Hello all,

I wanted to take this opportunity to notify everyone in the group about an exciting new fuel additive that I discovered from a podcast by Sterling Allan.  DISCLAIMER, I am set up as a distributor for the product described, and may ultimately have a financial interest in it.  At this point, I have not personally tested the product in my car, although I intend to.  I am getting involved now because I believe it could be a great opportunity, and at this point, it’s free to get involved.

The product is supposed to save 10% or more on fuel mileage for about 60% of the people who use it.  Some few people get very little improvement and some get quite a bit.  The reason for the variance is that engines and cars vary widely, and driver habits vary widely.  I thought you might want to consider signing up for free as a distributor.  However, I think, after they have their grand opening around June 20, it may not be free any more.  I signed up just to make sure I didn’t miss it.  There is no obligation to participate and you don’t have to reveal any financial data at first.  They do ask for your SSN but you can sign up without it.  Just enter the data requested and indicated by the asterisks.  If you become active as a distributor, I’m sure more data would be required, since they have to be able to pay you, and they have to be able to report to the IRS.

In terms of the additive itself, it uses nanometer scale water droplets in an emulsion in the additive.  According to the audio I heard, the water droplets explode in the combustion chamber and enhance the combustion process.  There’s not so much as to reduce the flame.  Also, the hydrogen may disassociate from the oxygen and help the combustion.  They say it also reduces emissions.  They say they’ve been selling in other countries for many years, and have a billion miles of testing logged (for customers, etc.).  If you decide to sign up, please use the link below with my name in it:

http://www.fuellegacy.com/rfrazier

I don’t know yet how fully I’ll be participating in this.  However, I’ll almost certainly be using the product myself, after further confirmation of it’s validity.  I should be clear that I have only heard an audio program on the topic at this point.  The interview was conducted by someone I trust, and the interviewees from the company were impressive.  I’ve included some more links below, including the audio file.  However, again, if you sign up, please do so from the rfrazier link above.  Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Ron Frazier
Moderator - futureenergynow, futureenergyproducts

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:H2Oil%27s_Nanotech_Fuel_–_eeFuel_and_eeLube_%284ourfuture - Pure Energy Systems page about this product.
http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/recordings/2008/080602_RichardHicks_and_DanAtkinson_H2Oil_eeFuel.mp3 - Audio interview.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/futureenergynow/ — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/futureenergyproducts/

Well, I’ve been away from the blog for quite a while, and I appologize for that.  I’ve had about a million things keeping me busy.  And, I’ve also had some technical problems with the WordPress software.  I hope to be publishing more regularly.

I thought you might find this of interest. It comes from the US Govt
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Division.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11500

You can get their RSS news feed at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/rss/enn.xml

Here’s a 2002 article about lighting I found after a Google search:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf

Here’s a quote from the 1st article:

“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law on
December 19th, phases out the use of inefficient incandescent lights and
imposes improved energy efficiency standards on a wide variety of products.
According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),
the new standards for light bulbs require them to use about 20%-30% less
energy by 2014, while requiring DOE to set standards for light bulbs to cut
their energy use at least 35% by 2020. The ACEEE notes that the initial
targets could be met with compact fluorescent lamps and advanced
incandescent lamps that combine halogen capsules with infrared-reflective
coatings, while the 2020 standards will encourage the use of LEDs
(light-emitting diodes) and other advanced lighting technologies.”

Now, I don’t have a problem with this concept, I think it’s a great
idea. However, I do have a problem with the implications based on the
current state of technology. Based on the 2nd article I quoted above,
lighting accounts for about 8% of our total electricity usage. Now, my
house is a late 80’s vintage, inexpensive, all electric, and very
inefficient model. Now, that’s not the way I want it, but it’s what I’ve
got. I spend about $240 / month on electricity, which is $2880 / year. If
my lighting is 8% of that, then it costs me $230 / year to light the
home. Now, if I were to save 60% of that, I would save $138 / year.

So, let’s see if it’s worth it to do the retrofits. The most viable option
is compact fluorescent. Now, I’ll admit that I got all excited about 2
years ago about these things, and have even considered selling them. I’m
not so excited any more, for reasons I’ll discuss. They cost about $1.65 /
bulb (compared to Edison bulbs at $0.40 / bulb.) Now, the lighting report
says the average home has about 39 bulbs. I think mine has about 25
bulbs. I’ve already replaced some of my fixtures with circular fluorescent
ones. So, it will cost me about $44 (including tax) to replace all the
Edison bulbs which are left. This is much better than the $5-6 / bulb
these were only recently. So, from a simple economics point of view, I
could save about $94 / year by replacing the bulbs. That doesn’t get me
too excited, but it’s still a reasonable deal. Now, for the problems.

A) First, I simply don’t believe the lifetime claims they put on these
bulbs. They say 10 times a standard bulb. Based on my experience with a
number of these bulbs, I say rubbish. I figure they may last 2-3 times
what an incandescent bulb does (for 4 times the cost), but not 10
times. So, I would anticipate replacing these CFL’s every year. Not only
that, they may all start failing at once, requiring a lump sum investment.

B) They don’t like control circuits, like photocells and motion activated
fixtures. This type of use burns these bulbs out rapidly.

C) They don’t like dimmers. There have been some “dimmable” fluorescent
bulbs on the market. They were much more expensive and much less
reliable. Also, their dimming range usually cuts off at 20-30% of maximum
brightness. Most manufacturers are no longer making them due to
problems. So, in my living room, my dining room, and my bathroom, I cannot
use CFL’s or I have to give up the ability to dim the lights.

D) Finally, what may be the biggest problem of all. That is
disposal. CFL bulbs are a complex combination of plastic, glass, metals,
chemicals, and electronic components. None of these things are
biodegradable (neither are Edison bulbs), and some are hazardous. The most
problematic is mercury. As far as I know, all fluorescent bulbs have
mercury, and CFL’s are no exception. Did you know that there are about 14
steps to clean up the mess of a CFL if you break one? Do you know what the
steps are? Me neither. Not only that, if we have 100 million homes
replacing 30 light bulbs per year, then we’ll have 3 BILLION light bulbs,
containing mercury, going into the waste stream every year. Do you REALLY
think those are going to be recycled? I don’t think that converting the
country to CFL’s is a good idea.

There you have it. The lowdown on the not quite so attractive compact
fluorescent light bulb. Now, what about the other alternatives? Well,
there are enhanced halogen bulbs, which I haven’t studied to any great
degree. However, when was the last time you replaced the “bulb module” in
your car’s headlights? They usually run $10 - $20 / bulb. In most
applications I’ve dealt with, halogen bulbs seem to last for LESS time than
Edison bulbs. Doesn’t sound like a great alternative.

Finally, there are LED’s. These hold great promise, and I’m quite
fascinated by them. But, I’m not buying them just yet. I think CCrane
company sells a 60 W equivalent bulb for $100. Ouch! Of course, the
prices will come down.

For the moment, I may just continue buying Edison bulbs. Does anybody know
of a solution that actually works and is practical?

Sincerely,

Ron Frazier

The permalink for this article is: http://www.c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2008/05/01/say-good-bye-to-your-edison-incandescent-bulbs/

You can follow comments for this article with the RSS feed.

Sincerely,

Ron

The permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/22/im-still-here-getting-some-frustration-off-my-chest-linux/

You can follow comments to this article through the RSS feed.

Ron

Hello all.  I’ve been working to enhance the RSS Feeds of the blog.  I have now added a link to the end of each post that is accepting comments so you can follow comments to that post by RSS feed.  I plan to be doing this as a regular occurance.  If I forget, you can take the permalink for any article and add “feed/” to the end (without the quotes) and you can get the feed for comments for that article.  I’ve also added a feed icon on the left sidebar which will retrieve only items with the Podcast category marked.  Normally, this will only contain entries with an audio file attached.  I do have a couple of test entries without audio files.  I’m working on adding a page with RSS feeds for all categories.  I had to check every category for this post in order to force those to appear in the sidebar so I can get the permalinks for them.  I hope that doesn’t cause too much confusion.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/03/new-enhancements-to-the-blogs-rss-feeds/

Track comments for this article through the RSS Feed.

 (image credit)
(Biofuel)

 (image credit)
(Fossil Fuel)

Podcast Download: C3AEU001-2007-10-01.mp3

Hello all.  As the headline says, Podcast #1 is in the can (as they say)!  I have worked long and hard to get this, my first, podcast recorded, edited, encoded, published, and an RSS feed established.  It’s been quite an experience, and a good bit of work, but I’m proud of the final product.  Hopefully, the future ones will go smoother.  This is a short introductory episode which describes the purpose of the podcast and of C3 Energy.

I also tackle a real issue in this podcast.  I am in communication with an associate who has a factory that uses a huge amount of natural gas at an outrageous cost.  I am seeking your help and knowledge in finding a cheaper alternative fuel for him, if one exists.  The details are in the podcast.  Please let me know if you have any ideas as to how to solve this problem.

Here are the links discussed in the podcast:

• Biodiesel performance, costs, and use
  http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/index.html
• Floriculture Fact Sheet: Greenhouse … Alternate Heat Sources
  http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/jb_fuels.htm
• Natural Gas article in Wikipedia
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas

Although not specifically mentioned in the podcast, I also found these resources in my research:

•  Biodiesel - Is it worth considering?
  http://www.agmanager.info/agribus/energy/Risk%20&%20Profit%208-02.pdf
• Podcasting Underground Podcast - Excellent resources for creating podcasts
  http://www.podcastingunderground.com/
• The Levelator - Automatically sets volume levels in an audio file
  http://www.conversationsnetwork.org/levelator

I hope you enjoy the podcast and find the information interesting and helpful.  If you would like to comment or have any ideas for my associate, please leave a comment on my blog.

Sincerely,

Ron

If you wish to subscribe for free to the blog or podcast, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.  You may also register for free to leave comments.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/01/c3aeu001-2007-10-01-podcast-1-is-in-the-can-need-help-with-natural-gas-costs/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Hello all.  I have been working hard to get my first podcast done.  I’m looking for a server for it to live on now.  I’m not sure I want it on the web server in case of bandwidth issues as the podcast becomes more popular.  I expect to be releasing it shortly.  This is just a test entry so I can test the new podcast category and the news feed.  Real content coming soon.

By the way, my glasses are now fixed.  LensCrafters did it for free, which was nice.  I’ve had good experiences with them before.  For those of you who don’t wear glasses, you have no idea how disorienting it is to have one eye with clear vision and one with extremely fuzzy vision.  It’s essentially impossible to use the computer and very difficult to even walk without a patch on one eye.  I’m very thankful to have two functional eyes again!

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/10/01/i-can-see-podcast-episode-coming-shortly/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

I was going to write a blog post … BUT … then it happened.  I tried to clean some dust off my glasses as I have hundreds of times before.  Then, BOOM, one of the lenses popped out.  Now, looking at the computer screen with one clear eye is making me dizzy.  I’m not making this up.  I wish I were.  So, my writing will be on hold for a few days until I get this fixed.  I apologize, but that’s the way it is.  I hope to be back in action next week.  As far as the previous part of this week, I’ve just been really busy.  More later.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/28/i-was-going-to-write-a-blog-post-but/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Here is an item I got off the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.  I thought I’d pass it along.

September 19, 2007

Report Documents Massive Flaring of Natural Gas Worldwide
A quantity of natural gas greater than one-quarter of the natural gas consumed in the United States is being sent up in flames each year, according to a recent report. The World Bank announced in late August that it had commissioned the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to perform a global survey of natural gas flaring using satellite observations. The survey spanned a 12-year period, from 1995 through 2006, and found that natural gas flaring ranged from 150 to 170 billion cubic meters each year. In 2006, roughly 170 billion cubic meters, or nearly 5 trillion cubic feet, was flared, an amount equal to 5.5% of global production or 27% of the annual U.S. consumption of natural gas.

Natural gas is often released during oil production and processing, and it is flared to dispose of it. Oil producers flare the gas rather than sell it because of the lack of natural gas infrastructure or markets in the areas where oil is produced. The gas is flared for safety reasons, plus the greenhouse gas impact of the natural gas is lowered by burning it. The World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) partnership aims to encourage a reduction in flaring by means such as re-injecting the natural gas into the oil reservoir, using it onsite for power generation, piping it to nearby markets, or liquefying it for shipment to distant markets. According to the World Bank, the natural gas flared each year generates roughly 400 million tons of carbon dioxide and would be worth about $40 billion in the United States. See the World Bank press release, the GGFR Web page, and the full NOAA report (PDF 9 MB). Download Adobe Reader.

Sincerely,

Ron

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/24/wasted-5-trillion-cubic-feet-of-natural-gas-each-year/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.

Hello all.  Today, I want to share some information with you about Geothermal Energy.  This won’t be very long, because I’m still working on learning how to use the blog features, formatting, and studying how to control the layout for advertising, etc.  Those of you reading on RSS might want to visit me on the blog page to see what it looks like.  I’ve installed a new theme with a clean 3 column format.  I’m looking into allocating blocks of space for advertising and special offers.  Anyone familiar with Wordpress who knows how to do that, feel free to contact me at c3blogfeedback -AT- c3energy -DOT- com.

One place to get information about Alternate Energy topics is the U.S. Government EREN or Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office.  They have a page for Geothermal Energy.  This site has a large number of links to other pages and sites.  Here is some of the information from their Geothermal Basics page.  There is much more than this.  Geothermal energy refers to the heat energy inside of the Earth.  There are several ways we can tap this energy for our use.  The first is to use power plants to produce power from the heat.  The types of plants include: dry steam, flash steam, and binary-cycle.  The second common way to make use of geothermal resources is called direct use.  This simply means that the hot water from the Earth is piped directly into facilities to use for heating.  While the article doesn’t say this, I would think that the hot water might be usable for cooling, through absorption chillers, if the working temperatures are adequate.  The third main method of taking advantage of geothermal resources is the Geothermal Heat Pump, or GHP.  This takes advantage of the fact that the ground temperature in most places stays between 50 deg F and 60 deg F.  Bodies of water usually stay even cooler.  A GHP extracts heat from a building in the summer and sends it into the ground or into water rather than into the air.  In the winter, the process is reversed.  This creates efficiencies much greater than normal air source heat pumps.  Geothermal Energy represents a clean, reliable, renewable, and local resource in many parts of the U.S. and the world.

Obviously, this is just the briefest introduction to this topic.  Whole collections of books have been written on this topic.  Here are a few additional resources for further research:

• Google Search for “geothermal energy” - returns 1.3 million results
• Pure Energy Systems Geothermal Energy page
• PESWiki Geothermal page
• WikiPedia Geothermal page

I find the concept very interesting.  This is another example of how nature is just waiting to give us free or cheap energy.  We just have to take it.  For those who have an interest or knowledge of this topic, I encourage you to send me a comment via the blog site.

If you wish to subscribe to the blog, please see the RSS links at the bottom or the RSS widgets on the side of the blog page.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Ron Frazier

You may cite or quote me for non-commercial purposes as long you do not change the content and as long as you provide a link back to the source:  http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/ .

The Permalink for this article is:
http://c3energy.com/blog/wordpress/2007/09/19/the-heat-under-your-feet-geothermal-energy/

Track comments for this article through the RSS feed.