Hi Karen, Once again, you have a facility for finding relevant articles! I must be brief.
Tom Redburn's NYT's article (A FIRST STEP TO CUTTING RELIANCE ON OIL) As I've described in my recent replies to Harry and to Ed, the idea that the Fuel Cell is going to be the answer to a petroleum-based infrastructure is a myth. Some of the big car makers may be fascinated by the Fuel Cell for all sorts of reasons, but one thing it's not -- it's not a primary energy technology. It *needs* a source of hydrogen. And hydrogen is expensive to make in energy terms. It needs fossil fuels or very cheap electricity. In short, the Fuel Cell is a good thing for public relations of car firms but it's a nullity as regards any sort of solution to the energy problems of tomorrow. Redburn has been swept along by current techno-euphoria and hasn't done his homework! ---- Daniel Yergin's Washington Post article (A CRUDE VIEW OF THE CRISIS IN NEW YORK) This is a different story. Yergin knows what he is writing about! (I read his book, "The Prize", some years ago -- spendid piece of work -- it deservedly won the Pulitzer Prize.) If it's a question of *American* imports of oil, then Yergin is correct -- the undeveloped oilfields of Iraq will take (as I wrote in my message to Ed) 10-20 years and this won't solve any American needs in the short term. However, if it's a question of the gang behind Bush getting preferential rights to the development of Iraqi oil (in the event of a regime change in Iraq) then there is such a thing these days as "Futures" which could make all the individuals concerned multi-billionaires overnight. Keith ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
