Dear Jim Flanigan:

You point out that the oil and auto industries -- with the help of Dr. Alan Lloyd, of the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") -- are going all-out in support of fuel cell vehicles ("FCV").

Their massive support of FCV, unlike the hatred and dislike they heaped on Battery powered EVs ("BEV"), includes the Bush administration, Gov. Davis, and hundreds of millions dumped on FCV by dozens of oil-related companies. You correctly point out that the oil companies are happy to do this because:

"Oil...seeing themselves as the providers of hydrogen fuel and operators of hydrogen service stations...".

Oil companies do not see fuel cells as a threat to their power, because they see themselves as continuing to dispense fuel to us dependent masses. BEV is a threat to big oil in a way that fuel cells is not: BEV use so little energy, and are so efficient, that individuals can generate enough energy to drive them 3000 miles per month just from rooftop solar power. I know, because I, and many others, do so.

Carmakers and oil companies think FCV are a good thing. If so, there must be a hidden reason, and you do allude to it. There are 2 kinds of problems: technological, and theoretical. We can solve tech problems (e.g., making hydrogen) but cannot change the laws of nature (e.g., hydrogen takes 3 to 4 times the energy to free it as it yields).

This is the hidden premise that renders FCV not the "holy grail", as the auto makers claim, but a "fools gold" of a clean air standard. To make enough Hydrogen to power existing cars would take at least three (3) times the energy used by those cars -- making it necessary to build thousands of new power plants, exacerbating our dependence on petroleum. That's right, moving to FCV requires massive amounts of new energy, validating the power of big oil.

From Bush's standpoint, FCV is a win-win, because if fuel cells fail, he can use the chimera -- the fools errand -- to kill renewable energy programs for the forseeable future (most if the $1.6b devoted to FCV research is actually re-directed from renewables research). If, on the other hand, against all common sense and the laws of thermodynamics, we implement costly and inefficient FCV, we could only get that much power by building massive numbers of new nuclear power plants. That's really
what Cheney is after, as he has repeatedly stated.

Conversely, from the world's standpoint, FCV is a lose-lose, because if the USA were to go to FCV, for example, our share of world energy consumption would go from the currently outrageous 25% to an even more outrageous 50%.

Meanwhile, well-meaning but bumbling souls like Dr. Alan Lloyd are sucked into the FCV craze with the massive public relations campaign put out by the Oilies. After all, what can anyone do against the massive power of big Oil?

The hidden cost of gasoline, according to the Center for Technology Assessment, is between $5 and $15 per gallon: http://www.icta.org/projects/trans/rlprexsm.htm
But perhaps the real danger of our "oil dependency anemia" is in the power of the Oil barons over US -- the massive concentrated wealth and power given over to companies like Chevron-Texaco and their minions (many in the Bush administration).

It's all right to note the deception that the oil companies are putting over on us -- but don't believe it yourself. At least realize that it's all a shuck. The laws of nature don't change, no matter how ingenious our science.

Doug Korthof
etc.

--------------------------------------------------------
2. FISH REPORT: GONE AND FORGOTTEN

Look at the fishing records kept by Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game. All the big fish seem to have been caught 20 or more years ago, despite the incredible advances in fish locator technology (which one avid fisher pointed out can "...see a minnow break from the pack at 4 miles away...". His point (arguing for Marine Protected Areas) was that the fish are super-visible (and vulnerable) to spotters. That claim is validated by the following:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993731
"Ocean's great fish all but gone 14 May 03
"...fisheries are in a far worse state than anyone thought. Great predatory fish such as shark, marlin, swordfish and tuna that once filled the seas are much scarcer than they once were...worse, stocks that appear to be flourishing may already have been stripped bare without anyone noticing.
"...a decade-long trawl through the archives by marine ecologists has revealed just how fast commercial fishing fleets clear the sea of large fish.
"Populations...plummet as soon as big fishing boats arrive...but eventually stabilise at around 10 per cent...
"...fish that remain are also smaller. Tuna average only half the weight they did two decades ago, for example, and marlin only a quarter. He likens the loss to denuding a game reserve of its wildlife..."

Back to T.O.C. 3