The High gas prices are making the rich richer and the poor poorer.... yet no one cares.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This HAS to be done. As a house or building needs a roof, put on a solar roof that feeds the grid. Plug-in hybrids, along with solar roofs and wind turbines are the most feasible answer to pollution problems, jobs in the US, and the oil money drain. Come on Ford...do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The personal tranport environmentally-sound future can be achieved but it will take a huge increase in grassroots action to be viable. Today's goofy political climate cannot accomplish it so we need a revolution toward a real democracy to be able to achieve it. Get the stinky corruption out of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biofuels are not always the saviours of the environment.
Huge areas of forest are being cleared around the world in order to grow oil palms and sugar cane to produce biofuels (biodiesel and ethonol).
We must change our lifestyles to live in a sustainable manner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder why no one has revisited the Stanley Steamer? From what I read, since the power source was steam, the car ran on water and anything combustible. It was quite safe for its time, could get up to about the same speed as most cars of that era ran, was quiet and non-polluting. Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"But ethanol derived from corn or other biomass also has its Achilles heel. Current U.S. gasoline and diesel consumption is far too high to replace with plant-derived fuels. Planting all available agricultural acres in the country with fast-growing trees or switchgrass could generate only enough fuel to displace about 25 percent of current vehicle consumption."

Proof of a sustainable fuel production from algae due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates provided here at University of New Hampshire, Physics Department UNH Biodiesel Group.

Yields from agricultural crops (Wikipedia:Biodiesel):

Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre
Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre
Mustard: 140 US gal/acre
Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre
Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre

Yields from algae:
Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre

We need to stop propogating the Oil Lobby propaganda and start discussing REAL alternatives. The UNH Biodiesel Group report is the best starting point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The car is the primary factor in the destruction of the environment. 40% of the total energy used by a car used in its manufacture. There is no such thing as a green car. Get off you butt, move closer to work, bike, take a bus, a train. Your heart and the earth will thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"But ethanol derived from corn or other biomass also has its Achilles heel. Current U.S. gasoline and diesel consumption is far too high to replace with plant-derived fuels. Planting all available agricultural acres in the country with fast-growing trees or switchgrass could generate only enough fuel to displace about 25 percent of current vehicle consumption."

Proof of a sustainable fuel production from algae due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates provided here at University of New Hampshire, Physics Department UNH Biodiesel Group.

Yields from agricultural crops (Wikipedia:Biodiesel):

Soybean: 40 to 50 US gal/acre
Rapeseed: 110 to 145 US gal/acre
Mustard: 140 US gal/acre
Jatropha: 175 US gal/acre
Palm oil: 650 US gal/acre

Yields from algae:
Algae: 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre

We need to stop propagate the Oil Lobby propaganda and start discussing REAL alternatives. The UNH Biodiesel Group report is the best starting point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tried to correct the typo on propagate which resulted in another post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll say one thing, plug-in hybrids would be next to worthless for the millions of us who live in rural communities and frequently need to go more than 20-50 miles between recharging. A plain-old hybrid makes much more sense.

However, this would be a great transition into the longer-term solution of a hydrogen economy. The developments in electric cars could easily be applied, eventually, into fuel-cell vehicles. And if we stop with the asinine coal-fired ethanol plants and really put some effort into researching more sustainable methods of producing ethanol, it could also possibly lead to developments that would allow us to produce hydrogen from biomass instead of relying on fossil fuels.

And cleaner ways of producing electricity for the grid using wind and solar would also allow the possibility of producing hydrogen from water.

In my utopian fantasies, I see a future where the grid is completely gone and individual homes are powered by a large fuel cells with hydrogen produced from water, roofs made of solar cells and monthly electric and gas bills gone forever.

I realize that is truly a fantasy, but any step in that direction is a positive step.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry folks, I'm Brazilian, and I use a Flex fuel car. Anytime I stop in a gas station, anyone, I could choose between gas, ethanol or simply mix both. Now 70% of all cars sold in Brazil are flex fuel and who produced these cars are companies that you know very well such as GM and Ford. The brazilian ethanol is a brazilian fuel that came from our old sugar cane plantations.

But, here, even if you don't have a flex fuel your gas is already mixed with 25% of ethanol in the place of lead. America could blame us for the destruction of the rain forest, But I think, nowadays, we do much more for the enviroment, with our 15 millions (in a fleet of 23 million) flex fuel cars than it.

During the eighties

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

5 years ago I built a 2200sqft home which is TOTALLY OFF THE GRID (the solar system is now half paid off) and I now have more power than I can use in a day. I would LOVE to have a car that I could plug into my house in the afternoons when the sun is shining and my batteries are full!
I am so happy to hear the technology is here NOW ( I always suspected it was) and that maybe soon I can get an electric vehicle.
Make it run on ethanol made from corn which we now grow in abundance and turn into High fructose corn syrup which we put in everything and makes our kids FAT! Meanwhile the farmers can't make a living on what ADM buys corn for? What kind of sense does this make?
If Americans drove 3% less this month, the price of gas would collapse.
Come On America!!! WE CAN DO THIS!!! IF WE WAIT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO FIGURE IT OUT, WE ARE SUNK!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A brief description of Jevon's paradox.

The market can't solve this except as an instrument of policy and this is well-understood among policy circles. The only reason there is talk of fuel efficiency is because fuel prices are limiting transportation, which has broader effects.

It often claimed that high fuel efficiency standards (e.g. 35 mi/gal or better) could easily eliminate dependence on foreign oil, but this assumes consumption remains constant with an increase in efficiency. In order to maintain consumption at a given level while increasing fuel efficiency, it's quite likely that discouragement in the form of artificially inflated gas prices (e.g. via heavy taxation) or perhaps rationing is necessary.

The real ways to properly address this without depressing the overall economy are to change usage patterns and use different transportation technologies. This most likely means trains for overland and boats for overseas public and commodity transportation, but in principle could also include methods for eliminating the need for transportation at all such as telecommuting, workplace housing, and the like.

The individualistic notion of the automobile is inherently wasteful: the payload hauled is typically miniscule beside the weight of the vehicle itself. There is simply no way to get around that fact, and efficiency can in fact be measured directly in terms of the fraction of gross vehicle weight taken by the payload. The automobile doesn't need to be improved. It needs to be abandoned altogether.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The future is here -- and it's a city without cars that would transform the way we live today.

I imagine living without consuming petroleum, or generating pollution, or making noise. Imaging being able to take public transit, ride a bicycle, or even walk. Imagine not using any oil at all. Imagine that every time you commuted to work, you pumped money into the local economy, rather than sending it to distant shores. Imagine that your bicycle, bus, train, or even your feet, was not only ideal personal transportation, but also a force for transforming both agriculture and power consumption in ways that benefited farmers and urban dwellers alike.

Farfetched dreams? Not at all. All of the necessary technologies have been developed and road-tested in the bus, the train, the bicycle. All that's needed is to combine these approaches in a single strategy that recognizes their advantages and eliminates the shortcomings of a society built around a single mode of transportation.

The bicycle, introduced in the United States in the 1800s, has long been a bestseller. More than 200 million bikes ply U.S. roads. But they suffer one major limitation: Most people live too far away from work. (Indeed, some people think they can't even get to the grocery store without a car because it's a mega-mart.) This makes them dependent on glorified gasoline-powered vehicles. But an old Schwinn or a fancy Cannondale can be fitted with a trailer, that would let you carry your groceries home under your own power. That is a lot more than many Americans do every day.

Giving up driving has many benefits. Bicycles are quiet and nonpolluting. Even taking into account reduced tailpipe emissions, even electric cars still produce more pollution than human-powered vehicles. And bicycles are remarkably efficient, achieving the equivalent of over 100,000 miles per gallon -- many times the mileage of the best existing hybrid.

Of course, the Achilles heel of the bicycle has been the car-oriented world of sprawl we have built; even though most cyclists can go more than 50 miles without stopping to recharge.

A transit-oriented community overcomes that limitation by providing options -- instead of the automobiles required today, we could easily have a flexible-transit city of the type now seen around the world. These cities are accessible by any combination of transit, walking, or cycling, and the additional cost to manufacture them is zero. In fact, we could save billions by not having to constantly build and rebuild so many roads.

But strategies to keep Americans dependent on their cars abound. Current U.S. gasoline and diesel consumption is far too high for the oil and automobile industries to stop lobbying for car-oriented development. Paving over all available agricultural acres in the country, or devoting them to biofuels, doesn't address the issues of current energy consumption.

Development that supports alternative forms of transportation, however, overcomes this limitation by simply reducing energy consumption. This lets walking become a primary option rather than a minor afterthought.

With the introduction of car-free cities, the transportation and construction sectors begin to merge. Developers would probably offer car owners the option of keeping their automobiles outside the main city, when space allows. No new power plants would be needed.

Indeed, reducing the widespread use of cars could address the principal disadvantage of encouraging alternative forms of transportation -- the absence, so far, of any incentives to reduce consumption. Alternative power sources only make it possible to keep everyone driving cars. But power utilities feel threated by any efforts to simply reduce their customers' demand.

(continued in next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The first crisis we should deal with is our tendency to try to solve problems with more technological and complex answers- more plaster on the cracks. Our problem is not one of limited energy, but bad design. We as individuals cannot count on commercial interests to solve our problems, because they will only attempt such an endeavor in a way with will produce profit for themselves, which is quite a limiting factor. We as individuals can form community alliances and form settlement patterns that require very little, if any, travelling in motor vehicles. Let's not go wild with more building, more programs, and more promises. We've had 10,000 years of civilization to get things right, and yet we just can't seem to do it. Perhaps we should start rethinking our strategies and goals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.theaircar.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our whole social structure is to blame not simply the auto or the auto fuel. Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Ricardo showed how comparative advantage increases efficency, which decreases the cost of supply. This led to the incorporation of a system of transportaion of goods to increase "efficency" and therefore lower costs/increase profits. By far the largest portion of our fossil fuels are burned in transportation of goods- 60%. Food transportation alone accounts for 20% of overall fosil fuel consumption, which is far more than individual vehicle useage.

As mentioned above Javons paradox will mean that if we are able to produce more efficent personal vehicles the excess supply of fuel produced would be used up in the transportation of our goods from further and further locals, again to increase "efficency" through comparative advantage.

Therefore, any system based on a market which is dictated by supply and demand will seek out and use up an increases in energy efficency for profit maximization. This is only one example of the machinations of the market to dominate policy opptions. The seeking of profits will search the world over and use up every last part of nature if we allow it to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This new saphion battery seems promising, 150 mpg Prius plug-in hybrid.

check out http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=825

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The US knew about the fuel problems back in the 50s. It struck home with the oil embargo in the 70s. I tried to spread the word and worked on efficient technologies and renewable fuels and got laughed at. Biofuels still produce carbon dioxide. Every day products from dishwashers to washing machines are not nearly as efficient as they should be. The infrastructure is still energy intensive and product distribution comes from the farthest reaches of the earth making a mockery of transportation theory and keeping the cost of distribution as high as possible for cheap labor.

A few hybid cars are a start but far too little and too late. Energy needs of developing countries and our own people in the US have shown that they will not care until we are drowning in debt and depression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Own less, use less, wear less, go less. Be content with what you already have, and learn to make most of what you use. Reduce what you want to what you need and there won't be shortages and so much stress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever the final mix of alternative fuel sources to power ground transportation vehichles, the infrastructure is at least 10 years away before such a solution is viable. Not to mention the extra cost to the consumer to purchase such a vehicle and the cost to repair or replace a converter that goes bad after the usual 36 month new vehichle warranty. I would imagine like being the first to buy a Sony Beta video player, people who invest in a multi-energy source vehicle today will be paying a premium and getting a so-so product in return. None of the altnernative fuel initiatives will go anywhere fast without the backing of big oil and government. So far I don't see more than a lot of talk about doing this and doing that. In the end, the same companies who now crush us with high gasoline prices will do the same with whatever alternative we choose. They will still be in the driver's seat and we will be going along for the ride. Unless of course you have an old diesel engine vehicle and a reliable source of used restaurant cooking oil that you want to refine yourself and pour into your gas tank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What amazes me is all this talk about wind, solar and atomic energy and so little talk about that most ecologically friendly energy source with the smallest footprint vs available energy output of all sources available to us, geothermal.
No matter where you go on this planet, under your feet lies an immense sea of molten nickel-iron whose energy is just waiting to be tapped.
http://geothermal.marin.org/
For the cost of one new atomic power plant, including in the calculation the cost of protection against sabotage, theft of nucleotides and waste disposal in depots guaranteed to be safe for hundreds of thousands of years, how many geothermal plants could one build close to the end users of the energy with no fear of contaminaton of air or water and little surface space sacrificed to the construction?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The next paradigm … Infrastructural EVOLUTION = Human REVOLUTION

All this hype about transitioning from oils demise. Its been gone over all before. Although in a much quiter fassion than today, nearly 3 decades ago. And ashamedly a extremely clever resolution was conceived which if implemented could have allowed our society to have smoothly transition from its petroleum dependency of today. Except no one cared enough to act on it. I suppose there were not that many who knew about the effort. Yes! Our society’s petroleum dependency was fully recognized back in about 1973. Some of us remember the first major fuel shortage. The cost of gas doubled seemingly over night. The long lines, only to find your self rationed to a 5 gallon limit.

I can remember buying gas for 19.9 cents a gallon.

But those days are long gone and its time to move on. However I think it would be wise to take a step back at this time and regroup our thoughts. Consider all our options and put all the cards on the table. As in my observation our society is not playing with a full deck.

We have 4 aces as hole cards and they have not even been turned up yet.

The solution isn’t finding a new source of energy to exhaust. Even if it is cleaner and more environmentally tolerable. The solution seems to be as simple as it was 30 years ago. Its implementing a new infrastructure. Its time we recognized that our burgeoning accumulation of infrastructures (particularly distribution) have all been in place for decades. And that they have become increasingly antiquated. Our understandings have come a long ways in the last 50 years and what was good then is simply not acceptable now. They have served us well and its time to let them go and move on into this time of a new paradigm of thinking.

Its time to be more comprehensive and begin devising the things we know we need and not just accepting what our corporate providers would like to continue providing.

These Corporations you know they have it backwards. They think we are here to serve them. Like we humans are no more than some kind of serving work force. When it is actually they who are supposed to be serving us.

Now I say all this because it seems to me that humanity’s biggest problem is its corporate protections. We seem to have allowed these corporations to be formed with the rights of individuals whose moralities are entirely formed around the want of preserving their own investments and those economic markets they serve. It may make good business sense but its killing our abilities to evolve.

And we do have some wonderful evolving to do. As my own observations suggest that if we could only act on what we already know. We could actually resolve the greatest part of all those problems we know today. For it seems indeed our abilities could be exponentially increased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consider this scenario which is based on known facts.

In about 1973 a wealthy individual became convinced by geologists that oil depletion was a eventual certainty. Realizing that our society’s economy was entirely based on petroleum availability. He privately charged outstanding engineers in their fields, with devising a means of accomplishing transport which would allow our society to smoothly transition from it petroleum dependency.

They very simply proposed the implementation of sectionalized concrete beam system which was elevated on columns. Along which individual electric motors would travel, to which anything could be attached.

Now that might not sound like much of a accomplishment. As this could have been accomplished a very long time ago. In fact the structural abilities and electric motors existed in the late 1800’s didn’t they.

SO here we have a idea of accomplishing transport with permanent network of concrete beams. By the way. The structural engineer. A world famous train bridge engineer. Claims the beams will support a train and are good to survive a level 7 earth quake.

And along these beams individual electric motors will travel to which one can attach anything they want. Be it a car, truck, bus, or even a cargo container.

SO just what does it mean to co-join these two very capable abilities. Well amazingly there are a whole lot of benefits that come out of this rather simple proposal of joining electric motors with concrete beams. In fact the benefits of accomplishing transport in this manner are not only numerous but they are just as far reaching in impact and influence.

The proposed system in comparison with today’s modern highways. Suggest that the amount of structural necessity would be not only seriously reduced but the enormous energy and resource consumptions could almost be comparatively removed.

Accomplishing the transport of today’s vehicles with electric motors is purported to be potentially 97% more energy efficient. But how could this be. But yes it seems it is true that an enormous energy efficiency is developed through utilizing electric propulsion. The large energy efficiency isn’t just a matter of the efficiency of the electric motors its got a lot to do with other things to. Which occur when transport is accomplished on a fixed rigidly controlled pathway of a beam. In such a controlled environment freed from grade interactions. A large number of benefits surface. The precise ability to control and regulate the speed of an electric motor will allow non stop travel, the distances between vehicles to be closed and drafting to occur. They will also be utilizing a nearly frictionless surface to travel on.

Its amazing thing accomplishing automated transport in such a energy and resource efficient manner. The true benefits of which and influences of which are staggering to the imagination. Yet the capability seems to be laying there just waiting for our society to insist that it be developed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which leaves me to wonder! What would it mean to humanity to accomplish this very simple change in infrastructural provision? To merely implement a modern system. That is fully respective to our current technological a structural capabilities.

To implement not just a new highway system. But to implement a new structured conduit system which can then fully integrate our growing collection of distribution systems. Systems who could then in its provison of a secure and controlled environment, then take a far fuller utilization of known technological abilities in their own efficiencies as well.

We not only have the ability to remove the vast bulk our energy and resource consumptions. But accidents, congestion, emissions, fragmentations of both human and wildlife habitats. And all through largely and directly enhancing our own human pursuits in personal, public and commercial pursuits. With far greater speeds, ease of use and conveniences as well.

There is something very very wrong with a society when it leaders have consistently failed to act on the accomplishment of such well beings.

Or is it simply a matter of awareness that this immense opportunity for large and positive change even exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Couldn't this be done right now? That would take care of 90% of my transportation needs. Doesn't an electric golf cart charge off of ordinary house current? And can't you get a windmill that will generate that now? I'm going to look into it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. It seems to me that, given our current power infrastructure, "plugging in" will do nothing more than increase our use of gas and coal. I suppose this could reduce dependence on foreign petroleum, but would just "pass the buck" with regard to the production of greenhouse gas.

2. I'm not offering this idea as a serious solution to anything, but I've sometimes wondered idly about the possibilities of a "triple hybrid" -- i.e. gas/steam/electric hybrid vehicle wherein all the wasted heat produced by the gas-powered engine was harnessed to drive a turbine which helped charge the battery. I guess this would involve essentially placing the engine inside the radiator (?). Any engineers care to comment?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A micro reactor biodiesel system has been announced by an Oregon State professor that will produce very small scale local biodiesel production. Tiny Reactor Boosts Biodiesel Production http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10300

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The movement toward biofuels as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels is a greenscam with potentially disastrous consequences.

The Bush brothers, a cabal of giant agro businesses, their paid consultants and political cronies are behind a series of initiatives that involve massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to large environmentally destructive corporations. Sadly, they're aided by a number of well meaning but misguided groups and individuals.

Biofuels derived from corn, palm, soybeans and other crops are not only environmentally destructive, they can't be produced profitably without massive subsidies - subsidies that should be used for environmentally viable solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives and wind and solar energy.

Biofuels are an economic, environmental and humanitarian disaster:

# The production of biofuel from crops consumes more energy than it produces.

# The production of biofuels from crops will lead to more air pollution, irreversible soil depletion, water depletion and pollution, erosion, forest destruction, higher use of fossil fuels, pesticides, fertilizers and harm to animals.

# Crops to produce oils to meet the demand for biofuel are directly destroying tens of thousands of square miles of rain forest now.

# Fertilizer for biofuel production will lead to a massive increase in phosphate strip mining, destroyed wetlands, poisoned water and disturbed river systems.

# Conversion of U.S. farmland from food production to fuel crop production will lead to dependence on foreign nations for our food supply.

The subsidies required to make biofuel production "viable" are more corporate welfare to the same giant agro companies damaging the environment now. They divert funds from real solutions such as conservation/efficiency initiatives, public transportation systems, increased use of solar and wind energy, and sustainable small scale food farming vs. massive monoculture fuel crop production.

Government mandates of biofuels for transport will further hasten environmental destruction.

We can't grow our way out of the impending energy crisis with more destructive practices that fuel more cars for more people to drive on more roads to more parking lots to buy more junk.

The hard decisions can no longer be avoided. There must be a massive shift in our thinking, behavior and consumption. The biofuels scam must be stopped in its tracks. If it proceeds, we'll plunge further into debt, destroy irreplaceable natural resources and send another portion of the biosphere up in smoke.

If you'd like more information on biofuels, see the Energy Justice Network fact sheet (www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html), Feeding Cars Not People (www.monbiot.com) and Worse Than Fossil Fuel (www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/ )

The Patzek report contains a thorough analysis of the recent net energy "balances" of the corn ethanol and cellulosic ethanol cycles and the environmental impacts of corn and ethanol production and methane emissions from the cows fed with corn-ethanol byproducts.

"The Real Biofuel Cycles" by Tad W. Patzek (March 2006)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]