{youtube}RqLpqR0SPnQ{/youtube}

Electric Car Powered by Salt Water: 920 hp, 373 Miles/Tank

It’s finally here folks and it is LEGIT.

Tesla eat your heart out, the Germans have created an electrical car powered by salt water. It has four electric engines and is FAST with some pretty sweet fuel economy for a sports car. Leave the Bugatti at home and stop by the beach to refuel.

The recent announcement that the Quant e-Sportlimousine, which is a salt water powered car, has been certified for use on European roads is a big sign that the Oil Cartels are losing the energy war.

Since the early 1900s, the Oil Cartels, which are controlled by the Controllers, have been harassing and silencing alternative energy inventors who pose a threat to the Oil Cartels. One of the greatest alternative energy inventors that they silenced was Nikola Tesla.

Unlike traditional cars that run on gasoline, the Quant e-Sportlimousine runs on an electrolyte flow cell power system made by NanoFlowcell that has the ability to generate an astonishing 920 horsepower (680 kW).

This salt water powered car can go from 0-62 mph (100 km/h) in 2.8 seconds and has a top speed of 217.5 mph (350 km/h). The Quant e-Sportlimousine is built by the German company Quant.

Electrolyte flow cell technology has been around for decades, but it wasn’t until recently that certain car manufacturers were given the permission to start building cars that run on electrolyte flow cell technology.

This type of alternative energy technology will eventually make gasoline powered cars obsolete, because using electrolyte flow cell technology to power cars is a lot more efficient and much cleaner than using gasoline.

As described by The Mind Unleashed:

    “The car is powered by the electrolyte flow cell power system, which is a part of the NanoFlowcell technology. The system works in a similar way to a hydrogen fuel cell, except for the fact that salt water is used for storing power.

    “In particular, two liquids with metallic salts, which act as the electrolyte, are combined in such a way that the electrochemical reaction takes place. After that, electric motors use this reaction to generate electricity, which is then stored and distributed by super capacitors.

    “The efficiency of this system reaches 80%, since the car has almost no moving parts in it, and the produced waste heat is insignificant in comparison with cars powered by lithium-ion batteries.”

nanoFLOWCELL AG developed the QUANT e-Sportlimousine -- the first car equipped with nanoFLOWCELL® drive. The prototype is set to generate new impulses for research into battery development and flow-cell technology.

http://www.nanoflowcell.com/

 

 

A company bidding to undertake 'underground coal gasification (UGC) - a notoriously hazardous and polluting process - in the UK has threatened a Scottish clean energy campaigner: shut up or get sued. Paul Mobbs reports ...

It's a dangerous process, with no safe record of operation on even a commercial scale ... quite simply, if you think fracking is bad, UCG is worse!

Lawyers for Five Quarter Energy Holdings have sent a 'cease and desist' notice to Scottish campaigner Mel Kelly.

The notice threatens her with legal action if she does not immediately stop drawing attention to the dangers of Underground coal gasification (UGC) - a technology so polluting that it makes 'fracking' look reasonable.

What unsettlingly fiendish action had she done in order to receive such threats? She wrote a short but highly critical report about the politically-backed project for UCG and sent it to politicians in Scotland.

A SLAPP in the face

Threats of this kind have a name - SLAPPs. That is, 'strategic lawsuits against public participation'. SLAPPing is a tactic often used in the USA, where companies intent on environmental destruction pre-emptively sue leading local campaigners in order to quash the local opposition.

The SLAPP lawsuits often have little or no legal merit. But that's not the point. Their purpose is usually to threaten ordinary citizens with lawsuits that they do not have the resources to fight.

The lawsuits often take over defendants' lives, and consume all their financial resources. And if by some chance they lose in Court, the judge can order them to pay the company's legal costs, leaving them homeless, bankrupt and destitute.

Wilfully misleading

The 'cease and desist' letter sent to Mel Kelly was fairly silly, but the part that made me laugh out loud was the following paragraph -

"Five-Quarter denies that UCG activities are as dangerous as you imply. The UCG industry, like all natural resource related industries, faces risks and challenges. There have been hundreds of trials of UCG worldwide which have been completed successfully, without any safety concerns."

As far as I'm concerned that statement is either willingly misleading, or by their ignorance of the facts they have demonstrated that they are not 'fit and proper persons' to operate such a site. We only have to look at the long, polluted history of this process to see why.

How does UGC work?

Underground coal gasification - or "setting fire to coal seams underground" (as my son, with a giggle, calls it) - involves drilling two holes into a coal seam.

Oxygen-enriched air is pumped down one of the holes. The coal burns and when it gets hot enough, starved of sufficient oxygen for complete oxidation, produces a stream of flammable gases called 'syngas' - mainly a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and some methane and volatile organic compounds.

Unfortunately, just like old town gas works, it also creates lots of noxious pollutants too, including carcinogens like benzene and toluene.

The idea is well over a hundred years old but, contrary to the lawyers letter, there have not been "hundreds" of trials worldwide. There have been a few, and they've mostly gone wrong.

Strong support from the UK Government

For a while UCG has seemed a bit of a joke - so extreme in fact, that it makes fracking look environmentally benign in comparison. So who on Earth would want do it in Britain?

Answer: the Government. With strong but quiet official support, UCG has been on the agenda for a while. Twenty-odd licences have been issued around the coast of Britain, and there's an application for asite in Warwickshire.

Cluff Natural Resources, another company in the UGC game, will be having their shareholder meeting in London tomorrow [Wednesday 21st May] - with protesters in attendance. They will undoubtedly try and 'accentuate the positive' about the concept in order to make investors part with their cash.

A long and dirty history

The idea first took off in Soviet Russia in the 1930s. In Britain trails took place at two sites in the 1950s, but were closed after a Parliamentary debate in 1955 when a local MP asked,

"is my honourable Friend aware that these underground gasification experiments are causing a very nasty smell round Kidderminster?"

Then the idea resurfaced in the USA after the 1970s oil crisis. Trials took place at Hoe Creek, Hanna and Rawlins in Wyoming. At Hoe Creek, which was quite shallow, the ground caved in and smoke poured out.

At Hanna they carried on gasification trials for a number of years - before declaring it a 'superfund site' in order that the Federal Government could provide the money to pay for the decontamination of the groundwater in the area. Rawlins never really got going.

One explosion, widespread pollution

Next the idea jumped across to Europe, where European Commission-funded trials tool place. During the 1980s the project at Thulin, in Belgium, didn't really take off. In 1997 the project at El Tremedal in Spain did take of - certainly after an underground explosion shot a geyser of coal tar up the production pipe and over the site.

UCG seemed dead, but like a bad penny it next turned up in Queensland, Australia. In the early 2000s three companies - Cougar Energy at Kingaroy, Linc Energy at Chincilla and Carbon Energy at Blackwood Creek - set up a joint venture with the state government to carry out further trails.

Better still, for the public at least, the Queensland Government established a scientific committee to monitor the sites.

The scientific committee's report in 2011 presented a catalogue of errors: insufficient baseline studies, poor monitoring, pollution of the soil surrounding one of the sites, and one site had carcinogenic solvents in the local groundwater. Certainly enough to warrant closer attention by regulators.

It gets worse

The committee's 2013 report was worse. Quite apart from continuing pollution issues, they were concerned that the operators did not have the capability to safely decommission the sites, and recommended that this be done before the trials proceeded further.

Then in 2013 Cougar Energy was prosecuted and fined A$75,000 for polluting the local groundwater with benzene and toluene. A few weeks ago Linc Energy had charges brought against them for polluting the groundwater in a similar manner - which they are currently contesting.

In the meantime the locals are concerned because information isn't being put into the public domain about what really happened at the sites. Both Cougar and Linc and Carbon Energy have now shut down their operations. But they're not finished yet!

Going global

Cougar is trawling their services around Asia, while Linc has tried its hand in southern Africa, and once again has proposed trials back in Wyoming - against the wishes of local campaign groups there.

But in Wyoming, Linc have come up with a revolutionary way to prevent pollution. They've asked the local regulator to reclassify the groundwater around the site so that if they have leaks, it won't necessarily be considered 'pollution'.

In the mean time Linc has licensed its technology to another pilot plant, at Majuba in South Africa. That started work in 2007, and they're pumping groundwater from around the test site to stop it being polluted.

However, there appears to be no monitoring information, and there have been complaints that Linc are using intellectual property rights to prevent the disclosure of information about operations on the site.

Linc also have interests at the world's longest running site at Angren in Uzbekistan. That's been operational since 1961, but again, no monitoring of the emissions or groundwater appears to exist.

And on to Scotland

Currently Cluff Natural Resources are trying to peddle their wares to Fife Council - where they have two licences underneath the Firth of Forth.

Cluff also own licences off the Wirral, where they are making noises; and perhaps worst of all, under one of Wales' most valuable wildlife sites - the Loughor Estuary, near Swansea. They're even making noises up the coast from Sellafield!

The big issue here is that all these 'trials' involve gasifying a few hundred tonnes to a few thousand of coal here and there each year. To be a commercially viable technology in an energy-hungry country like Britain, they would have to gasify a few thousand tonnes of coal every day.

If these small trials cause pollution, what happens when they scale that up by a factor of 300-500 in order to become commercially viable? But, with our fracking-mad Government, it's only a short step to UCG 'carbon-geddon'.

Kelly: spreading 'untrue and erroneous information'

Five Quarter says that Mel Kelly's report is spreading untrue and erroneous information which damages their business. Arguably she doesn't need to do that - the historic reputation of UCG process speaks for itself!

And sending threatening letters to local campaigners, making malicious claims which are demonstrably false, doesn't wash that record clean. It's a dangerous process, with no safe record of operation on even a commercial scale ... quite simply, if you think fracking is bad, UCG is worse!

The problem is that, as with fracking, the issue here isn't environmental safety, or energy production. It's about companies extracting cash from gullible governments and ignorant investors in order to carry on their outrageous pipe dreams.

And when it all goes wrong, all those involved in the project get paid - it's the local environment, and the people, who ultimately pay the price for their acquisitiveness.


Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer. He runs the Free Range Activism website.

See a fully referenced version of this article.

As hydraulic fracturing ramps up around the country, so do concerns about its health impacts. These concerns have led 20 states to require the disclosure of industrial chemicals used in the fracking process.

North Carolina isn't on that list of states yet—and it may be hurtling in the opposite direction.

On Thursday, three Republican state senators introduced a bill that would slap a felony charge on individuals who disclosed confidential information about fracking chemicals. The bill, whose sponsors include a member of Republican party leadership, establishes procedures for fire chiefs and health care providers to obtain chemical information during emergencies. But as the trade publication Energywire noted Friday, individuals who leak information outside of emergency settings could be penalized with fines and several months in prison.

"The felony provision is far stricter than most states' provisions in terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets," says Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University assistant law professor who studies fracking regulations.

The bill also allows companies that own the chemical information to require emergency responders to sign a confidentiality agreement. And it's not clear what the penalty would be for a health care worker or fire chief who spoke about their experiences with chemical accidents to colleagues.

"I think the only penalties to fire chiefs and doctors, if they talked about it at their annual conference, would be the penalties contained in the confidentiality agreement," says Wiseman. "But [the bill] is so poorly worded, I cannot confirm that if an emergency responder or fire chief discloses that confidential information, they too would not be subject to a felony." In some sections, she says, "That appears to be the case."

The disclosure of the chemicals used to break up shale formations and release natural gas is one of the most heated issues surrounding fracking. Many energy companies argue that the information should be proprietary, while public health advocates counter that they can't monitor for environmental and health impacts without it. Under public pressure, a few companies have begun to report chemicals voluntarily.

North Carolina has banned fracking until the state can approve regulations. The bill introduced Thursday, titled the Energy Modernization Act, is meant to complement the rules currently being written by the North Carolina Mining & Energy Commission.

Wiseman adds that, other than the felony provision, the bill proposes disclosure laws similar to those in many other states: "It allows for trade secrets to remain trade secrets, it provides only limited exceptions for reasons of emergency and health problems, and provides penalties for failure to honor the trade secret."

Draft regulations from the North Carolina commission have been praised as some of the strongest fracking rules in the country. But observers already worry that the final regulations will be significantly weaker. In early May, the commission put off approving a near-final chemical disclosure rule because Haliburton, which has huge stakes in the fracking industry, complained the proposal was too strict, the News & Observer reported.

For portions of the Republican-controlled North Carolina government to kowtow to the energy industry is not surprising. In February, the Associated Press reported that under Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, North Carolina's top environmental regulators previously thwarted three separate Clean Water Act lawsuits aimed at forcing Duke Energy, the largest electricity utility in the country, to clean up its toxic coal ash pits in the state. Had those lawsuits been allowed to progress, they may have prevented the February rupture of a coal ash storage pond, which poured some 80,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River.

"Environmental groups say they favor some of the provisions [in the Energy Modernization Act]," Energywire reported Friday. "It would put the state geologist in charge of maintaining the chemical information and would allow the state's emergency management office to use it for planning. It also would allow the state to turn over the information immediately to medical providers and fire chiefs."

However, environmentalists point out that the bill would also prevent local governments from passing any rules on fracking and limit water testing that precedes a new drilling operation.

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/05/north-carolina-felony-fracking-chemicals-disclosure

 

Filmed at the University of Lethbridge, March 25, 2014

This You Tube is a compilation of segments from a 90 minute talk. The full version will be available soon.

Jessica Ernst worked for over three decades as an environmental biologist doing research and independent consulting for the Alberta petroleum industry. One of her main clients was the EnCana Company, which began large-scale fracking in the region of her home community of Rosebud Alberta in the early years of the 21st century.

In 2007 Jessica Ernst the scientist became Jessica Ernst the whistle blower. Bringing forward evidence that her own water well and those of her neighbours had been severely contaminated, Jessica sued the EnCanada Corporation. She also sued the forerunner of the Alberta Energy Regulator as well as the Alberta government itself.

Jessica Ernst is especially intent on getting some accountability from the Alberta Energy Regulator, the AER, which is 100% industry-funded. She accuses the AER of violating her freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Jessica made this allegation based on a directive issued by the oil and gas regulator, Jim Reid. Rather than doing a credible investigation of Jessica's complaints, Reid ordered his staff to cease all communications with Ms. Ernst in 2005.

Tellingly, the current head of the 100% industry-funded Alberta Energy Regulator is Gerard Protti, a former executive of EnCana Corporation. His conflict of interest is illustrative of a culture of conflict of interest that is transforming the governments of Canada and Alberta into wholly-owned subsidiaries of Texas-based and China-based oil and gas companies.

Jessica Ernst explains how this failure at the top is resulting in the poisoning of the environment and the severe undermining of public health. The quality of commercial agriculture is thereby undermined. The vitality of wildlife is attacked. Similarly, the public health of Albertans is under assault.



Calgary based journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk delivers a powerful and revealing presentation on what is really going on with the Alberta Tar Sands. In his talk he discusses the back story, the present and the fate of all oil-addicted "Petro-States". This is Canada's largest and most environmentally destructive mega-project ever and if we don't rethink our dependency on this massive and energy wasteful boondoggle, then we will have much more to worry about than just our economy.

About Conspiracy King

Since 1991, The Preferred Network has been a leading edge source of high quality alternative information, on a wide variety of topics ranging from Mind Control, Secret Societies, UFOs, New World Order, Free Energy, Redemption, Religion, Spirituality, Health, 911 and many other huge  conspiracies!