True False I don't know. You would think if it was true this guy would get offed......
http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promi...missions/17687/
http://www.gizmag.com/breakthrough-promi...missions/17687/
Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon
- Thread starter oilboy123
- Start date
- Status
The polystyrene waste product is a big stumbling block...
IMHO as investors I would carefully scrutinise what he has to offer before jumping to conclusions.
While I generally admire new technologies, there's far too many phoney deals out there these days with fake technologies or pie-in-da-sky deals for new ventures (pump and dump deal).
Let the knowledgables and the scientific boards to scrutiny him/his stuff before we go in.
Q.
While I generally admire new technologies, there's far too many phoney deals out there these days with fake technologies or pie-in-da-sky deals for new ventures (pump and dump deal).
Let the knowledgables and the scientific boards to scrutiny him/his stuff before we go in.
Q.
None of his claims are real or even close to being real. He is making this claim to get investors.
The company website describes the technology as "possible".
http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology
"There is also the possibility to make encapsulated hydrides that can be added to hydrocarbon fuels to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide CO2 . The encapsulation makes it possible to suspend the hydride in the fuel and stops it degrading or making the suspension dangerously pyrophoric."
Company overview from business week:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=20480762
Voller Energy Group Plc does not have significant operations. It seeks investment partners with a view to complete a reverse takeover. The company seeks offers for its intellectual property portfolio
He was on the Dragons Den UK attempting to get an investment for an electric car that did not exist.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/stephen-voller-pitches-on-dragons-den-11658784.aspx?sort=whole
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/stephenvoller.shtm
The company website describes the technology as "possible".
http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology
"There is also the possibility to make encapsulated hydrides that can be added to hydrocarbon fuels to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide CO2 . The encapsulation makes it possible to suspend the hydride in the fuel and stops it degrading or making the suspension dangerously pyrophoric."
Company overview from business week:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=20480762
Voller Energy Group Plc does not have significant operations. It seeks investment partners with a view to complete a reverse takeover. The company seeks offers for its intellectual property portfolio
He was on the Dragons Den UK attempting to get an investment for an electric car that did not exist.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/stephen-voller-pitches-on-dragons-den-11658784.aspx?sort=whole
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dragonsden/entrepreneurs/stephenvoller.shtm
Originally Posted By: Shannow
The hydrogen has to come from somewheere, and that's likely electricity.
True. Of course electrical energy from nuclear reactors is nearly free--barring politicization of the routine. John--Las Vegas.
The hydrogen has to come from somewheere, and that's likely electricity.
True. Of course electrical energy from nuclear reactors is nearly free--barring politicization of the routine. John--Las Vegas.
Kestas
Staff member
**yawn**... Let me know when it's available at the pumps.
Originally Posted By: Torino
True. Of course electrical energy from nuclear reactors is nearly free--barring politicization of the routine. John--Las Vegas.
Nuclear energy is great, but it's hardly free. With highly publicized accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there's a lot of negative will toward it, even if it's unfounded. The fact is, most of our electricity comes from sources that are neither cheap nor green.
True. Of course electrical energy from nuclear reactors is nearly free--barring politicization of the routine. John--Las Vegas.
Nuclear energy is great, but it's hardly free. With highly publicized accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there's a lot of negative will toward it, even if it's unfounded. The fact is, most of our electricity comes from sources that are neither cheap nor green.
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
Nuclear energy is great, but it's hardly free. With highly publicized accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there's a lot of negative will toward it, even if it's unfounded. The fact is, most of our electricity comes from sources that are neither cheap nor green.
From a bigger picture: electricity is never free to begin with: always come associated with infrastructure costs or maintenance and/or fuels to keep up.Just because we are the end user doesn't necessary means that we can ignore the associated "hidden" costs that came along the generation/distribution chain and such.
The only 3 other relatively low environmental impact form of electricity generation would be: wind, solar, tidal waves. infastructure cost and upkeep/maintenance costs have to be factored into them before we can say that it's cheep/green.
I like hydroelectricity generation but the associated environmental impact such as damage to rivers/waterways for salmon runs, etc. is still high.
Also last but not least: the current technical limitation RE: electricity generation and such is on storage technology, not the generating part. Example: excess electricity generated from electrical company cannot be stored for future use in an economical manner but to be diverted through interconnected power grids to another regional locations. There has been moments where this excess electricity cannot be consumed sensibly due to low demands and gets "wasted".
Remember: electricity costs money to generate and systems/network/infrastructure costs money to maintain. And then the associated environmental impact/costs that are typically "hidden" to general consumers eyes.
Nuclear energy is great, but it's hardly free. With highly publicized accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, there's a lot of negative will toward it, even if it's unfounded. The fact is, most of our electricity comes from sources that are neither cheap nor green.
From a bigger picture: electricity is never free to begin with: always come associated with infrastructure costs or maintenance and/or fuels to keep up.Just because we are the end user doesn't necessary means that we can ignore the associated "hidden" costs that came along the generation/distribution chain and such.
The only 3 other relatively low environmental impact form of electricity generation would be: wind, solar, tidal waves. infastructure cost and upkeep/maintenance costs have to be factored into them before we can say that it's cheep/green.
I like hydroelectricity generation but the associated environmental impact such as damage to rivers/waterways for salmon runs, etc. is still high.
Also last but not least: the current technical limitation RE: electricity generation and such is on storage technology, not the generating part. Example: excess electricity generated from electrical company cannot be stored for future use in an economical manner but to be diverted through interconnected power grids to another regional locations. There has been moments where this excess electricity cannot be consumed sensibly due to low demands and gets "wasted".
Remember: electricity costs money to generate and systems/network/infrastructure costs money to maintain. And then the associated environmental impact/costs that are typically "hidden" to general consumers eyes.
It's a foregone conclusion that we have only two options; develop alternatives, or do without. Fossil fuels are a finite supply and it is fact that supplies are depleting, and their price will likley do nothing except go up. We either develop alternatives to the point they're competitive pricewise with fossil fuels, or we keep paying ever increasing prices until our economy (and eventually everyone else's) goes broke. I'm betting sooner or later our wise leaders (saying that with sarcasm) will see the light and do away with all the regulations that prevent and/or makes the research and development of alternatives impossible to accomplish and/or prohibitively expensive. We need to be utilizing as much wind, solar, nuclear, etc, power as we possibly can to wean ourselves away from fossil fuels as much as possible.
Last edited:
well, with all these powerful lobbists on board, Gvt is pretty much doomed by those minority interest groups and steer govt policies at directions that favours them (financially/monetarily). Because of that: many gvts directions are controlled and even the president has clear conscious/morals to do what's right/best for the nation doesn't necessarily imply that he/she can do it all the way...in other words: the lobbists dictate the directions of the gvt policies...and not to citizen's favour.
You see gvt directions dragging their feet in terms of imposing/exploring greener energy policies and such mainly because powerful lobbyist groups don't want to change (they benefit by not changing, and just ride along the wave). Also: most citizens lost their sense of directions (lack of clear social conscious, etc.) in this case, and many short-sighted citizens tend to lay casual blame on the politicians/govt for selling them down the river.
Truth is: you vote for your politicians which is reflective to the govt. You have more power to defy lobbyists powerful grip on their control on politicians/govts and thus be able to drive/steer them (politicians) towards the directions you want, not the lobbyists or special interest groups.
Don't let those lobbyist groups/special interest groups steer your future. draw a clear direction and start driving for change.
(* I started doing so by taking small but significant steps in to change the world.Maybe you should too *)
Q.
You see gvt directions dragging their feet in terms of imposing/exploring greener energy policies and such mainly because powerful lobbyist groups don't want to change (they benefit by not changing, and just ride along the wave). Also: most citizens lost their sense of directions (lack of clear social conscious, etc.) in this case, and many short-sighted citizens tend to lay casual blame on the politicians/govt for selling them down the river.
Truth is: you vote for your politicians which is reflective to the govt. You have more power to defy lobbyists powerful grip on their control on politicians/govts and thus be able to drive/steer them (politicians) towards the directions you want, not the lobbyists or special interest groups.
Don't let those lobbyist groups/special interest groups steer your future. draw a clear direction and start driving for change.
(* I started doing so by taking small but significant steps in to change the world.Maybe you should too *)
Q.
Originally Posted By: Quest
well, with all these powerful lobbists on board, Gvt is pretty much doomed by those minority interest groups and steer govt policies at directions that favours them (financially/monetarily). Because of that: many gvts directions are controlled and even the president has clear conscious/morals to do what's right/best for the nation doesn't necessarily imply that he/she can do it all the way...in other words: the lobbists dictate the directions of the gvt policies...and not to citizen's favour.
You see gvt directions dragging their feet in terms of imposing/exploring greener energy policies and such mainly because powerful lobbyist groups don't want to change (they benefit by not changing, and just ride along the wave). Also: most citizens lost their sense of directions (lack of clear social conscious, etc.) in this case, and many short-sighted citizens tend to lay casual blame on the politicians/govt for selling them down the river.
Truth is: you vote for your politicians which is reflective to the govt. You have more power to defy lobbyists powerful grip on their control on politicians/govts and thus be able to drive/steer them (politicians) towards the directions you want, not the lobbyists or special interest groups.
Don't let those lobbyist groups/special interest groups steer your future. draw a clear direction and start driving for change.
(* I started doing so by taking small but significant steps in to change the world.Maybe you should too *)
Q.
I would gladly vote for the gvt represtatives who will not just follow suit with previous polititions. Problem is, I don't think there is anyone like that.
well, with all these powerful lobbists on board, Gvt is pretty much doomed by those minority interest groups and steer govt policies at directions that favours them (financially/monetarily). Because of that: many gvts directions are controlled and even the president has clear conscious/morals to do what's right/best for the nation doesn't necessarily imply that he/she can do it all the way...in other words: the lobbists dictate the directions of the gvt policies...and not to citizen's favour.
You see gvt directions dragging their feet in terms of imposing/exploring greener energy policies and such mainly because powerful lobbyist groups don't want to change (they benefit by not changing, and just ride along the wave). Also: most citizens lost their sense of directions (lack of clear social conscious, etc.) in this case, and many short-sighted citizens tend to lay casual blame on the politicians/govt for selling them down the river.
Truth is: you vote for your politicians which is reflective to the govt. You have more power to defy lobbyists powerful grip on their control on politicians/govts and thus be able to drive/steer them (politicians) towards the directions you want, not the lobbyists or special interest groups.
Don't let those lobbyist groups/special interest groups steer your future. draw a clear direction and start driving for change.
(* I started doing so by taking small but significant steps in to change the world.Maybe you should too *)
Q.
I would gladly vote for the gvt represtatives who will not just follow suit with previous polititions. Problem is, I don't think there is anyone like that.
For many years I have heard that the Nazis developed a process for making gasoline from coal, yet I never hear of any efforts to do it. Is it totally impractical?
Originally Posted By: Old Mustang Guy
For many years I have heard that the Nazis developed a process for making gasoline from coal, yet I never hear of any efforts to do it. Is it totally impractical?
I'm sure there are many alternatives the general public just doesn't know about and won't get mass produced because the powers that be (the big energy companies) don't want competition, so they buy up all the patents and can the stuff so it never gets produced...
For many years I have heard that the Nazis developed a process for making gasoline from coal, yet I never hear of any efforts to do it. Is it totally impractical?
I'm sure there are many alternatives the general public just doesn't know about and won't get mass produced because the powers that be (the big energy companies) don't want competition, so they buy up all the patents and can the stuff so it never gets produced...
AFAIK, the Germans were working with what they had regardless of cost, out of neccesity. It's likely that the energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel is greater than the energy you get out of the process, but the Germans had no choice at the time...luckily we still do.
Start building Nuclear plants NOW...No reason at all we cant derive 70-80% of our electrical needs from nuclear. The French have done it for years, where are the Chernobyl-3 mile stories out of France? Have they ever had a MAJOR accident?
Start building Nuclear plants NOW...No reason at all we cant derive 70-80% of our electrical needs from nuclear. The French have done it for years, where are the Chernobyl-3 mile stories out of France? Have they ever had a MAJOR accident?
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
AFAIK, the Germans were working with what they had regardless of cost, out of neccesity. It's likely that the energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel is greater than the energy you get out of the process, but the Germans had no choice at the time...luckily we still do.
Start building Nuclear plants NOW...No reason at all we cant derive 70-80% of our electrical needs from nuclear. The French have done it for years, where are the Chernobyl-3 mile stories out of France? Have they ever had a MAJOR accident?
Arguing against nuclear power plants because there might be a nuclear accident isn't even a viable argument anymore. The chances of such an accident actually occuring are so minute, it shouldn't even be a consideration...
AFAIK, the Germans were working with what they had regardless of cost, out of neccesity. It's likely that the energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel is greater than the energy you get out of the process, but the Germans had no choice at the time...luckily we still do.
Start building Nuclear plants NOW...No reason at all we cant derive 70-80% of our electrical needs from nuclear. The French have done it for years, where are the Chernobyl-3 mile stories out of France? Have they ever had a MAJOR accident?
Arguing against nuclear power plants because there might be a nuclear accident isn't even a viable argument anymore. The chances of such an accident actually occuring are so minute, it shouldn't even be a consideration...
- Status
Similar threads
