backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by aqwan135.. on Dec 20 at 8:19 PM

  (Source: BusinessWeek)
Breakthrough uses capillary array to store hydrogen

Many alternative fuel sources are being eyed to help reduce pollution and our need for imported oil. Among these alternative power sources are solar power, electricity, and hydrogen among others.

Hydrogen is an alternative fuel that is being heavily researched. The big barriers from using hydrogen today are the facts that the gas is highly volatile and it is difficult to store safely. In September, researchers in America announced that they had made a hydrogen storage breakthrough using chemical hydrides.

BusinessWeek reports that a new breakthrough has been made on storing hydrogen safely that has stemmed from technology that the Russian's developed for their space program. Moshe Stern, an Israeli entrepreneur, was approached by a Russian scientist Evgeny Velikohov in 2005 about adapting the technology for the storage of hydrogen. The storage method uses what is known as capillary arrays.

The capillary array is a bundle of long, thin tubes of extremely strong glass. The complete array can store as much as three times the amount of hydrogen that a conventional steel container used to store hydrogen today. The technology recently received an endorsement from a German institute known as the Federal Institute for Materials Research & Testing (BAM) for its safety.

BAM spokesman Kai Holtapples said, "The lightweight storage and safety factors give the technology a huge commercial potential for a whole range of industries."

Stern's company working on the tech is called C.En. The company has announced that it will license out the technology to corporate customers. Stern said, "We're planning to license out the technology on a company-by-company basis, with the first agreement during 2010."

If the C.En system and its glass capillaries can withstand pressure, they could be used eventually in cars and electronic devices to store hydrogen for power. So far, the C.En company has been able to raise $25 million in funds from investors in the U.S., Russia, South Korea, and other countries to research and develop its array.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hydrogen Fuel
By pityme on 12/14/2009 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 1
We need to develop Natural Gas as the "alternative fuel of choice". It is much more stable than hydrogen, US has plenty of it and Canada has even more, it is proven technology, much cleaner than oil, existing engines can be retrofitted, etc. Why doesn't Obama and crew get the picture??? Even the Eco Nazis should jump on the Natural Gas bandwagon.




RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By martinrichards23 on 12/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By invidious on 12/14/2009 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 5
The term Eco Nazi has nothing to do with Nazis. It is a widely accepted term to add nazi as a suffix for people who are single minded, unrelenting, and impose their views on others. Refer to the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfield.

Dont be a PC thug, there is nothing discreditting about using that term.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By martinrichards23 on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By amanojaku on 12/14/2009 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 5
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By tastyratz on 12/14/2009 1:27:25 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is rolling out the proper infrastructure and getting over peoples FUD on safety. people seem to think they are going to explode at any moment.

Now granted these tanks are under an immense amount of pressure, so in the event of a serious accident any kind of rupture/puncture in the tank is going to cause a very large quantity of fuel to disperse over a very large area very quickly. If there is a flame this means giant fireball. While gasoline is very flammable, its not the same damage radius from pressurized spread.

Hydrogen is also a combustable gas, but when it burns it tends to burn "above" the car in an accident when it rises.

Natural gas is better on emissions, and would be great if we rolled it out more so years ago... but its still a non renewable fossil fuel. Great plan for a push in the 80s - but by the time natural gas really got a foothold we would be looking for something to switch to.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By randomly on 12/14/2009 7:02:54 PM , Rating: 4
The most basic problem with Hydrogen is that there is no non-fossil fuel based method to produce it at low enough cost to make any economic sense.

The only plausible method is a sulfur-iodine cycle powered by a Very High Temperature nuclear reactor. That technology is 20-30 years away from deployment if it was pursued.

Hydrogen also is a poor option for an automotive fuel.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By tastyratz on 12/15/2009 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only plausible method is a sulfur-iodine cycle powered by a Very High Temperature nuclear reactor. That technology is 20-30 years away from deployment if it was pursued.


So you just presented a viable solution for a fuel in the next 20-30 years.

The reality is we will not be escaping standard petroleum based fuel for many many many years to come. While natural gas has *some* infrastructure in place it has a long way to go.

No matter what we go to if we had something incredible developed today it would likely take 20-30 years before it was really adopted anyways. We wont be able to switch overnight, and we have plenty of oil based fossil fuels to survive in the meantime (sorry to any alarmists who read this). "they" have been saying we have 50 years left every year for the last 50 years but as technology advances we get better at harvesting.

Hydrogen is still in its infancy, and still has plenty of time to become a reality.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
We'll get better and better battery tech reducing the cost of electric cars. I'm sure somebody will find a way to produce a safe and small enough nuclear reactor for use in an automobile. Perhaps when we crack fusion power, but such a concept would be decades away.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:00:56 AM , Rating: 2
If a hydrogen tank on a vehicle of the future were ruptured the result would not be a fireball above the car. The result would be immediate and highly explosive, there would not be much left of the tank afterwards.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By jkostans on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By muIIet on 12/14/2009 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 5
I am more after clean air\quality then any type of global warming argument. I would hate to see the rest of the country end up like china or Los Angeles, CA air quality. I also agree we should use more natural gas and phase out as much coal and oil as we can .


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By warrioryoko on 12/14/2009 11:54:33 AM , Rating: 5
I understand where you're coming from, living in LA myself.

However, for that to be a large concern, you'd have to assume similar development and conditions as LA:

You'd have to have the entire rest of the country, or China, become an urban sprawl similar to LA, with at least as high a population density as LA, *with as many vehicles per family on the highways* as LA (opposed to less vehicles driving around like most of the rest of the country, or mass transit propagating), with as poor emissions standards enforced as LA.

And all of that, with no effort to change it, for several decades.

Also, don't forget that the vehicles and such aren't the only *major* contributors to the poor air quality. You'd have to throw in major, widespread brush fires all throughout the spring and summer, across those several decades.

With a transition to more rigorously enforced emissions standards, tighter emissions standards and higher fuel efficiency, propagation of hybrid and fuel cell cars, potential scientific efforts to improve the air quality...

...and the unlikelihood of car-on-freeway travel becoming as ridiculously widespread as it is in LA over carpooling, mass transit, sharing a car, etc. as well as the necessity of a densely concentrated urban population commuting daily to generate that much smog...

...I don't disagree it's something to take under consideration, but that it's not as big a problem as most make it out to be.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By lwatcdr on 12/14/2009 12:28:03 PM , Rating: 3
LA's air problems also have a lot to do with geography.
Chicago doesn't have LA's air problems "It's air isn't great but better than LA's"

Truth is that LA shouldn't have as many people as it does. It takes water from other states to keep LA alive.
No criticism to the people that live there but LA is where their shouldn't be a city.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Suntan on 12/14/2009 12:54:43 PM , Rating: 3
La is also packed right up against the side of a mountain range, with prevailing wind coming off the ocean most of the year trapping all of humanity's putrescence in the large half bowl that is LA.

Simply put, what makes LA so dirty is a multitude of factors. The fact that most of the people in LA are so self centered that they just assume the rest of the nation is in a similar situation just makes it that much harder to show them that they are rather unique in their squalor.

Ah, LA... I know, how about a whole bunch of us completely overcrowd into a little stretch of desert that is devoid of natural resources sufficient to sustain us, and is cut off from the rest of the nation by mountain ranges. Then voluntarily elect to cut ourselves off even more by erecting national parks all around us. Then after years of aloofly overloading the system that we put in place, we’ll start bellyaching that the whole world should do something about this calamity, as if everyone else on the globe is in the same predicament...

-Suntan


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By rcc on 12/14/2009 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Without doubt, LA has some serious issues. I don't live there, but I've spent a lot of time there on business. However, regarding air quality, it's no where near as bad as it was 20 years ago.

I had been going to Azusa on a regular basis for years before I could actually tell that it it was butted right up against the mountains. I went up right after a storm one year and walked into the plant and said "hey, did you guys know there's a mountain in your back yard". They got a kick out of it.

I haven't been to Azusa in a few years, but last time I was the mountains were sharp and clear.

Now, having said all that, I have some respiratory issues that make LA a real joy even now, so bear in mind that I didn't say it was good, just much better. : )


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:06:55 AM , Rating: 2
we should all go nuclear and refine the process so that it also is green (because producing nuclear fuel has an enourmous carbon footprint)


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By BarkyMcWoof on 12/14/2009 10:31:01 AM , Rating: 3
I was with you until you mentioned bandwagon. Somehow, I can't imagine a hydrogen powered bandwagon.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Stuka on 12/14/2009 10:43:22 AM , Rating: 3
Hydrogen is what gives all "-ane" fuels their energy, including NG. It stands to reason that you're better off just burning the hydrogen.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By blueaurora on 12/14/2009 11:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
That sounds good out loud but you have to expend extra energy to extract hydrogen from the propane/methane/butane etc... The nature of the units when used above is the burn plus byproduct. Byproducts in these scenarios aren't that bad so whats the point in breaking it down further. Unless a time efficient means exists to do this with no power usage. I dont' know of one.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By islseur on 12/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Chudilo on 12/14/2009 11:20:34 AM , Rating: 2
The intent is not to burn the hydrogen but to chemically turn it into water vapor, while producing electricity in a fuel cell.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Chernobyl68 on 12/14/2009 12:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
Combining Hydrogen with something to make water? isn't that oxygen? isn't that burning? :)


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Oregonian2 on 12/14/2009 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Not when done in a fuel cell


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By pityme on 12/14/2009 11:32:38 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks Invidious for the reply. Regarding Hydrogen usage, remember that this gas is the smallest gas molecule known. This has a profound effect on sealing (yes even welded/brazed joints) not to mention any storage issues. This is not trivial. Just ask NASA. Currently, extreme seal testing is given a HELIUM leak check which is 2x molecule size of HYDROGEN. A hydrogen leak in the atmosphere is much more dangerous than a natural gas leak due to the energy content (AKA Hindenberg). The infastructure requirements for a hydrogen based fuel are huge and must be factored into any intelligent discussion of using hydrogen as an alternative fuel.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Autisticgramma on 12/14/2009 12:31:25 PM , Rating: 3
I contest the 'Danger' of a H2 leak over that of any fuel, natural gas (CNG) or Gasoline.

The chemical plume of H2 literally goes straight up as fast as possible, its almost impossible to create the Hindenburg with out flammable paint with a flash of H2. When burned H2 does exactly that, flash burn, not like backdraft, but like a camera flash. CNG is easily trap-able say in the attic of a house, with H2 not even possible.

Even mentioning the Hindenburg indicates FUD.

Additionally, Hydrogen can be electrolyzed from salty, and occasionally brackish water, research using cobalt alloy electrodes doing exactly this is happening at (almost) every major university, powered by - Solar Panels.

The real thing holding H2 back is that everyone thinks oh thats nice but the Fuel Cell isn't here yet. And I ask so?

Internal combustion with H2 has even been prototyped by GM, and as far as infrastructure H2 can easily be transported using pipes, say like the ones we have natural gas on now.

The issue with hydrogen as a fuel is a transportable storage medium, say like the one this article mentions. A minor (imo) technology deployment (again not development) hurdle, (i.e. solar and storage on a local - Personal level.) And the FUD spread around by comments like the one I have replied to. Not I repeat NOT safety of the average person who may come in contact with H2.

Wanna prove me right, douse your self with H2 and light a match, by the time you are actually able to light the match its gone. Even if it does manage to light you might loose some hair, Try that with gasoline.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Chernobyl68 on 12/14/2009 12:55:34 PM , Rating: 3
I always though the thing holding hydrogen back was the energy density? Isn't a hydrogen fuel cell like 3% the energy density of Gasoline? (1.62 MJ/Kg vs. 46.4 MJ/Kg) Even burning Liquid Hydrogen vs. burning Gasoline is a loseing proposition, LH2 has less than 1/3 the energy density (per volume) of gasoline. Even E85 has more than double the energy density of liquid hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By AnnihilatorX on 12/16/2009 6:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
Gasoline engine that is based on combustion is ultimately less efficient than a electrical pathway of fuel cell and a electric motor.

Your concern is exactly why better storage method is required.It'd increase the density of hydrogen hence energy density.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By pityme on 12/14/2009 1:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting point concerning H2 flash verses CNG. I will defer to your knowledge as I do not have personal experience or flash expertise. However, you missed my main point on H2 sealability. Also, hydrogen introduces another well documented problem called hydrogen enbrittlement. This is a major issue and will cause material compatibility costs to soar. High carbon high strength steels are a mainstay of pipeline and related compressor equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlemen...

Also, do a little reasearch on the hydrogen experiment in Iceland where they used their lost cost geothermal energy sources for some hydrogen powered cars.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers and many of the related issues are technical verses pop culture common sense. Talk to some NASA engineers sometime on hydrogen related handling problems. There is a lot of work on this issue alone as there was for Natural Gas handling 40 - 50 years ago. No it will not take 50 years but hydrogen handling is not as slam dunk as many seem to think. That is my point.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By JediJeb on 12/14/2009 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
On the sealing problem. Actually Helium is harder to seal than Hydrogen. Helium is monatomic in nature, which means He exist in nature as a single molecule. Hydrogen is diatomic which means in nature Hydrogen is always coupled with another hydrogen. This bonding makes hydrogen a larger molecule than helium. Helium is much harder to contain that hydrogen, and will leak through many seams that hydrogen will not. That is why they use Helium Leak Test on pipes. We use both every day in our laboratory and I can tell you getting leak free helium plumbing is much harder than for hydrogen.

As for Hydrogen embrittlement is concerned, it is only a problem if you store hydrogen in the steel tank for years. If used for cars, just make the tanks so they can be swapped out every year or two and that problem is solved. If you read the Wiki you linked it says most of the problem comes from exposure to hydrogen while the metal is at high temperatures during forming, not so much when used as storage.

Most of the fear for both Hydrogen and Gasoline comes from Hollywood and their over the top explosions they like to show. Neither is as dangerous as they would like you to believe, but I would say gasoline is worse in an automobile since if you crash and get a leak you end up with spilled gasoline on the ground that if ignited just cooks you from the heat, not an explosion. If you get a hydrogen leak you get a fireball above the car and it is a fast poof or maybe bang, but definately no mushroom cloud like many think.

The only drawback of hydrogen is production, and if that can be accomplished using solar, wind, hydroelectric or other renewable source for electrolysis then it would be nonpolluting. Honda is proving that the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can be done safely, if only people will get over their unfounded fears and start working on distribution systems. I would not be afraid to drive one at all, and would look at purchasing one if they can get the price down and the infrastructure in place.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Etsp on 12/15/2009 7:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... the atomic weight of H is ~1. The atomic weight of He is ~ 4. Helium is about 4 times the size of Hydrogen.

The reason for this is that Hydroden is almost always composed of 1 Proton and 1 electron. No Neutrons.

Helium on the other hand is almost always 2 protons and two neutrons.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Helium is a smaller atom than Hydrogen, in fact, Hydrogen has a large atomic radius than Oxygen.

However, Hydrogen typically hangs around in pairs, covalently bonded. Hydrogen forms a closer bond than any other element and has the smallest covalent radius (which is about half its monotomic radius). But that's just the distance between the two atoms, helium is inert so you really have two, larger, overlapping radii of hydrogen vs a roughly half the size atom of Helium.

Just because helium has more nuclei does not mean it is a larger atom. The size of an atom depends solely on its electron shell(s).


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By docawolff on 12/14/2009 11:30:29 AM , Rating: 4
Please understand, when you compare hydrogen to coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, or nuclear energy sources, you are comparing apples to oranges. Hydrogen is not a primary energy source. It is an energy storage solution. You can not (on earth) go out and drill a well for hydrogen like you can for natural gas or oil. You have to produce hydrogen from some other energy source. Natural gas is a great primary energy source. However, every pound of natural gas puts out a minimum of 2.75 pounds of CO2 when burned. Using an internal combustion engine to power transportation is, shall we say, less than totally efficient? Hydrogen, when used in a fuel cell, allows much more efficient conversion of its chemical energy to motion because electric motors are much more efficient than IC engines.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By pityme on 12/14/2009 11:42:56 AM , Rating: 2
You also need to realize you are comparing apples to oranges when you compare an electric motor to a gasoline engine. Realize that the electric motor needs a Primary energy source (gasoline to electric, fuel cell to electric, solar to electric, etc) to get the energy to do the work. A gasoline engine uses a primary energy source (gasoline, natural gas, french fry oil, etc) and directly converts that to useful work. So the efficiency of an electric motor must include the efficiency of the primary energy source to do work. Remember, work is energy per unit time and this is unit which allows the car to propel down the highway not to potentially propel down the highway which is energy. I dare you to compare the total efficiency of a solar electric car to a gasoline engine car much less a natural gas optimized car. And if your next thought is pollution etc, remember that most of our electric energy is generated by coal.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Motamid on 12/14/2009 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Very true. This is a concept I think many people fail to realize. This breakthrough is quite exciting from the standpoint of energy storage. Think of it as a huge breakthrough in battery storage, however there are benefits that the hydrogen/fuel cell system offers over batteries.

Fuels like Hydrogen and gasoline can be replenished at a fueling station, whereas most battery technologies require recharging over a long period of time. In faster charging technologies, the total energy density of the battery system is usually lower. This brings up another benefit of hydrogen energy storage - higher energy density. And with a breakthrough like this, the benefit of energy density and safety are even greater.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By apcguru on 12/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Suntan on 12/14/2009 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only energy source that will not become substantially more expensive in the coming decade is the renewable resources since their fuel - the sun/wind/waves - are free.


I do not see this as reality.

Instead I will offer you the reality I do see. Sun/Wind/Waves will continue to gain artificial traction in the market by directly sucking off of the government subsidy tit.

At some point, after many, many millions of tax dollars are spent trying in vane to make them competitive, they will start to lose their darling luster as groups from Greenpeace (to whatever other wacko faction) continue to become more and more belligerent about how one way or another, they aren’t green enough, or they endanger this or that creature. (Don’t believe it? Name any technology or even any individual plant/location/startup of green tech and I bet I can find a group that is ardently trying to get it stopped because it impacts the local ecology – Windfarms? Bird strikes, Wave farms? Disrupts the whales, Solar farms? Shades the desert turtle…)

At which point the existing infrastructure that is already in place will be on their own as the political tit swings over to start suckling the newest green “buzzword” technology that can get Senators facetime on the TV stations. However, those older plants, windfarms, etc. will need to come up with money to implement this or that new technology that makes them less impacting on the environment (and less hated by the enviros) this money will either come in the way of increased bills to the customers that are stuck with their service, or increased/new taxes at the local and state level. (As an example that has been ongoing for many years - How much money has been spent completely overhauling the country’s hydro electric plants to be more fish friendly now that it has been shown that the original impeller designs chop the living sh!t out of the fish as they swim through?)

Mark my words, there is no energy storage/conversion/transportation method possible that will ever be completely “enviro-approved” and it will certainly never be “free.”

-Suntan


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:25:22 AM , Rating: 2
Who listens to greenpeace?


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By roostitup on 12/14/2009 3:43:51 PM , Rating: 1
Supply, my friend, supply. Natural gas is limited just like oil while Hydrogen is limitless. The universe is FILLED with it and it is something we can make without worrying about it running out.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By JediJeb on 12/14/2009 5:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not limitless but very very abundant. Also if you think about it hydrogen is the only recyclable fuel. 2*H2O to 2*H2 and O2, then 2*H2 plus O2 back to 2*H2O. The problem is the initial step of breaking it down, but if you put a Hydrogen Hydrolysis plant attached to a hydroelectric dam, then you have your water supply and the energy to produce it comes from the Earth itself when it fills the resevoir with rain. Or place your plant at sea and use wave energy to generate electricity to produce hydrogen. When the hydrogen is used it becomes water again and returns to the environment to be processed again.

We are not there yet, but it is possible if only we could get more research headed that way.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By MrPoletski on 12/17/2009 7:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
when you do electrolysis on water you produce H ions at the cathode and HO ions at the anode.


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By aqaq55 on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By Murloc on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: Hydrogen Fuel
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:19:55 PM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


lol....
By Iketh on 12/14/2009 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Could this affect global humidity and fuel super storms in the future?

Will walking down a street in NYC be a burden because you'll immediately sweat in the summer from the humidity?

Maybe the latter is more likely...




RE: lol....
By corduroygt on 12/14/2009 2:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Will walking down a street in NYC be a burden because you'll immediately sweat in the summer from the humidity?

That's already the case in NYC, and most of the Northeast up to Boston.


By FPP on 12/14/2009 6:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Is this another Battery from feathers thing or is this worth taking seriously?




By monkeyman1140 on 12/18/2009 10:20:23 AM , Rating: 1
The Oil industry fought regular battery electric cars because they know the technology is viable, and they "promised" a hydrogen/fuel cell infrastructure instead. While it sounds very Star Trek and cool, the industry knows that fuel cells will never be inexpensive, and hydrogen storage densities will not reach high enough levels to be practical.

As a result, to this very day a fuel cell car costs $1,000,000 and has a range of 70 miles, depending on weather conditions because its highly sensitive to temperature.




What about the AIR car?
By Belard on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki