Adian, Graphene is the both the strongest martial on earth,and one of the best conductors; and able to produce very robust polymers just one atom thick.

Recent discoveries near Sydney look like presenting one of the finest ore bodies in the world, at least that's what preliminary drill tests seem to be saying.

It also has implications for batteries that hold much larger charges, and able to be discharged and charged in a fraction of the time of conventional batteries.

I'm predicting that a combination lithium cobalt Graphene battery will more than double the current range of the electric vehicle. Which currently seems to be nudging 500 klms.

And I expect the 0 to 100 in 4 seconds for the tesla electric vehicle, to also be past history with these potentially lighter and more powerful batteries.

The potential good news story just doesn't end there, given graphene could allow us to conquer the holy grail for solar cell manufacturers; namely, a flexible polymer solar cell able to absorb 85 of the radiant energy falling on it.

It wouldn't surprise to see this futuristic material to replace paint as a very low cost self recharging option, for both vehicles and houses with seriously improved batteries?

If you have money to invest, try investing in graphene, mining or processing, and almost guaranteed to be a winner.

The stone age didn't end due to a shortage of stone.

Similarly the fossil fuel age will likely end with millions of tons and billions of barrels still in the ground! And possibly in just the next fifteen or so years.

The only folks currently hurt due to low oil prices are speculators and small time tight oil.

On the plus side, low energy prices are generally very beneficial for wider/real economies.

I can't find any sympathy for some very rich speculators now in danger of losing their shirts.

About time they reaped what they created for millions of mums and dads, and energy dependant economies!
Cheers, Rhrosty,

Aidan. Given we're talking about either hydrogen or methane as fuel type for all known fuel cells, and given both are reductive in their relationships with either metal or polymers, it is almost impossible to conceive of any form of oxidation entering a strictly closed cycle operation.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that fuel cells operate by internal combustion, which is the only process that would include the possibility of some oxidation?

I draw your attention to acid batteries with a central graphite pole.

One would have thought that that extremely hostile environment would have included oxidation.

Perhaps,but only after decades in landfill and a price we could be willing to pay for the most rugged and low cost fuel cells on earth? We make polymer banknotes and are quite capable of including mass production and regular replacements; if your fears or expectations are ever realised.

Previously your critique of lower cost ceramic fuel cells was they were not robust enough for vehicular use.

If we make them robust enough for almost any cross country operation, suddenly there's a potential oxidation problem?

What exactly are you saying. Don't look? Or You're fundamentally opposed to methane as a potential future transport fuel?

Even biogas, which nature makes anyway and better used up, than ever released into the upper atmosphere, where it does immeasurable environmental harm!

And why should we accept any of your advice before thoroughly testing your alleged fears?

And yes it is a hot reaction and therefore must include a coolant. And if a byproduct is endless free hot water for our domiciles, how can that be a bad thing?

As for motor vehicles, we have heat exchange technology or simple radiators, with superior coolants.

In any event, I don't believe we're ever likely to confront this alleged problem, given superior batteries coupled to vastly improved solar voltaic technology will create vehicles able to travel from Darwin to Adelaide on a single initial charge, with only comfort stops needed? However, if the batteries are recharged by inboard technology, we completely exclude one source of carbon production.

Too young? Rubbish! The great Barrier Reef is just a chain of submerged mountains and part of the oldest geology on earth.

Moreover, mystery oil slicks were all that enabled old time prospectors to find oil. And given the sheer dearth of mystery oil slicks over decades, we can be certain there is some oil there, with the known townsville trough holding an estimated five billion barrels; and other troughs further out holding considerably more.

in fact some industry experts have are in print estimating a hydrocarbon resource to equal or surpass the current know entire M.E. reserves.

If there is even a possibility we might look to see what's there. The anti drilling community goes into mendacious meltdown and obfuscates, with asinine claims like the geology is too young.

The many mystery oil slicks as reported in our daily newspapers for decades not only suggests very strongly that there is likely to be commercially recoverable oil, but that it is in comparatively shallow deposits and therefore cheaply accessed.

And given our traditional sweet light crude produces 40% less carbon in total, when preferred to the fully imported variety; given the reef is being progressively destroyed by carbon, it behooves us to access and use less carbon creating alternatives, one of which is traditional Australian sweet light crude.

Of course the oil companies currently ripping us off at the bowser, ably assisted by the so called green movement, don't want us to force their greedy grasp off our financial short and curlies, and can be guaranteed to use any means, including mountainous misinformation to protect an annual bottom line regularly topping four trillion!

So assuming the "frenemy" is Saudi Arabia, are the USA going to join in on an attack on Iran,or throw the Saudis to the wolves ?

This is supposed to be an email from James Rickards (Author Death of Money) to his subscribers.

"Zoey 01/18/2016 •
On January 14, Jim Rickards sent an email to subscribers to Daily Reckoning this message: “Soon — perhaps just weeks from now — I believe markets will be hit by the third and biggest currency shock since the currency wars started in 2010. It’s going to be a hard stab in America’s back by one of our closest “allies”. Absolutely no one is expecting this… Yet, when this sneak currency attack hits financial markets in the next few weeks… Stocks could flash crash by over 10% in a matter of minutes, causing a selloff… Oil prices could crash even lower than $35 per barrel… Some financial institutions might go bankrupt, taking savers money with them… The U.S.’s most powerful financial weapon will be destroyed… America’s biggest “frenemy” will gain the world’s #1 financial advantage… And a full scale war between a region’s two biggest powers could explode. The U.S. might even get dragged into the fighting… ”

Jim also said that an announcement will be made next Friday(1/22/16) that will set off the media. One of the commentors on Lindsey Williams’ website received this email and posted it. He also said in Jim’s live video stream, he said they expect Saudi Arabia to de-peg from the dollar in the coming days."

Rhosty, graphene is great stuff but whether it's the strongest material depends on your definition of "strongest". Likewise whether it's one of the best conductors depends on the purpose, as low electrical resistance alone is insufficient to make it useful.

Natural graphite's very unlikely to contain sufficiently high quality graphene for the purposes it's speculated to be useful for; it will almost certainly have to be synthesised instead. And it's a high risk industry, though potentially very lucrative.

Regarding oxidation in ceramic fuel cells, I'm referring to the part of the cell where nearly all the hydrogen and methane has already been oxidised, but the temperature is even hotter than in the rest of the cell, and the oxide ions are still coming through.
Indeed if it can't oxidise graphene in that situation, there could well be problems with carbon buildup preventing the fuel cell from functioning effectively.

I never previously critiqued LOWER COST ceramic fuel cells. However I did say that applying ceramic fuel cells to transport operation would be very difficult due to the hot conditions they require to operate. I said nothing about robustness, and the fundamental opposition to using methane as a transport fuel is in your head not mine.

You seem to have failed to comprehend that hot conditions are a PREREQUISITE for (not just a result of) operating ceramic fuel cells.

Oldest geology on earth? Rubbish! Eastern Australia is geologically much younger than west Australia. There's no craton anywhere near the Great Barrier Reef. Most of those submerged mountains you refer to are made of basalt from the Tertiary. I don't know how much you know about geology, but that's younger than the oil. And the volcanoes that produced the basalt would probably have destroyed any oil reservoirs there if any ever existed.

Oil spills from ships and boats are a much more likely source of those oil slicks.

No oil's ever been found under the Townsville Trough. People speculate all the time, but that doesn't make it true. Your problem is you always assume the hype to be true, and ignore the criticism.

Arjay, a full scale war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is extremely unlikely. But if Iran started one, America (and its allies) would reimpose sanctions. If Saudi Arabia started one, Europe would call for UN sanctions on Saudi Arabia and America would be unlikely to veto it. Either way, America wouldn't bother getting directly involved. Americans are tired of war, and they've nothing to gain from participating in that one.

If another American financial institution collapses, they may or may not bail it out. Either option is preferable to going to war.