The Millennial Files

Browns Gas/HHO Part Two

On May 28 of last year, I posted an article questioning and challenging a Video I had received online about a technology that could potentially turn water (H2O) into a viable source of energy. For the most part, I debunked it. Several other skeptics echoed or expanded upon my sentiments. Still others challenged our refusal to accept the possiblity the concept could be true.

Since then, others have more or less dropped the argument, but proposed other “additive” technologies for improving gas mileage. Recently we have received a few ‘testimonials’ verifying the validity and efficacy of some “Brown’s” theory-based kits.

As of this writing, there are 81 comments. In the interests of saving those of you who have already joined the discussion, the time it takes to scroll down to the most recent comment, I invite you to continue the exchange of ideas here. Anyone new to this blog can check out the original article and comments for background, which I have found valuable, and don’t want to delete any for something as trivial as space.

In the spirit of continuity, here are the two most recent comments, and again many thanks to all of you for taking the time to think and respond to this issue of becoming more energy efficient, and less dependent of gas and gobs of oil at $115 a barrel.

Charlie Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 10:54 pm e
I will also post any of my findings after I install my 2 HHO generators onto my 2001 Ford Focus.
If I can possibly get hold of a video camera, I will post this on youtube and leave a link for you guys.

I hope this helps.
Thanks…Jim

Coal Power Losing Momentum

After all my stressing out about the Clean Coal ruse being marketed, promoted, sold to and bought by the American public, I was delighted to read in a report sponsored by Nevada Senator Reid the dinosaur of dirty energy is possibly on the verge of meeting its own demise. Well, at least decline.

Unlike the SUV campaign of a few years ago, which convinced many Baby-Boomers to raise their hipness quotient by consuming vast quantities of gasoline to power vehicles that would make their father’s car look like a Volkswagen, burning coal via the clean coal facade has begun to hit its own ruts in the road to success due to the one thing no one can afford now : INFLATION.

In addition to 50 proposed U.S. coal-fired power plants being cancelled or delayed, at least eight “clean coal” plants have been cancelled, postponed or rejected by regulators more as a result of cost overuns and problematic transportation issues, than concerns about global warming. In 2007 Duke Energy was forced by the North Carolina Utilities Commissionto cancel its coal plant project because the projected cost of building a new twin-unit power plant in North Carolina exceeded its orginal budget by 50% (to about $3 billion). When TXU Corp, the Texas energy giant was faced with attacks from environmentalists about its 11 proposed new coal plants in the state, the resulting legal skirmishes and investor concerns about the high cost of the plants sent its share price plummeting. TXU ended up reducing the number of proposed coal plants to three to get it sold to two large private equity firms for $45 billion.

In terms of transportation, there is only one rail for 100 miles available to move coal from the Powder River Basins in Wyoming which is shared by two rail lines. 40% of coal used to power the U.S. lies in Powder Basins and is preferred due to its low sulfur contet. When two 2005 train derailments delayed coal deliveries for months, utilities began hoarding their existing coal supplies and relied on their more expensive natural-gas plants to produce electricity, which in turn drove up the cost of energy for ratepayers. Additionally, in spite of an increase of production in coal fields of southern Illinois and Indiana, without a north/south rail line to deliver loads to Chicago and Great Lakes, there is no cost-efficient mechanism to supply coal to the power plants there. One recommended solution, building a 300-mile “Indiana Corridor” would cost $1million per mile.

When the Clean Coal consortiums advocate their technology, which add another enormous expense to the literal price of coal, it’s no wonder regulators and governors are suspending or cancelling plans for a technology that has yet to be proven, and look elsewhere for those investments — like solar and wind.

And we didn’t have to use underage kids to convince them. Imagine that.

More About Clean Coal (not!) and Its Deception

Due to a serious health challenge, I haven’t been up to posting for awhile, but now that I am in effect beating my “beast,” it is so nice to find my opinion validated by none other than the prestigious Center for American Progress. Imagine my delight to see John Podesta’s site exposing and debunking the false front “Americans for Balanced Energy Choice” (ABEC), echoing the same conclusions I had reached last year.

At the time Joe Lucas, President of ABEC took issue with my surmisal and tried to argue ”well-meaning people can look at the same exact set of facts and circumstances and still come to differing conclusions,” and that ”We all want a secure energy future and a cleaner environment. ”

Hey Joe, why don’t you try that on John Podesta’s site, where I’m sure a lot more people will be able to read (and dissect) it.

Go ahead, I dare ya.

11th Hour Could Be Leonardo’s Finest

I’ve been hearing a lot about The 11th Hour , a new movie by Leonardo Di Caprio about our evironment, global warming and what we can do about it. Some people are calling the follow-up to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, but with a more positive message on the realistic possibility of what we CAN DO during this generation to undo the damage of the last fifty years of neglect.

I strongly urge everyone to take a look and this movie, and post your reviews here.

The clock is ticking and it ain’t 60 Minutes

Make Congress Ensure U.S. Oil Independence

Bush’s continuous claims of wanting to make the United States “less dependent on foreign oil” sound good in light of the US currently importing 60% of its oil from foreign sources. However when you consider the chummy-chummy relationship between his family and the Bin Ladens, it rings a little hollow. That Saudi oil fields are being depleted, which makes the Iraqi oil fields and US occupation look attractive casts an interesting light on the subject.

When President Bush rings alarm bells to justify invading and occupying other countries, he sometimes follows it with a comment few people hear because terror is the first word they lock onto. We would be wise to pay attention to the second half of each statement he makes. For example in an April 25 speech to ethanol producers, the President said:

“Some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments or agendas that are hostile to the United States.” Does that sound like Iraq????? And who MADE that country unstable? It wasn’t Saddam Hussein. Not only did Bush make himself a “war-time president” to ensure his re-election, he also made Iraq an unstable government so he has an excuse to continue occupying it ad infinitum — or at least until those oil fields have been depleted — but I digress.

Fortunately the 110th Democratic Majority Congress saw past this rhetoric and passed (at the same time they gave Bush the power to warrantless wiretap) the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act last Monday (August 6, 2007). Essentially the bill will strip $16 billion in tax incentives away from Big Oil and shifts it into renewable energy investments, so it should come as no surprise that President Bush has threatened to veto it.

For so long, I have heard the 110th Congress take hits for not implementing the change it was elected to do in November. But what people fail to see, or Mainstream Media chooses to ignore, is a primary reason this Congress has not been able to do more, is the Obstructionist Republicans who know the Democratics do not have enough numbers to have a veto-proof vote on all matters.

Bush was able to get 41 Representatives and 16 Senators to cave to his wishes regarding the warrantless wiretapping by calling out the terror-threat card, and making some Democrats feel they would be held responsible if anything happened while they were on vacation. I have heard unconfirmed rumors that the word had been put out in Washington D.C. an attack was immenent. Democrats who buckled could not handle the idea of being blamed for not taking enough “precautionary efforts” before going on recess. Score a big one for Bush.

Critics and frustrated Democrats who want to see enough votes to override President Bush proposed veto need to step up to the plate and do something about it. Christy at Firedoglake.com suggested a You Work for Us Summer Tour. She is advocating ALL AMERICANS to call their Representatives and Senators and put another fear in them — that of not getting re-elected unless they start doing what they were hired to. Let them know in no uncertain terms how badly voters want to “get off oil.” Christy’s suggestion of setting up meetings with their Reps, and if that is not possible, attend Town Hall meetings scheduled in their districts, is well taken, and one I heartily endorse.

Another avenue for communicating with members of Congress and the Senate is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Congress members are known for reading this often ignored section of the newspaper to get a pulse of feellings, opnions and priorities in thier home districts. I would suggest emphasizing the need to quit funding Big Oil with tax breaks and make access to renewable energy affordable. Our representatives need to know they should fear losing our vote more than President Bush’s threats.

If you are mad, angry or frustrated with this Congress, you need to let them know that, and what you are willing to do change the course of this country. If you voted for change in November, it’s time to to step up to the plate and do something to make sure it happens.

Taking a Second Look at Biodiesel

While I am encouraged at the growing acceptance and popularity of the use of sustainable, alternate fuels, as a way of weaning our dependence on fossil fuels regardless of their origin, I am also aware of the possiblity of seeing everything as a silver bullet with no downside. I have come to learn in my life, no matter how much I want it otherwise, almost everything has a downside.

The high volume of sales of hybrid cars by Toyota, Honda, Lexus and Ford attests to that if energy-efficient vehicles are available at an affordable price, the American public will buy them in droves, no matter how much the Big Three claim American drivers still prefer big and powerful vehicles. I never understood how they didn’t get the memo in the 70’s with the enormous success of the Volkswagon Bug, but that’s another story. However, these sales demonstrate a growing willingness of the American public to walk away from low-mpg/high performance vehicles.

Another alternative to gas-guzzling hogs was the introduction of biodiesel fuels. This has received a lot of White House and Congressional support especially since it provided American corn growers like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) — a major political contributor, with a potentially growing and infinite market. Even CNN used Brazil as an example of an oil-independent country. The only trouble was Brazil uses its sugar cane fields and we are trying to do the same with corn, which was not missed by ADM, who recently began investigating acquiring that market.

However, I have recently come across some articles warning of the potential for biodiesel to increase nitrous oxide (NoX) emissions, which is no laughing matter. Ntirous oxide is a major component of and precursor to ground level ozone: smog. I looked into this, and as far as I can tell, the spectrum of an increase NoX emission levels ranges from 2% to 10%, depending on the vehicle in question.

A 2002 Environment Protection Agency study focused on heavy duty diesel engines and off-road diesel. In the conclusion, it stated “One potential drawback to the use of biodiesel is the increase in NOx emissions. Although the increase is small in comparison to the reductions in other regulated pollutants (such as CO2 and particulate matter), such NOx increases may be problematic for ozone nonattainment or maintenance areas.” It suggested investigating and developing use of other additives to counteract this, such as cetane, or modifying biodiesel itself or the engines to lower NOx emissions.

While I am not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater, I do think it is is important we all remain vigilantly aware of what we are doing to combat global climate change. Caveat emptor.

Laughing gas isn’t always a laughing matter, and can have lethal side-effects.

Check Out Journey to Forever

While preparing to do some research on some possible shortcoming of biodiesel fuel, I cam across a charming and inspiring site: Journey to Forever. Journey to Forever is a prjoect centered around a pioneering expedition by a small, mobile Non-Government Organization (NGO). Their goal is to travel through 26 countries,from Honk Kong to Cape Town, South Africa and do what they can to help the local environments become self sustaining in conjunction with rural development.

Not only am I impressed with their altruistic goals, but also with their ability to listen to criticism and self evaluate their project. For example, at one of their destinations, a local challenged the irony of them being an environmental project in spite of using decades old Land Rovers fueled by petrol or “dirty diesel.” Initially their reaction was knee-jerk and defended themselves saying by using such an old vehicle, did not support the production of more vehicles (five to be be exact).

However, up reflection they felt compelled to consider his point seriously, which led to investigating non-polluting alternatives. This in turn resulted in a fairly in-depth analysis of the use of bio-fuels, which I will quote later.

For now, I strongly recommend the site to anyone interested in looking at a small group of people walking the talk honorably and authentically.

If You Want to Change Gas Prices, Change Your Habits

Lately I have been getting emails advocating boycotting Exxon-Mobil as a way of forcing the company to lower its gas prices. On its face, it sounds good, but I have been boycotting Exxon-Mobil for at least three years, and have yet to see them send me a discount coupon to get me to patronize their stations.

What is really needed is a paradigm shift in our day-to-day living. The logic of boycotting one company in sufficient numbers to force them to lower their prices ignores the notion of curbing our own dependence on oil, and looks like an attempt to having our cake and eat it. Never mind that current fossil fuel use is speeding up global warming.

Also, oil companies are closely linked, and if one company has a surplus, they can probably sell it wholesale at any price they want, to the other companies like Chevron, BP & Shell. This will be done without our knowledge, so the only thing that will change is where we buy the same gas.

If we are going to be able to have any impact on the world as well as gas prices, we will have to change our own attitudes toward public transportation and energy-efficient cars. If we are all to stop ourselves from being at the mercy of Big Oil, we have got to stop depending on their products. People who have SUV’s need to learn how to do without them — not necesarrily sell them, but let them sit in a driveway two or three days a week by carpooling or taking the bus to work. Americans have a reputation for not being able or willing to sacrifice, and as long as that holds true, Big Oil will have nothing to worry about. If we really want to make a difference, we have to make things different — which includes our own habits. Otherwise, we are just stubborn, spoiled children trying to get our way.

If more people in LA used light rail and the buses, there would be no discussion about raising fares for those with no other choice.Furthermore, if the Peak Oil theory plays itself out, we will all be in the same boat eventually, so we might as well start getting used to living like the rest of the world. Who knows? Driving down demand may not be so bad after all.

Beware of Browns Gas/HHO and Dennis Klein hoaxes

With gas prices apparently preparing to skyrocket the US into summer, many are looking for ways to cut their gas bill.Some are buying more energy-efficient vehicles, while some are opting to take advantage of public transportation. Still others are trying to mitigate their oil-habit by walking or biking to local venues. Those with substantial financial resources have begun purchasing hybrid vehicles, and investing in solar (with the help of government subsidies) or wind technology for day to day household energy demands. Others with fewer but significant resources are investing in gas to electric (Leftcoastconversions.com) or biodiesel kits. Electric conversions start at $17K, and biodiesel range from $1,500 and as much as $3,000. That leaves plenty of us without those kind of resources vulnerable to the newest “snake-oil” artists of this energy-dependent culture.

Recently I received an email from a friend with a video touting “water energy” as an alternative to gas for fuel. I looked at the video from Fox News, which should have been my first warning sign, I was intrigued. In my limited understanding of chemistry, I thought well, water is made of H2O, and those 2 molecules of hydrogen could be a power source.

I did a not-so-quick search on what else I could find out about this “new technolgy.” The first thing I discovered was, it is not that new, and in fact a version of it was pioneered by Dr. William Rhodes in the 1960’s and further developed by Yull Brown and George Weissman. The video didn’t mention any of these men, and when referring to Dennis Klein as an inventor, implied the Water Power he was touting was his own creation. Strike one.

Dennis Klein, the featured inventor on the FOXNEWS video, has his own site. Admittedly it’s pretty slick, and looks very authentic. As much as it touts applications for cars, the site discourages phone calls abou those, claiming they will not be available until 2008. However, they will sell gas generators for welding, for lease or purchase ($7K).

A prior version of the Browns Gas technology promoted during the 1990’s by another Dennis (Dennis Lee) was revealed to be a sham. Mr. Lee admitted in 1996 the HHO gas did not weld.

At several of the sites I checked, there were several comments by chemical engineers or people with knowledge of the technology who viewed the process with a skewed eye. However, there was one site that was whose eloquence made my right-brained approach able to grasp some pretty complex theories. Many felt the concept ludricrous to begin with. For others as short on understanding thermodynamics as myself, a basic explanation is this: For energy to occur, when two materials combine to create energy, there is always a by-product. Anti-rant offered the simplest explanation of how burning gasoline creates energy in our cars with internal combustible engines:

“You start with gasoline, a long hydrocarbon, and end with H2O and CO2. [That assumes complete combustion]. Because you started with gasoline and ended with simpler molecules, you released energy that was stored in the hydrocarbon bonds of the gasoline. In that combustion reaction, the rapid expansion of gases in the combustion chamber push the piston and, thus, powers the engine.” In this case you do not start with gasoline, and end up with gasoline. The mere fact that in the Browns Gas process, water comes in and water comes out, is proof in and of itself nothing has transpired to create energy in any form.

As much as I wanted to believe in this affordable alternative high gas prices, I have to admit not all alternatives are equal, and just because a cure is offered does not make it legitimate — no matter how slick a website is. Until we have a legitimate, affordable alternative to the gas engine, we should consider changing our own habits of consumption and waste, and reconsider using the shoe-leather express or pedal to get us where we want to go. If that is not possible, car-pools, buses and light rail are some other options we can do now in order to save later.

A (very) Short History of US Opposition to G8 Global Warming Proposal

The BBC recently ran an article on US opposition to G8 climate proposals, which will be presented at a meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany. Key points of the proposal include:
* Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees (Centigrade).
* A cut in global emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
* A rise in energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.

While looking into this, I came across an interesting timeline at Equitywatch.org, which traces the foundation of today’s opposition, from the Carter Adminstration through the Vice President Cheney’s (secret) Energy Task Force.

Equity Watch is based in India and has an interesting perspective which I find very worthwhile. I recommend reading both, before thinking further about the G8 uphill battle ahead.