Slashdot Mirror

@AgentElrond: "This smells like a scam of some sort"

Here's more of the same, a device that generates 360 kWh from four gallons of water link.
--

Carl Sagan — 'You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe'

For more background on WITTS, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/D...

Or also an open source version of one of those idea by a different group: http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...

Just pointing out the info -- making no claims about the validity of any of it. In general, the peswiki is a big collection of similar claims. Of course, only one of them needs to be true to change the world significantly.

Here is something posted to the peswiki myself, previously sent to Rossi about why he should open source his eCat rather than try to make money off it (assuming it actually works as suggested):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioeconomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore."

For more background on WITTS, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/D...

Or also an open source version of one of those idea by a different group: http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...

Just pointing out the info -- making no claims about the validity of any of it. In general, the peswiki is a big collection of similar claims. Of course, only one of them needs to be true to change the world significantly.

Here is something posted to the peswiki myself, previously sent to Rossi about why he should open source his eCat rather than try to make money off it (assuming it actually works as suggested):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioeconomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore."

For more background on WITTS, see: http://peswiki.com/index.php/D...

Or also an open source version of one of those idea by a different group: http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...

Just pointing out the info -- making no claims about the validity of any of it. In general, the peswiki is a big collection of similar claims. Of course, only one of them needs to be true to change the world significantly.

Here is something posted to the peswiki myself, previously sent to Rossi about why he should open source his eCat rather than try to make money off it (assuming it actually works as suggested):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/O...
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioeconomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore."

Experimental results trump theory.

True. But rigged demos do NOT trump theory. Call me when Rossi allows third parties to completely fabricate the experimental apparatus rather than being forced to submit to using his black box.

Otherwise, Occam says this is probably just another Tilley Electric Vehicle. I predict "mechanical breakdowns" will occur any time the Rossi black boxes are forced to operate under controlled observation long enough for their concealed power supplies to become exhausted. Just like the Tilley vehicle did when it was demoed on the race track.

Beware any "inventor" who claims patent protection is insufficient and he must rely on secrets/black boxes instead.

What about Carbon nanotube Super Capacitors? MIT Nanotube Super Capacitor

I think this is the basis upon which Nikola Tesla based the engines for his never-completed flying machine:

“When I found that I had been anticipated as to the flying machine, by men working in a different field, I began to study the problem from other angles, to regard it as a mechanical rather than an electrical problem. I felt certain there must be some means of obtaining power that was better than any now in use. And by vigorous use of my gray matter for a number of years, I grasped the possibilities of the principle of the viscosity and adhesion of fluids and conceived the mechanism of my engine. Now that I have it, my next step will be the perfect flying machine."

"An aeroplane driven by your engine?" I asked.

"Not at all," said Dr. Tesla. "The aeroplane is fatally defective. It is merely a toy — a sporting play-thing. It can never become commercially practical. It has fatal defects. One is the fact that when it encounters a downward current of air it is helpless. The "hole in the air" of which aviators speak is simply a downward current, and unless the aeroplane is high enough above the earth to move laterally it can do nothing but fall."

"There is no way of detecting these downward currents, no way of avoiding them, and therefore the aeroplane must always be subject to chance and its operator to the risk of fatal accident. Sportsmen will always take these chances, but as a business proposition the risk is too great."

"The flying machine of the future—my flying machine—will be heavier than air, but it will not be an aeroplane. It will have no wings. It will be substantial, solid, stable. You cannot have a stable airplane. The gyroscope can never be successfully applied to the airplane, for it would give a stability that would result in the machine being torn to pieces by the wind, just as the unprotected aeroplane on the ground is torn to pieces by a high wind."

"My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety, higher speeds than have yet been reached, regardless of weather and oblivious of “holes in the air? or downward currents. It will ascend in such currents if desired. It can remain absolutely stationary in the air, even in a wind, for great length of time. Its lifting power will not depend upon any such delicate devices as the bird has to employ, but upon positive mechanical action."

“You will get stability through gyroscopes?" I asked.

“Through gyroscopic action of my engine, assisted by some devices I am not yet prepared to talk about," he replied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusion
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cavitation
http://www.articlesextra.com/cavitation-fusion-nuclear.htm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/brillouin-funded-for-2-million-and.html

"Cajun Hell described the world as it is currently functioning today,"

Only some parts of it. Are most parents paid? How much of our economy is based on volunteerism of some sort? What about slashdot itself -- do people have to be paid to write all this great content? Were you paid to write your post? Do you ever cook your own meals without being paid? Do you and friends ever talk together or contribute to some potluck party without billing each other? Alternatives are possible; see for example this book:
"The dictionary of alternatives: utopianism and organization"
http://books.google.com/books?id=IKZVKMPEQCEC

Maybe we can't yet torrent uranium (interesting metaphorical idea) outside of Minecraft worlds, but we can share ideas about how to create alternative energy, which might be even better:
"On the Hunt For The Catalyst: Open Catalyst Crowd Project Forms to Advance Cold Fusion"
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/12/on-the-hunt-for-the-catalyst-open-catalyst-crowd-project-forms-to-advance-cold-fusion/

On that general issue, see also an essay I sent Andrea Rossi (supposed inventor of a LENR device):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore."

In any case, by decades of dedicated work (most not well paid), we will soon have fairly cheap solar panels:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

What might we get soon with "Wikispeed" ideas applied to alternative energy?
http://www.wikispeed.com/the-process
"Team WIKISPEED uses methods developed by the fastest-moving software companies. In fact, in many ways we have more in common with Google or Twitter than with GM or Toyota. Manufacturing and old-thought software teams gather requirements, design the solution, build the solution, test the solution, then deliver the solution. In existing automotive companies, the design portion of that process alone takes three to twelve years, and then the vehicle design is built for five to fourteen years. This means it is possible to buy a brand new car from a dealer and that car represents the engineering team's understanding of what the customer might have wanted twenty-four years ago! Team WIKISPEED follows the model of Agile software teams, compressing the entire development cycle into one-week "sprints." We iterate the entire car every seven days, meaning that every seven days we reevaluate each part of the car and reinvent the highest-priority aspects, instead of waiting ten to twenty-four years to upgrade. This process enables a completely different pace of development."

Is NASA bullshitting too? In the last video on the post NASA said "It (LENR) has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste.". If it is demonstrated enough for NASA to post a video about it, calling it a game changer... I don't think it is bullshit. Why would a Chief NASA scientist come out and say this if it was a fraud?

Also in the Oct 6th E-cat test Rossi dismantled a E-Cat to prove there were not batteries in his device. http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Photos_of_the_October_6,_2011_E-Cat_Test --- And a summery of the test, http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E-Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/

And here are some more reasons I sent to Rossi: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
"The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore. ..."

Others calling to open source the eCat:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/11/open-source-the-e-cat/

By the way, the catalyst may be some variant on Potasium Carbonate:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

Mentioned here by "Sojourner Soo", with the abstract from 1994:
http://ecatnews.com/?p=1144
"Anomalous heat was measured from a reaction of atomic hydrogen in contact with potassium carbonate on a nickel surface. The nickel surface consisted of 500 feet of 0.0625 inch diameter tubing wrapped in a coil. The coil was inserted into a pressure vessel containing a light water solution of potassium carbonate. The tubing and solution were heated to a steady state temperature of 249 C using an FR heater. Hydrogen at 1100 psig was applied to the inside of the tubing. After the application of hydrogen, a 32 C increase in temperature of the cell was measured which corresponds to 25 watts of heat. Heat production under these conditions is predicted by the theory of Mills where a new species of hydrogen is produced that has a lower energy state then normal hydrogen."

In the 1950s (or maybe 1930s) a Princeton physicist was talking about some similar things (forget his name offhand).

Rossi could have ended almost all dispute by just running two eCats side-by-side, one with the catalyst and one without. Or even just one with the hydrogen and one without, where people picked the one getting the hydrogen. That would rule out many things. (Maybe not all, but a lot.) The fact that he has not done that, which would be relatively easy, makes me more suspicious that it really works (although people have invented explanations for why he has not done that).

What has been said by Steven Krivit is the suggestion that LENR (cold fusion) does work, but not as well as Rossi suggests it does (and he has been still trying to get it to work well).

Still, it is so hard to be an innovator in our society, that I could cut Rossi a lot of slack. Just maybe not a check yet. :-)

But sooner or later we will get cheap energy, one way or another, so many people are working towards it. Even just from solar:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Or thorium, or hot fusion, or geothermal, or whatever...

But the eCat would be a great mobile power device.

Of course, if it does work, it is only one more reason we need to rethink our outlook on nature, technology, society, and economics:
htt

https://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/93edc128d5cd0054

Essentially, whenever a system does not seem to obey the second law of thermodynamics, we just invent new science.

And here is another essay by me sent to Andrea Rossi on why cold fusion information be made freely available because of a paradigm shift in economics from scarcity towards abundance: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

well, I suppose than when fision was "discovered", you would have also told us that it violates the second law?

https://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/93edc128d5cd0054

Essentially, whenever a system does not seem to obey the second law of thermodynamics, we just invent new science.

And here is another essay by me sent to Andrea Rossi on why cold fusion information be made freely available because of a paradigm shift in economics from scarcity towards abundance: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

Great points and you might like this: http://ecatsite.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/dr-george-miley-replicates-patterson-names-rossi/
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/some-of-rossi%E2%80%99s-cold-fusion-results-reportedly-replicated

By me on why the results should be freely released, btw: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

The reactor (or con machine depending on what you think) looks to be inside a hangar, not a shipping container. See picture. Most of the stuff seems to metal.

There's no way to debunk this just by looking at the machine. Scientists and engineers have been doing just that for months. Looking. It's either a really good scam, a really expensive and foolish mistake, or an actual cold fusion machine.

If you believe that cold fusion is possible you should not dismiss this machine based just a picture.

As a layman I personally think that cold fusion can be explained by experiment error. I could very well be wrong. I will say this: I would not invested a penny in this venture I was offered to do so at this moment.

Have you seen this?

So much for non-ionizing radiation doesn't ionize.

Here's the latest update we posted at PESWiki

So far, it seems that the test of the E-Cat went well. Around thirty scientists and engineers from around the world showed up. Among these individuals were Christos Stremmenos, who is on the board of directors of Defkalion. In addition, professors Levi and Ferrari from the University of Bologna were present at the test. Dr. Focardi also attended the test. Media representatives from NyTecnic, Radio 24, and Focus.it documented the test. They took many photos and videos that will be posted in the coming days.

On the technical side of things, it seems the E-Cat performed well. We do not have final numbers for energy in and out, but we have been told the E-Cat self sustained for four hours with no input. We were told the E-Cat itself got incredibly hot (so hot those present could not touch it), the heat exchanger worked well, a steam temperature of 110 C was recorded inside of the E-Cat, and the energy output was so much larger than the input, that there was no need to extend the length test.

What is very important is that no one has indicated the test was a failure, the results were bad, or that there was a major technical problem. From all reports, this test was a success. Of course we will have to wait until tomorrow for all of the information to be posted online, before we form a final conclusion.

If this test was as successful as it seems, this could be the dawning of a new age. Perhaps in the next few days the results of this test will wake up the dumbstream media from their slumber, and force them to admit to the world that cold fusion is a reality.

Keep checking here over the next few days for the latest news and information about the test! There is a flood of information that should be arriving over the next few days, and you can get all of the updates on this page!

"If what he's selling is true (my money is on not for the record) he can get rich and change the world for the better. I can't hardly blame someone with a potentially world altering invention wanting to keep it under wraps for as long as possible. Yeah, it's against the open source ethos, but it's also how reality works for 99% of the people out there; you don't give your work away for free."

I wrote an essay on why that logic does not hold up and sent it to Rossi months ago, and then posted it here too:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

=== The text

This is taken from material written by Paul Fernhout and posted under a free license in a comment to Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, and is posted here by the author under the GFDL.

The key point here is that breakthrough clean energy technologies will change the very nature of our economic system. They will shift the balance between four different interwoven economies we have always had (subsistence, gift, planned, and exchange). Inventors who have struggled so hard in a system currently dominated by exchange may have to think about the socioecenomic implications of their invention in causing a permanent economic phase change. A clean energy breakthrough will probably create a different balance of those four economies like toward greater local subsistence and more gift giving (as James P. Hogan talks about in Voyage From Yesteryear). So, to focus on making money in the old socioeconomic paradigm (like by focusing on restrictive patents) may be very ironic, compared to freely sharing a great gift with the world that may change the overall dynamics of our economy to the point where money does not matter very much anymore.

There have always been four interwoven economies, and the balance of them is shaped by our society:

* A subsistence economy ("There's some lovely berries over here.");
* A gift economy ("The meat from this deer is going to spoil; let's share it with the tribe.");
* A planned economy ("Let's put the longhouse here."); and
* An exchange economy ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.");
[* Someone on Slashdot later pointed out there was essentially a fifth "theft economy" too; more on all that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY ]

Paid human labor has less and less value due to several causes including due to robotics, AI, and other automation, due to better design, due to the accumulation of physical infrastructure, due to cheaper energy (which can often substitute for human labor), and/or due to the emergence of voluntary social networks.

Mainstream economists try to get around this long term trend by assuming infinite demand, but that is just not in accord with human psychology or social dynamics. See Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, or an emerging "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" ethic, or see any of the world's major religions â" including humanism â" about moving beyond materialistic values.

So, we can expect the balance between those four economies to change as our technology and society changes, perhaps with:

A subsistence economy through 3D printing and local PV solar panels or other clean energy technologies (like cold fusion or something else);
A gift economy through the internet, like sharing digital files to use with our 3D printers;
A planned economy on a variety of scales, including through taxes, subsidies and regulation affecting market dynamics; and
An exchange economy marketplace softened by a basic income.

Andrea-

When Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made their original cold fusion announcement, I sent them a co

Efficient in what sense? Who cares if half the heat is lost? Car engines lose like 90% of the energy value of fuel and we still use them (although electric cars are better and we will be seeing them -- and electric car batteries could help level the grid load from renewables in various ways).

By the way, just to make gasoline from oil it may take more energy from electricity and natural gas than the gasoline holds:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm

Add on 90% conversion losses on top of that, and how is that for "inefficiency"? But look around you and there are probably gas powered cars everywhere (mostly for political reasons at this point):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

I'd generally agree with you that if you want heat energy, you are best off collecting solar as heat. However, you stated essentially there are no storage solutions, and I pointed out one that is obviously working and could be used further.

Also, solar electric can be a lot more convenient in a lot of places than solar thermal (like for air conditioning loads that peak with the sun, or charging electric cars during the day, or when you have limited space on your site, or when you want electricity, and so on), so efficiency is relative to what you want to optimize and other constraints.

Another storage medium is creating synthetic carbon-based fuels using solar power and some feedstock.

What does "efficiency" matter in that sense, if the alternative is more Fukushimas or Chernobyls or some Peak Oil Dark age? So, we produce twice as much solar panels to deal with 50% thermal losses. Big deal. PV Solar panels will be dirt cheap (or really, as cheap as leaves) in twenty years. Who cares about 50% efficiency loss in that sense? Even if more storage conversion efficiency would be nice, don't get me wrong, and I'm all for energy efficiency in use as well.

Yes, I know newer nuclear plants (Hyperion?) are supposed to be safer (although they may still have unsafe chokepoints with reprocessing plants), but the point is, there are lots of factors to consider. You said no storage solutions exist, but they do exist. That is a fact, like that solar thermal plant shows, and that has been knows for decades.

Which is more likely to be workable in the short term, using molten salt to store excess wind and PV energy (to smooth the grid) or inventing a whole new nuclear cycle (and even thorium reactors and the related bigger processing cycle are vulnerable to big risks).

Compressed air stored in salt caverns is another solution that has been in use for decades in one location.
http://web.ead.anl.gov/saltcaverns/uses/compair/index.htm

If we invested any significant amount of money in refining these ideas, on the order of the scale of the energy problem, so trillions of dollars of investment, we would have amazing solutions. That we have the solutions we do is a tribute to the human spirit of continued innovation despite most energy-related financial resources going to prop up the oil, gas, and mainstream nuclear industries as well as the wars and mining that support them -- either directly or by ignoring externalities like health issues from mercury pollution or defense taxes or nuclear meltdown risk assumed by the government and so on.

There has also been a lot of progress on both hot and cold fusion, even on relatively small budgets, so it may be a lot closer than you think, as may other innovations (many may be BS but it only takes on success -- Hydrogen doing something interesting in Nickel matrix looks interesting, for example):
http://newenergytimes.com/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

With that said, it is a shame that we did not develop thorium reactors in the 1940s. Peo

I found this company: White Whale Productions says they can replace the internal combustion engine and other power systems that require carbon based fuels and reduce the carbon footprint to zero with the "Thorium PowerPack" a leased device to power mobile transports (cars, and trucks, trains and boats). Eventually they believe their PowerPacks will be as common as the dry cell battery, replacing all of the existing batteries, and carbon-based fuel driven engines. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:White_Whale_Productions,_LLC:Thorium_Power_Pack

No, the problem is that Europositron is a fraud. They were being investigated because the inventor had no such product and was selling stock based on the scam.

And conveniently I just made a 12 minute YouTube video with some answers (or at least good questions) about that, talking about a balance between five interwoven economies that shifts with cultural change and technological change:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY

A PDF file of the presentation is here:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf

More related stuff:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
    http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
  http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

Still, in general, you raise good questions. Ones that are ultimately political, even as many mainstream economists might imply they are just technical issues...

Maybe someday more -- is the eCat a scam or is it real? We may know soon...
    http://pesn.com/2011/06/17/9501849_Defkalion_Announces_Energy_Catalyzer_Press_Conference/
"By now, most people following exotic energy breakthroughs have read about Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) cold fusion technology. It utilizes nickel powder, hydrogen gas, an undisclosed catalyst, heat, and pressure to produce large amounts of energy. The technology is capable of producing over 4 kilowatts of thermal power from a reactor vessel only fifty cubic centimeters in volume (about he size of your fist). Cold fusion research has been ongoing for two decades, and there have been thousands of successful experiments. However, Andrea Rossi's technology is the most promising cold fusion technology yet to emerge.
    Andrea Rossi's company Leonardo Corporation has licensed the technology to the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies Inc., with sole purpose to sell, license, and manufacture industrialized commercially applicable products using the Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer with global exclusivity rights; except the Americas. Defkalion has recently sent out invitations to certain individuals to attend a press conference about the technology on June 23, 2011. The invitation is self explanatory, and is posted below."

Too bad the economic development of this is so conventional; alternatives:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

* Subsistence ("There are some lovely berries here")
* Gift ("This deer is too big to eat before it spoils, so let's share it, and others will share next time")
* Exchange ("You give me some meat, and I will give you fruit").
* Planned ("You over there will hunt the meat and you over there will gather the fruit and we will divide it up")
* Theft ("Give me your fruit and meat because I'm stronger or cleverer than you")

The balance shifts with technological and cultural changes.

Theft is, sadly, a form of self-employment, or even subsistence in a sense, for desperate people, even if it is illegal (although privatizing profits and socializing costs by big companies often is not, as what is theft and what is legal is relative to cultural norms).

Other options would be improved subsistence through 3D printing and solar panels and local gardening, a bigger gift economy like more of Freecycle and food banks, a basic income to soften the exchange economy, or better planning like to have quality local free-to-the-user public housing and cafeterias and workshops. Each state chooses what balance it is going to have based on culture and ideology and existing power centers.

More on this here:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
(But the "theft" part was insightfully suggested to be added by someone else on slashdot after I wrote that.)

See also:
    "The Mythology of Wealth"
  http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

Very interesting summary of the ethics surrounding dealing with artificial scarcity. Thanks.

I have a related site: http://artificialscarcity.com/

Still, even with 3D printers some things may remain scarce on Earth, like land area for solar panels. Though it is not clear how scarce land will be or if it matters relative to people's needs and wants. But there is also space, where one can set up big mirrors to collect energy.

Another natural scarcity might be a nice housing location with good views which might be "scarce" depending on how we set up our landscapes and housing. Still, one can set up an equitable system with a basic income (perhaps also with employment income for takss no one wants to volunteer to do) to somehow ration those things which remain naturally scarce.

I agree with you that issues of transition might be rough. See James P. Hogan's writings like "Voyage from Yesteryear".

Ass I see it now, there have always been a mix of five types of economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft). The balance shifts with technological and social changes.
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA

Basically, you have outlined the plot of this short video.

It is a parable about robotics, abundance, technological change, unemployment, happiness, and a basic income.

See also:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
    http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

That parable and video was directly inspired by this:
"Structural Unemployment: The Economists Just Don't Get It"
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/structural-unemployment-the-economists-just-dont-get-it/#comment-254

"Yes, and that is a perfectly fine, perfectly legitimate interpretation of freedom -- the freedom to forfeit certain rights in exchange for software."

What is often unacknowledged is that the poster you are responding to only was forced to make that choice because our socioeconomic system is broken, and now is resting heavily on the idea of artificial scarcity...

Alternatives:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

"Yeah, go ahead and read Keynes. Then you too will know how to create a bubble economy and a currency that's worthless by design."

Other options than emphasizing artificial scarcity:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
    http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
"So, when you think about the financial aspects of your innovation, please consider that fundamental things may change with cheap energy. Please consider how the scarcity-based economic model we all grew up with still govern so much about how innovations such as cold fusion are created, discussed, and distributed. Please consider that a scarcity-based economic model, and all the thinking and fiat-dollar-based financial conflict that relates to it, may be made obsolete very quickly by the rapid spread of a cold fusion [or other] innovation. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/imf-bombshell-age-of-america-about-to-end-2011-04-25?pagenumber=2
    "Commentary: China's economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016 [based on PPP] ...
    This is the result of decades during which China has successfully pursued economic policies aimed at national expansion and power, while the U.S. has embraced either free trade or, for want of a better term, economic appeasement.
    "There are two systems in collision," said Ralph Gomory, research professor at NYU's Stern business school. "They have a state-guided form of capitalism, and we have a much freer former of capitalism." What we have seen, he said, is "a massive shift in capability from the U.S. to China. What we have done is traded jobs for profit. The jobs have moved to China. The capability erodes in the U.S. and grows in China. That's very destructive. That is a big reason why the U.S. is becoming more and more polarized between a small, very rich class and an eroding middle class. The people who get the profits are very different from the people who lost the wages."
    The next chapter of the story is just beginning. ..."

See also:
    http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

What tinkerers related to science and technology can do though?
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-power-wind.php
    http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/

There are people who share Tesla's dream of extracting energy from the aether. They don't grok physics like Tesla did, and there is active resistance from the devotees of materialist-based science, which is why progress has been so slow. The Pure Energy Systems wiki is the best place to go if you want to get a better idea of what innovations dreamers are thinking up. I saw my acquaintance's truck on the front page one day... :)

Here's an article that's on the PESwiki front page right now, about Tesla Coils unleashing the aether.

What's most interesting to me is how many people, who've been trained in the Heaviside/JP Morgan version of electromagnetism and science grounded in materialist philosophy, are allergic to the idea that thermodynamics is just a special case & that the universe also has organizing principles. Science was switched to assume that "matter is all there is" sometime in the early 19th century by 2 or 3 guys in their 20's (I'm sorta trying to figure out who these three men were, but I don't really care that much - maybe I'll write the speaker).

Hence the search for a "smallest" particle / building block of matter. The alternate view is that matter's fundamental nature is not something "hard", but simply interacting force fields. Conventional Science already knows that atoms and protons and neutrons are mostly "empty space", and E=mC^2, so the leap is very, very small at this point.

I don't grok aether physics but know at least two people who do, and two more who would be up for sainthood if they'd lived 600 years ago in Europe (after they'd been burned at the stake, of course).

All the evils of the switch to a materialist-based philosophy of science have been unleashed in the world today. The only thing left in Pandora's box is "hope". The heirs to JP Morgan won't allow the DOE to invest in fundamentally "game changing technology" that would make the hydrocarbon-based energy economy completely obsolete, but there is still hope that the forces of Tesla's vision of energy will be unleashed. As soon as I figure this all out I'm going to revise my domain, . :)

http://www.artificialscarcity.com/ more and more...
(my site. :-)

Alternatives:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/4f49f5fc25b8b3e9
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

We need to transition to a model where enterprise is more and more about dealing with real scarcities (either local or global).

http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/robots-jobs-and-our-assumptions/#comment-392
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
http://knol.google.com/k/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

Good questions. Keep exploring There are answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA
http://johncr8on.com/projects/21st-century-institutions/
http://idlenest.freehostia.com/mirror/www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

Go Michigan. This site http://peswiki.com/energy/News reported this story yesterday. It also reported a story from Michigan State University http://pesn.com/2011/04/14/9501810_Wave_Disk_Engine_Sips_Fuel/ about a new type of engine. So two big announcement about energy and they are both developed in Universities in the state of Michigan.

...as a business model: http://artificialscarcity.com/
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
(my writings)

Problems: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,347726,00.html
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/402

Solutions?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

So, let me see if I understand this. You say there are plenty of talented programmers you could hire, but you are not willing to pay what they want (50% or so more than what you are willing to pay)? So, you turn to H1-Bs to get qualified people at a lower rate? Then you say the H1-B program does not depress wage rates? And maybe you also wonder why more people aren't going into programming as a career move?

Well, thankfully that economic nonsense will mostly be over in a decade or two, anyway as our economy transitions to a material abundance model and a basic income, gift economy, etc.. :-)
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

Basically echoes your points:
    http://www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/themainmessage.htm
""If You Leave Home Without A Place To Go, You Are a Refugee". 'Bug Out Bags' and 'Heading For The Hills To Live Off The Land' are popular ideas that don't work... We have Many articles about Why it doesn't work, but forget "Hunting and trapping and 'living in Remote Areas'". There is no such thing as "Remote areas" in the Lower 48 states... Africa, Asia, the Steps of Russia, etc, are Truly remote areas, and they were Always hit by waves of smallpox and other plagues carried only by humans! Nothing in the Lower 48 is "really remote", it's a false sense of security if that's what you are depending on. "Living in the Country in a small self-sustaining community is better".. but it's not the "End all Answer". It's better than living in the city.. but it's not a protection by itself, it simply gives you an edge If You Prepare Further. Remember, when city people get scared, they blindly "Head for the country".. right to where You are living. Is the cost of living in the country worth the little added extra protection? Only you can decide that.. personally I simply prefer Not living in crowded places, but at the same time, I know my little country town may Fill Up with people fleeing the cities, and I have prepared for that. "

LIving in the Adirondacks, myself. :-) But that is mostly as land was cheap (no one likes biting blackfiles and lots of snow and ice) and my wife likes living around forest.

But what will where I live be like with a million people from NYC coming here as a horde and shooting each other? The deer will also probably last about a week, if that... Then what?

See also, to echo your point:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml

Better to work towards a world where our infrastructure is resilient and our security focus is on being intrinsic and mutual.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

Their balance depends on culture and technology:
* Subsistence
* Gift
* Planned
* Exchange
* Theft/Parasitism

So, as Moore's Law comes to an end, having moved up and S-curve, we could see a shift between these types of economies. The exact balance somewhere would depend on the culture.

See also Marshall Brain's on-line book "Manna" for some ideas of, say, a basic income might look like.

Related:
  http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
  http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

I think an even deeper issue is that not every problem can be solved with technical cleverness. At some point, poeple in a society need to say, here are the rules (and laws) that we are choosing to constrain how we use (or refine) our technology based on social values. For example, while I think copyrights are a problem, we could say, they should be at most three years. That is a social thing. With cell phones tracking, we could pass laws or promulgate social conventions about what could be done with them. Now, RMS is aware of all that, no doubt. but ultimately it takes a sort of social change that is more interwoven with technology than is about just technology. As I suggest here, the two go together:
    http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/a7abadb8867dae79

All that said, the GPL is an interesting thing when seem from the standpoint as a "constitution" for stigmergic collaboration more than a "license".

But in practice, LGPL with a linking exception is probably in practice more what people would have readily accepted as "free software" and seen wider adoption, because overall takes society (tens of thousands of people for a day each) a lot more time to learn how to use a library than to write one (one person for 100 days). So, when people can learn how to use free software libraries at work, that is a big win. I think that learning curve issue is perhaps an issue Richard Stallman has not focused on?

In general, our entire socio-economic paradigm needs to change as we embrace technological abundance, and that is a big missing part of the free software movement ideology to date, I feel. Related by me on the economics of abunance:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

"Luckily for Billy, foresight and technical expertise account for very little, while marketing and image mean everything, and THAT, at least, he is very good at."

Being born a multi-millionaire and dumpster diving for OS listings may have helped too...
    http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1316287&cid=28837221
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1316287&cid=28837517

That said, Bill Gates still has been something special beyond that. I don't think those were enough. I just hope someday Bill Gates takes some time off the time pressure of financially obesity and studies stuff like Howard Zinn's writings, John Taylor Gatto's, or John Holt's or thinks hard about the future implications of technological abunance on the economy and education.
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
    http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
    http://patapata.sourceforge.net/WhyEducationalTechnologyHasFailedSchools.html

IMHO it's too late for unions to recreate private niche welfare states within big companies or big government agencies moving to full automation and outsourcing/offshoring, even as unions could still make a global difference, as I discuss here:
http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/2009/11/16/can-unions-and-strikes-still-make-a-difference/

It's probably now or never for the unions to make on last big push before they are just washed away by all these changes related to AI, robotics, better design, voluntary social networks, the accumulation of infrastructure, and so on...

IMHO, as long as we have a highly capitalistic system, everyone should get social security of US $2K a month (plus health care) from birth as a basic income, which would take the GDP growth from the mid 1990s, and the rest of the GDP was enough to motivate some people to work for more back then.

But there are five interwoven economies and we need to shift the balance between them as to the subsistence economy, the gift economy, the planned economy, the exchange economy, and the theft/corruption economy.

See also:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

"The bureaucrat on the other hand is only interested in making it as expensive and labour-intensive as possible"

Until we transition our economy to some better balance between subsistence/gift/planned/exchange/theft more appropriate for a high-tech civilization.

See also my comments here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

Well said!

See also:

Plans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

Cars:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

Agriculture:
http://www.remineralize.org/
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/foodpyramid.aspx
http://drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx

But, with all that said, the same sorts of reasons solar energy is getting better (better materials, better designs, better discussions, better insights into physics) is the same reason small scale nuclear is getting better (even as I would agree solar is safer and more decentralized than conventional nuclear). And example of small nuclear:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Related case for nuclear power:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Let's say, in a moderate worse case in Japan that 100,000 people die from some nuclear radiation accident and the clean up cost a couple trillion dollars. Nuclear power still might have been cheaper in Japan, all things considered, than coal which causes a lot of pollution and related illness.

Would it have been cheaper in that sense than solar and wind? Probably not...

Still, given this is the worst quake to have hit Japan in a century, and the nuclear plants are not being talked about as having total meltdowns, this event itself might prove how safe they can be in some situations.

Of course, dealing with direct terrorism intended to cause them to malfunction may be a different issue, but many major industrial facilities, like at Bhopal, have that risk. And ideas like Hyperion help reduce that risk. Ultimately, if we try harder to make our global economy work for everyone, we might have less fears that people will commit terrorism because the hate us because we support their oppressors for various reasons...

On economic transformation, see:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

BTW, an example of perhaps cold fusion (still needs more confirmation):
http://pesn.com/2011/03/07/9501782_Cold_Fusion_Steams_Ahead_at_Worlds_Oldest_University/

Personally, I want to be able to print solar panels in a solar-powered 3D printer. :-)

"As a consequence these MPAA/RIAA lobbyists go to him claiming that they are loosing billions and millions of jobs in an industry that "can't" be off-shored--nothing like American movies and music."

My prediction/satire from 2002 sent to the US DOJ: :-)
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/microslaw.html
"My fellow Americans. There has been some recent talk of free law by the General Public Lawyers (the GPL) who we all know hold un-American views. I speak to you today from the Oval Office in the White House to assure you how much better off you are now that all law is proprietary. The value of proprietary law should be obvious. Software is essentially just a form of law governing how computers operate, and all software and media content has long been privatized to great economic success. Economic analysts have proven conclusively that if we hadn't passed laws banning all free software like GNU/Linux and OpenOffice after our economy began its current recession, which started, how many times must I remind everyone, only coincidentally with the shutdown of Napster, that we would be in far worse shape then we are today. RIAA has confidently assured me that if independent artists were allowed to release works without using their compensation system and royalty rates, music CD sales would be even lower than their recent inexplicably low levels. The MPAA has also detailed how historically the movie industry was nearly destroyed in the 1980s by the VCR until that too was banned and all so called fair use exemptions eliminated. So clearly, these successes with software, content, and hardware indicate the value of a similar approach to law. ..."

Better solutions:
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

How about a self-assessed buyout value taxed at 3% annually for copyrights, maybe less for shorter patents?

Some little progress documented on IP taxes is at: http://www.ip-tax.com/

Then (2003, by me):
http://p2pfoundation.net/Copyright_Tax
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000763.html

From one of those links: "Since it is difficult to value a copyright, one possibility to determine the value of a copyright is to let copyright holders assess themselves how much it is worth it to them to keep their work out of the public domain. Then the rights holder would pay annually a small percentage of this value (perhaps three to five percent). Each year, when the rights holder sent in their tax, the rights holder could change this self-assessed value to reflect their changing priorities and a changing market. If the rights holder did not pay the tax, then the work would move immediately into the public domain. If someone wanted that work in the public domain, they could pay the copyright holder the self-assessed amount and the work would then immediately be moved into the public domain. This public domain buyout possibility serves to limit the tendency of rights holders to produce low self-assessments to minimize their annual tax payments."

I got the idea from someone's slashdot sig back around; the sig asked something like, if it is intellectual property, why is it not taxed?

Ultimately we need to move beyond an economic system more-and-more built around "artificial scarcity". See also:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation
   

Seems like a more than fair deal. :-)

Or at least, that's what my wife and I like to tell ourselves about our GPL'd garden simulator (a six person-year labor of love around the same time period):
    http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/

There have always been four different economies throughout human history:
        * A subsistence economy ("There's some lovely berries over here.");
        * A gift economy ("The meat from this deer is going to spoil; let's share it with the tribe.");
        * A planned economy ("Let's put the longhouse here.");
        * An exchange economy ("You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.");

Their relative balance shifts with changes to culture, technology, and other circumstances.

See also the comment I made here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

So, we can expect the balance between those four economies to change as our technology and society changes, perhaps with:
        * A subsistence economy through 3D printing and local PV solar panels or other clean energy technologies (like cold fusion or something else);
        * A gift economy through the internet, like sharing digital files to use with our 3D printers;
        * A planned economy on a variety of scales, including through taxes, subsidies and regulation affecting market dynamics; and
        * An exchange economy marketplace softened by a basic income.

Do you REALLY want cheap electricity?

We have it already.

California has insane energy prices because they have a tiered system that penalizes usage over what they think people should use. That whole blackouts thing and their fascination with wind and solar don't help. Texas has surpassed California for the number 1 wind power generator. Green has always been more expensive because it's been less subsidized over the past 50-60 years. Two wars in the middle east and sharp rises in natural gas didn't help Texas's deregulation efforts as an attempt to help prices.

new nuclear reactors, as well as breeder reactors to reprocess the waste, which will take care of most of the long term storage problems. Tada! You ALL get cheap electricty

Nuclear isn't cheap at all. The price is simply offset to taxes. Coal still gets subsidies for the "clean" crap (100% in agreement with you there) but its plants are much less complex and we have about 500 years worth of fuel just waiting to be dug up and burned. Coal is the largest method of producing electricity in the world for a reason. It's cheap.

I live in north AR and thanks to AR Nuke 1&2 electricity is cheap enough around here many apts throw it in for free.

Nothing is free. It's paid for by someone. If there is a monthly cap and overuse fees listed on any of those leases, believe me, it's the renter paying for it. And they're likely over paying if they use considerably less than that cap.

We have plenty of uranium, nuke plants don't belch out carbon or other crap like the coal plants (which should be shut down BTW, clean coal my ass) and can crank out the juice for decades at VERY cheap prices per KWH.

Somewhere you've deluded yourself. Nuclear energy costs about 3x as much to produce as coal does. It's about equivalent to solar. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour Clearly a left-leaning site, so I suggest you double check with numbers from elsewhere.

just ask the people of California how deregulation is working out for 'em.

Natural and artificial shortages caused hell in California. Its growth was obviously too quick (or this reliable system the article refers to is a myth) to handle a bunch of corporate elites screwing over the people of the state by taking advantage of what? Regulations! California had rules that allowed selling power coming from another state at a higher price as if it were special to encourage the use of in state produced power. A bunch of pinheads did crazy shit on paper to make power look like it was coming from out of state when it wasn't and wholesale prices skyrocketed while regulation kept retail prices fixed. No business can survive with that model.

"The summary must be joking about the ocean gyres."

There are questions about the guy running this company, up here in Washington state.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_pasco_biomass.html

http://pesn.com/2009/08/07/9501560_CEO_appealing_GreenPowerInc_shut-down_order/

Some have voiced serious concerns that this is all snake-oil, primarily because the man hides behind "trade secrets" protection and doesn't really have to discuss how all this works(precisely the reason state regulators shut him down--they cannot really know if he is in compliance if they don't know what he is doing, and so far he hasn't told them). He has also failed to pay some of his employees yet claims he will be hiring up to 500 more employees even though the technical data suggests he only needs 5 people per shift, had the company's demonstration truck burn down, and according to the Seattle PI article, been evicted from his plant location.

The one curious thing is that the military tested his technology and actually published some hard numbers that to me seem rather impressive. Makes me wonder what sort of "garbage" went through his test plant.

  http://pesn.com/2010/02/19/959019_GPI_3rd-party_test_results_trash-to-fuel/

This is the best time-line I was able to find in regards to this company (not surprisingly, from the same website as the submitted article).

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Green_Power_Inc's_NanoDiesel:Catalytic_Pressureless_Depolymerization_(Oiling)

At least the writer of the submitted article is up front--"Note: I have a relationship with GPI, so this report is not truly independent." says the caption accompanying the photo in the article.

Can you say "media blitz"?

There are plenty of so-called businessmen out there with grandiose plans of converting biomass to energy without any pollution. Unfortunately, this sounds like one of them.

If you read the related links, you will see that GPI really can produce a quality product; according to this page you can take the output of their test plant and pour it into the tank of a diesel truck and it will just work. And if you read the claims, it seems it doesn't pollute the air while doing it (impurities from the input stream come out the far end as some sort of solid). Some combustible gas is produced as a by-product of the reaction (methane, I guess) and they plan to burn that to provide power to operate the plant, making it self-fueling. (The same thing is true of the Changing Worlds plant that converts turkey offal to oil.) In short, if these web pages are true, GPI is not making "grandiose claims" that aren't true.

Also, GPI seems to have some real problems paying bills on time. That has nothing to do with the technology. (And the Washington state DoE shutting them down didn't exactly help GPI to pay their bills on time.)

It seems the DoE shut them down because the DoE believes that GPI should have filed some paperwork related to burning trash. GPI went to the federal EPA and got a ruling that their process does not fall into the category of burning trash, and thus the DoE was wrong to require trash-burning paperwork.

I'm wondering if GPI could have avoided the problems by talking to the DoE more up front. One of the articles quoted a DoE representative as saying that the DoE had no idea what might come out of this plant, since nobody from GPI had filed any paperwork. But GPI filed paperwork with the EPA... are we to believe they withheld details of their process from the Washington state government but were willing to disclose the details to the EPA? If so, why?

I can't sleuth out the truth by reading all the newspaper articles on the web, so I don't know for sure what exactly is going on. I just hope that they get this thing going... efficiently turning waste into usable fuel is a win every way you look at it.

They claim they can produce diesel at a cost of less than $0.80 per gallon; at gas stations near me, diesel costs over four times that much, so they ought to be able to sell all the diesel they can make at a tidy profit. Then maybe they can pay back all the people to whom they owe money.

steveha