxygen. I'm not at liberty to give more details until the patent is issued.
  • Not very efficient (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kilodelta (843627) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:18AM (#13498863) Homepage
    50L to go 500kM is 10kM to the liter. Or about 23MPG. Not good.

    Unless we come up with a serious breakthrough on hydrogen production it'll never happen.

    There are several groups working on describing how photosynthesis actually works in plants. It is theorized that the process would yield us all the hydrogen we wanted. But that is still a few years off.
    • by Angstroem (692547) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:48AM (#13499112)
      50L to go 500kM is 10kM to the liter. Or about 23MPG. Not good.
      Now compare it to the energy density of Hydrogen compared to gasoline, and you will see what? (Oh, and mind you, we're talking about combustion engines -- not nuclear fusion. Just in case you let yourself be fooled by absolute numbers placed out of context again...)

      Ever used so-called "bio diesel" (RME) instead of mineral-oil based diesel? Spotted a difference in consumption and gave a thought where that difference originated from?

      Btw, hydrogen production is easy. We have plenty of deserts on this planet with hot sunny days, which are just perfect for all-solar powered hydrogen fabs. Just pump (even used) water there.

      The problems were rather storage and transport of H2, which just doesn't like to be kept imprisoned and leaked out of the bottle. If that pellet stuff is working as advertised, that problem is solved.

    • by joib (70841)
      Actually, since what matters is the energy consumption, and this method according to the article delivers 13 MJ/l, it looks very efficient. That's about 1.3 MJ/km.

      Compare that to a normal gasoline car that does, say, 7 l/100 km. Gasoline having an energy density of about 45 MJ/l this works out to 3.15 MJ/km.

      That is, the hypothesis is that the hydrogen car would be 2.4 times as efficient as the current gasoline car.
  • Better article (Score:3, Informative)

    by Akbar (30002) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:21AM (#13498884)
    A better article which goes into a bit more detail about the pellets can be found at this french website http://www.achats-industriels.com/actualites/dossi ers/269.asp/ [achats-industriels.com].

    The google translation is available at http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr& u=http://www.achats-industriels.com/actualites/dos siers/269.asp&prev=/search%3Fq%3Damminex%26hl%3Den %26lr%3D/ [google.com].

    This is an interesting storage solution but to really evaluate this we need to know more about the process to extract hydrogen and the waste products involved and their potential re-uses.

  • Background info..... (Score:4, Informative)

    by CnlPepper (140772) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:25AM (#13498914)
    A bit of background info found doing a quick google:

    http://lww.kt.dtu.dk/pdf_publications/department/D TU_04.pdf [kt.dtu.dk]

    Not much there but adds a bit more ligitimacy to the claims. Its a university annual report from the Technical University of Denmark, see pages 24-26.
  • by maxm (20632) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @09:31AM (#13498981) Homepage
    The pill consists of ammonia absorbed in ordinary seasalt.

    The ammonia is made catalytical by combining atmospheric Hydrogen and Nitrogen.

    It can be stored as long as necessary.

    Only when the ammonia is passed through a catalyst the Hydrogen is released.

    When the pellet is emptied, it just needs a new shot of Ammonia to be ready again.

    (I believe that heating is necessary in the catalyst)
  • by John Jorsett (171560) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:04AM (#13499267)
    enabling a car to drive more than 500 km on a 50 L tank

    That would be 311 miles in 13.2 gallons.

    Hah! I spit on your so-called metric system.
  • More information... (Score:5, Informative)

    by chhamilton (264664) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:10AM (#13499326)

    I've found another (from June) article here [bulletins-...niques.com] (in french). For a long time people have been talking about ammonia as hydrogen storage, as it's quite high in energy density and is a relatively safe liquid. However, there are issues with gas expansion, pressurization and toxic fumes.

    Essentially, these pellets are an ammonia storage system that stores ammonia nearly as efficiently (by weight and volume) as liquid ammonia. The above article says that they are relatively cheap to produce (initial costs of 1 euro/kilogram of material, which translates to roughly $12.88 USD for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline). The article clearly states that the process is reversible, thus the base materials must be reusable. It does not state what the cost is of 'recharging' the pellets. The recharge cost would have to be at least 4x cheaper than production in order for it to be competitive with gasoline. The extraction technique is listed as 'desorption', which I imagine just means heating the pellets up and siphoning the extracted gas off. As for temperatures, and desorption rates, nothing is cited.

    It doesn't state specifically how the reaction runs, but that ammonia is extracted from the pellets, which is then run through a standard ammonia converter (at temperatures of around 350 degrees celsius) to extract the hydrogen. It says the reaction runs quickly, so it's able to provide the hydrogen quickly enough.

    The Amminex website has slightly more information available by clicking on the "ammonia storage" page, because it's the exact same technology as the hydrogen storage (link here [amminex.com])

  • by wheelbarrow (811145) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @10:27AM (#13499468)
    There is a definite sub-culture of folks out there, many of whom play on SlashDot, that do not want to see any sort of cheap and clean alternative to fossil fuels. These are the same people who say things like "we've got to get people out of their cars".

    These folks are utopianists. They harbor a social agenda to force you to live your life on their terms. They see the rising costs and pollution from fossile fuels as a lever for gaining the control they need to remake society against most people's free will. They want to do things like move everyone into locally dense housing. Nobody will have their own free standing home and nobody will have the freedom to choose to drive their own car, on their own terms, whenever and wherever they like.

    If this sounds like a nightmare to you then pray for clean and cheap alternative energy sources.
  • by jlcooke (50413) on Wednesday September 07, 2005 @11:17AM (#13500067) Homepage
    I got 1,100 km on my 55L tank just this weekend. What's the trick?

    Diesel. Jetta. And my fuel was 30% cheaper than regular unleaded. And I filled up with 20% Bio-Diesel blend before my trip.

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...