http://www.physorg.com/news93106592.html

Two statements above deserve emphasis.

"--Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without carbon dioxide capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without carbon dioxide capture today.

-- Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to carbon dioxide emission constraints. China and India are unlikely to adopt carbon constraints unless the United States does so and leads the way in the development of CCS technology. "

Also, worth considering that the most reliable way to sequester fossil carbon is to never dig it up in the first place. At a certain level of energy efficiency + pollution cost this becomes the "economically efficient option".

WHAT THE HECK!

WHY has the media INCLUDING ONLINE MEDIA not adopted the idea of fuel from water HONESTLY

I HAVE A SMALL ENGINE THAT RUNS 100% on Ortho-HYDROGEN extracted from water through the use of non-conventional electrolysis!

why is the MYTH that electrolysis doesn't work as a source of fuel being propagated and lumped into the same category as "perpetual motion devices" and other NON feasible sources of energy!! COME ON PEOPLE rally behind this one for once!

I can demonstrate to any scientist / engineer that non-conventional electrolysis
(the method for dis-associating hydrogen and oxogen molecular bonds) works! and not only that! it works with greater efficiency than every source of fuel on the planet TODAY!


Hydrogen has the highest storage content of any fuel, 52,000 British Thermal Units (Btu) per pound For comparison, fossil fuels average between 10,000 and 20,000 Btu per pound

The problem behind a hydrogen based energy economy is its un-feasibility to store the fuel in high density's. IF YOU DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT CAN EXTRACT IT FROM WATER " ON DEMAND " as I have you eliminate this problem entirely and every other problem associated with hydrogen as a fuel source that .. the media and politicians have always promoted as an logistical problem.

ALSO there is an economic problem .. what do you do when you have billions of people that have a fuel source that is 100% free? because it falls from the sky!


my solution
LET IT HAPPEN.. if the USA become the leader in a hydrogen economy then we will eliminate the difference in manufacturing costs without reducing the wages of our employees. This will give us a boost as the LEADER in the world economy and all the other nations will soon follow suit because otherwise it will be impossible for them to compete

the effect of this will then be neutralized once everyone in the world has adopted the technology we should expect a similar adoption rate that of cars or the telephone. and should take no more than 40 years to saturate the world economy.

WHY HAVE WE NOT STARTED THIS PROCESS?

BIG COMPANIES KNOW THAT THEY WILL LOOSE OUT IN THE LONG RUN WITH THEIR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE..

SUCH AS THE OIL INDUSTRY.

the car industry doesn't care what fuel is used but the oil industry does!
because the oil industry would rather see you pay at the pump than produce energy yourself for the installation cost of new brake pads! LESS THAN $400

for anyone who is interested in looking at my technology please contact me

drewdupont@gmail.com

drew@organicphoto.org

I would be happy to share it for free!

Coal is a good source for the short term if used properly. It should be oxidized in-situ, in the ground, and the carbon left for future mining. Hydrogen is a good source IF it is cost-effective AT THE POINT OF USE. Geothermal and Solar need development. We will likely exhaust each source in time. E.L.Earnhardt