oil price in free fall

I think we need more to organize cities for public transport and intercity trains. In general utilize energy better. Oil is too slippery and costly. I am not sure the long term trend that is needed has been set in motion in the US yet. There ar ehints that china, india and other big countries that were subsidising oil will decrease their subsidies. That would also help the long term trend. The US should go in more for alternatives and not least more nuclear.

That would be nice, but next to impossible in many countries.

For example the cities are often built up around (a) shipping of goods and (b) cheap available land.

For example, you'll have City X built next to a port or a river and then the spread in a general direction based on individual purchases of land for development. Since no government - except for the USSR - can really dictate where things need to be built, you won't get the efficiencies you need.

As for the USSR, we can see where that government is today.

You are right, but keep in mind the NIMBY factor. No one wants a nuclear reactor built nearby. Nevermind that they are the safest form of cheap energy we have that has the least environmental impact - no one wants to have Three Mile Island in their community. (Keep in mind that Three Mile Island actually wasn't a disaster - the structure did its job and kept the melting reactor from spewing all over the landscape.)

In any case, Ex-Governor bush is moving a bit towards resuming nuclear power and I have also written my congressman and senators on the subject.

All major cities were originally built around waterways. Then came airports and trainstops and crossings. Later the automobile would try to rearrange the options for a decade. In many places it has changed the way cities grew. There is no central decision but a lot of individual choices and it all depends on the options available. Governments and major players can assist in the making of infrastructure. It is not possible to stand against the tide and force people into something. If one transport option becomes too costly everyone will slowly adapt and change. The cars and trucks have utilized the fact that roads have been built and oil has been cheap. Now that oil is no longer cheap and probably never will be again then older forms of transport will be coming into favor again. This only happens very slowly. Governments can put on taxes to assist in making some options more favorable than others. It would be good if they have good visions.

USSR was famous for making silly decisions so now there is no USSR anymore.

There are other dictatorships around showing us how not to do things. There are also a heard of silly politicians making silly decisions. One of the most stupid people around is in Zimbabve but some others equally silly are closer to you wherever you are. It is only a question of not being able to have too much power in one pair of silly hands. Whatever happens I bet that next year will see positive changes.

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far- off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.

The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity -- whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source

-- runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.

The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said. 'Giant leap' for clean energy

Sunlight has the greatest potential of any power source to solve the world's energy problems, said Nocera. In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year.

James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem." 'Just the beginning'

Currently available electrolyzers, which split water with electricity and are often used industrially, are not suited for artificial photosynthesis because they are very expensive and require a highly basic (non-benign) environment that has little to do with the conditions under which photosynthesis operates.

More engineering work needs to be done to integrate the new scientific discovery into existing photovoltaic systems, but Nocera said he is confident that such systems will become a reality.

"This is just the beginning," said Nocera, principal investigator for the Solar Revolution Project funded by the Chesonis Family Foundation and co-Director of the Eni-MIT Solar Frontiers Center. "The scientific community is really going to run with this."

Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.

The project is part of the MIT Energy Initiative, a program designed to help transform the global energy system to meet the needs of the future and to help build a bridge to that future by improving today's energy systems. MITEI Director Ernest Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, noted that "this discovery in the Nocera lab demonstrates that moving up the transformation of our energy supply system to one based on renewables will depend heavily on frontier basic science."

The success of the Nocera lab shows the impact of a mixture of funding sources - governments, philanthropy, and industry. This project was funded by the National Science Foundation and by the Chesonis Family Foundation, which gave MIT $10 million this spring to launch the Solar Revolution Project, with a goal to make the large scale deployment of solar energy within 10 years.

I saw that on /. the other day.

I just read an interesting article in Diesel Power magazine (September 2008) that discussed biodiesel from algae. There have been talk about this for some time now, but no real action. Apparently the issue has been production.

Now, however, it has been shown

that the US would need 24%of arable land to produce biofuels from soybeans or other crops. Yet, thesame result could be achieved with algae using only 1%-3% of crops. In addition, there's a new process for converting the algae - the MCGYAN process uses common zironia as acatalyst. There's a new algae producing "refinerey" being workedon inIsanti, Minnesota. If all this works, one would just need to deal with the normal issues of free methanol, glycerine and triglycerides.

Add the ability for us to use more solar with the ability to produce biodiesel, and the Arabs will be quaking in their Burkas.

The problem with all fossil fuels is the CO2 production. The fuel cells and H production stops all that and it is a major revolution in power use

I can hear the environuts screaming about that there is a shortage of fresh water around the world as it is, if we started turning it into fuel the earth will it will cause millions of people to die

Me thinks you should have said serve for more of our OWN oil, which the Dims and the environuts are not want to do

If we reduce the amount of CO2, where will we get all that algae and saw grass? After it was the far greater CO2 level in the atmosphere

60,000,000 years ago that produced all the plant growth to sustain the dinasours for 160,000,000 years ;)

The problem with all fossil fuels is the CO2 production. The fuel cells and H production stops all that and it is a major revolution in power use

Um, the article relates to biodiesel. Bio diesel is carbon neutral (which is a good term for all you CO2 kooks in the worls).

Plant consumes sunlight and CO2 > plant grows > plant releases O2 >

hydrocarbons from plant are converted to diesel > diesel engine burns biodiesel and releases CO2.

Seems pretty stable to me.

Mike hunt paid his tax to Bill The Gates and top posted the following:

I doubt we could make a serious dent in plant growth either way.

Lots of algae species grow in seawater. Witness these:

are just a few of the over thousand hits looking at "Algaeblooms off coasts". I say, "Let's start to kill two birds with one stone and make a harvest out of algae blooms". Tidel ponds could be made to draw the stuff in, runoff to fertilize/feed the ponds, and the algae's killed when we harvest the oil and ferment the cellulose. When the pond is "spent", lower the gate and drain and refill during a tide cycle. Florida's hot and humid, it can grow algae all year round, with seawater. Most gulf states could make a current problem a natural resource.

If that is what you believe I suggest you do a search of the much higher CO2 and oxygen levels during the 160,000,000 years the dinosaurs roamed the earth to increase your knowledge on the subject of CO2 and the much greater plant growth and the resulting greater oxygen production. ;)

What make you believe the environuts would make that distinction? They will tell you loss of sea water will reduce the amount of fresh water. What makes you believe the environuts would ever let us build the facilities? In addition what makes you believe we could possibly produce enough bio-fuel to replace the amount of diesel fuel we consume or the 400,000,000 gallons of gasoline that are consumed in the US every day? ;)

These are just a few of the over thousand hits looking at "Algae> blooms off coasts".> I say, "Let's start to kill two birds with one stone and make a> harvest out of algae blooms". Tidel ponds could be made to draw the> stuff in, runoff to fertilize/feed the ponds, and the algae's killed> when we harvest the oil and ferment the cellulose. When the pond is> "spent", lower the gate and drain and refill during a tide cycle.> Florida's hot and humid, it can grow algae all year round, with> seawater. Most gulf states could make a current problem a natural> resource.