« Energy facts | Main | New hydrogen powered motorcycle »

June 19, 2005





Dear Sir, I am greatly intersted in knowing about the biogas train which set running on the rails in sweden. please tell me about the electrical and mechanical working of this train.


This is very interesting.
I hope we will hear these news more often!

kristina marie smith

please keep up the good work.
I think it is a good thing, and would like to be one of the many many people that are supporting this.


The only thing that can save us now is efficiency and nanotechnology (which would make things more efficient cheaply), and lowering the population (I applaud China for it's policy---if you have an extra child, fine, but you have to pay for education and all the other crap--which is economically impossible for average chinese--people obviously choose to have one child). I give it a range of 30 years that something "resource related" comes to surface as bad.


the one child policy everywhere would work well---standard of living would go up if everyone in the US had only one child for one generation--that means that 150 million people would have the resources of 300 million--that would give us time to us the resources and expand before we reach 300 million again in another generation.


if you plotted a population vs resource graph over time--you would notice that population number always is greater than the amount resources needed to support that population..

In nature (animals), this forces some to die (the less efficient)--the more efficent survive and become more efficient at extracting these resources over every successive generation---this resource barrier keeps the population at a limit (it levels off)---if we were to enforce (capitalist policy) the one child policy--we would avoid this painful process of "enriched efficiency" of reducing the population through stabalized anarchy (meaning--poor people cannot survive because there is no cheap oil or whatever--so they get angry ---but we surpress them--and so they silently die)---and middle class become poor/middle class--turning more people to wellfare, which in turn, turns things communistic, which turns more goverment control, bla bla bla. So, maybe if we lowered the population now, while there is still time, we would not be so pained later on--this would also reduce demand for energy, which would bring the cost down.

just think about it this way--if 295 millions people died in the US, except for 5 million--that 5 million could have all the resources they wanted in New York City---they could basically live like kings of the Earths all over America. All of America would become their playground--they could stop by any mansion uninhabitated in live there for a couple years.c my point?

yea, so it's better if we reduce the population by enforcing a one child policy---what is the alternative?

we all are enclosed in a room with not enough to eat lost in a snowy mountain and cannot go outside---yea, you don't want this to happen.


the 20th century is just a population vs resource graph over time. Right now, we are not at our peak, therefore, just as animals, we continue to have orgasmic sex. Our population is stil growing ( we are having a lot of sex) because our resources can still support such growth---we have not reached our "leveling off" --but in a couple years our pop will reach 10 billion (3+ billion to our 7 billion)---

currently--the world is supporting some 4 billion needy people that are requiring energy (oil or some derivative)---the other 3 billion are simply living off the derivatives (aurora) and production that the other 4 billion use in oil (they get products that help them survive that required oil to produce them)---but are not using it directly...however, as more people industrialize (such as China and India)--people will demand MORE. And so they will want MORE oil and derivatives..which will put MORE strain on our resource base---
this will eventually level off our economic growth--to a virtual small percentage (zero) of what it is now. Even if we were to implement the one child policy all over Earth, this "industrialization" would make the 4 billion that use oil directly, to 5, and then 6, and then 7 until it reached the amount of pop of demand. Therefore, this oil demand is increasing AND our POPULATION is increasing at the SAME time.

This is not good. Not very good at all. In fact, it is quite bad. What is the solution? implement the one child policy (here in the US, so that we do not experience SO MUCH PAIN, but instead, only a little bit)

what is the grander solution?

we become more efficient, therefore expanding the amount of people that can demand oil (4 billion currently -actually a little bit lower)--and lower the pop to 6 billion through policies

1. Becoming more efficient
2. Lowering the population

How do we go about doing number 1?

-place a tax on all car owners that have a fuel efficiency below 75 mpg (this is only for starters)--in other words, you have to pay taxes on these cars...very high ones. Get this tax money, and then give subsidies to companies to make cars with higher fuel efficiencies FASTER. This will force car companies to put out more efficent cars, and owners to buy more efficient cars.

-Ban hummers, ridicoulously big obnoxious cars and ass clowns off the freeway.

- put tariffs on cars that go certain distances (like if a person can go from their house to work--they get a tax if they use their car instead of the bus or bike). How to implement it? you put a chip in every car and monitor it through satelite--a computer automatically registers which codes are traveling "unacceptable distances" --informs police officers in area-- Or if canot be enforced in an area--if not able to be enforced (because reports of people getting around it or area too poor--or I don't know), just put taxes on random cars on the freeway in the area to reduce amount of cars---use these taxes and implement a massive bus network that runs on natural gas (more efficent--more people get transported for less oil).

-fix a minimum cost airlines can ask (competition has spurred ridiculously low prices, but in turn, all airlines are going to go broke)---goverment enforces a policy that keeps "airplanes" in the "air"..before they all go broke because of energy costs.

How do deal with 2

implement a 2 child policy. If people want 3, they have to pay an obnoxiously high tax.

So that is the way to go, and how to do it, I think everyone knows HOW, whether we will ever get around to do it is up for grabs,

but people tend to react only when they get knocked over the head with a sledgehammer, so I suspect these policies to take place in like a decade or 15 years.


I am very ashamed to see that there is people applauding the 1 child policy when one knows what is the reality underlying the 1 child policy in china... Moreover slowing down the population growth is not at all a solution. It is totally unsustainable and reduces the liberties of each of us.


Now that doesn't mean I despise democrats--democrats and republicans are the same person to me---but---some democrats get too easily swayed---and this type of mentality---of utopia--and we can treat everybody with civil liberties---is not very successful because it fails to account for the basic fact that there are a limited amount of resources--

take capital punishment for example---I am a democrat at heart by saying that capital punishment should be IDEOLOGICALLY abandoned--because it does not make it right to kill someone because he/she killed someone---as a PUNISHMNET

however, concidering that there are not enough RESOURCES in jails and psychiatric wards to treat them and have all the necessary measures to keep them from killin again.

It is necessary to extrerminate them to prevent them to doing further harm to society (say, they are released and kill again)---and because there are not enough jail resources---

in a hypothetical ideological world, such individuals would have extensive psychological and psychiatric help, and have restrains in order for them not to kill---through extensive conditioning, they could eventually learn (I presume) to go back into society---and if not, they would live in a psychiatric ward or in a jail for the rest of their life---

but this is impossible---because it would take too much money---TOO MUCH RESOURCES.

so it comes down to the fact, that we don't have enough resources---

but I don't support either mental ideology---I simply fed democrats into my statement in the previous article to make a point---that a swayward, ideological mentality does not work in the reality of the planet earth when put to practice---ends simply don't meet.

motorcycle oil

A few years ago, it was difficult to find synthetic motor oils, and equally difficult to find someone who admitted

to using them. Nowadays, however, you can find synthetic motor oils on the shelves of Wal-Mart, and other retailers,

and the number of people turning to synthetic motor oils, particularly in light of the recent events affecting fuel

prices, has risen greatly.

So why do people use synthetic motor oils rather than sticking with the old petroleum based stand-bys which are

admittedly cheaper?

1. Let's start with the cost per quart issue. Synthetic motor oils ARE more expensive at purchase. However, these

oils last longer, requiring fewer oil changes. As a synthetic motor oil outlasts several changes of petroleum based

lubricants, the ultimate out-of-pocket cost of the lubricant is less. This cost savings becomes even greater if you

have someone else change your oil for you rather than doing it yourself!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Passion Catalyst Home

  • It's time for a career that energizes and inspires you!

Why this blog?

March 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad