Saturday, October 25, 2025

Silent Running

I’m not certain about the attractions of electric cars, but the fact is – they are getting better every day. Now the Chinese are coming to Europe and usurping the leadership of Tesla (with all its disagreeable political baggage).

Still, in an accident, a fire, it’s not much good if the doors won’t open.

My father-in-law would tell of the demise of the steam-car a hundred years ago. They were slow to start, but evidently cheap to run. The regular petrol car manufacturers put out a series of adverts – ‘our cars never explode’ – giving one the impression that the Stanley Steamers often did.

Well sure, if you forget to loosen the steam-valve.

They had electric cars a century ago as well, we see them on the social media – top speed: 10kph. Just the thing for city use.

If I wasn’t so set in my ways (and had enough money) maybe I would buy an electric car. They charge up quickly now (the reason no one would buy a second-hand Tesla today is because of the progress in re-chargeable batteries), and I could run a long cable from the plug by my bed down into the orange-orchard below which doubles as the parking lot.

The European Commission wants to end new petrol and diesel cars by 2035, leaving us with zero-emission vehicles, which will be fast and efficient and no doubt feature a special knob to pull when they catch fire and the doors won’t open. Driverless cars too.

Not all of the car manufacturers are pleased. They talk of ‘stubbornly sluggish consumer demand’. Put it another way: vroom vroom!

They are probably the ones who put out those stories on social media about the electric cars blowing up at the drop of a hat. Competition being a many-edged sword.

Luckily, and despite the occasional hiccup – somebody getting into the Jaguar and Range Rover company computer this summer, or Volkswagen and others making false claims about their emissions control – we still trust our automobile manufacturers, and ‘built-in obsolescence’ is now just a bad dream – or maybe not with that Lada that I once owned.

Then, along come the visionaries, who will save the world, clean up the environment, and annoy a lot of people involved in either pumping oil, making dirty cars and trucks, or even running a petrol station or an overpriced parking garage.

Burning fuel is bad for the environment, and ordinary gas-guzzlers cost more to repair at the mechanics (they have more bits to go wrong than an electric car), but what if the fuel was dirt common and had no emissions whatsoever?

I’m not talking here about a solar-powered vehicle, shut down on the motorway in the middle of a rainstorm.

Or a bicycle – handy as it is for short journeys.

Two inventors showed us the way forward many years ago. One was Stanley Meyer and his Water Powered Car which – he claimed – ran on tap-water and an electrolysis producing fuel-cell. There’s a red beach-buggy with ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ on the side, which was his.

We read, ‘…Then, on March 20, 1998, Meyer met with Belgian investors interested in his invention. Stanley Mayer didn't know it, but that would be his last meeting.

In the middle of dinner, a toast was proposed, after which Stanley quickly left the table, clutching his throat. He reached the parking lot and collapsed to the ground. His last words are said to have been: "They poisoned me"’. Poor chap. His car and papers disappeared too.

Wiki is uncharacteristically unkind: ‘The water fuel cell is a non-functional design for a "perpetual motion machine" created by Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 20, 1998). Meyer claimed that a car retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline…’

Another interesting inventor was a Spaniard called Arturo Estévez Varela, who, says the National Geographic, was ‘a modest inventor from Extremadura who, in the midst of Franco's Spain, was the protagonist of one of the most fascinating and at the same time conspiratorial stories of the time: Arturo claimed to have developed an engine capable of running solely on water…’

In front of some startled journalists, Arturo drank some water from a jug and then poured the rest of it – four litres of tap water – into the tank of his special 49cc motorcycle and took off for a journey of 900 kilometres. All very odd, and the Franco regime soon scuppered any more stories about the eccentric inventor – perhaps to appease the Americans. The motor, possibly, was tricked with a piece of boron: in other words, it wasn't a water engine, but a hydrogen engine generated using an expensive and non-renewable material.

Although he registered over a hundred patents, Arturo died in obscurity in Seville in the nineties.

As for me, I’m working on a system whereby my car runs for free, by putting a modest sign on the rear: ‘Give us a push, mate!  

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

The Two Per Cent Solution

Donald Trump took a swing at Spain last week, describing this country to (for some reason) the Finnish prime minister as being behind on its military spending. The American agency AP reports that Trump told Alexander Stubb in a meeting at the Oval Office that “You people are going to have to start speaking to Spain. You’re gonna have to call them and find out why they are a laggard. They have no excuse not to do this, but that’s all right. Maybe you should throw them out of Nato, frankly”.

In fact, Spain spends just 2% of its GDP on defence. The recommended level in these difficult times is 5%. The arms manufacturers would probably agree with this figure.

The leader of the Partido Popular Alberto Núñez Feijóo says he would raise the spending accordingly if the party were to win an election (the next one, all being well, is planned for 2027). He says: "The problem isn't Spain; the problem is Pedro Sánchez. Spain has always been a reliable and credible partner within Nato, and it will continue to be so".

This at the same time as lowering taxes for the wealthy and – inevitably – reducing spending in public health, wages and pensions.

Spain joined Nato (they call it the OTAN) back in May 1982. In those days, the people had been largely against joining (except that nobody had asked them) until Felipe Gonzalez agreed four years later to hold a referendum on the subject and then, surprisingly, performed an ideological flip and told his bemused supporters that ‘We must say ‘Yes’’ – apparently because he was worried that Morocco might have taken the opportunity to annex Melilla and Ceuta (with its current combined population of 160,000 souls).  

The question asked was "The Government considers it convenient, for national interests, for Spain to remain in the Atlantic Alliance, and agrees that such permanence be established in the following terms: (1) Non-incorporation into Nato's military structure; (2) Prohibition on the installation, storage or entry of nuclear weapons on Spanish territory; (3) Gradual reduction of the United States' military presence in Spain. Question: In your view, should Spain continue to be a member of the Atlantic Alliance subject to the terms agreed by the national Government?" Around 57% of those who understood the question answered with a resounding ‘’.

Membership of Nato is getting expensive and while 2% is a commendable figure (how does one say ‘I surrender’ in Russian?), 5% is certainly way over the limit. A Guardian article from June this year says ‘Spain rejects Nato plan for member states to spend 5% of GDP on defence. PM Pedro Sánchez says he wants a more flexible formula that would make the target optional or allow Madrid to opt out’.

In broad terms, the farther left one goes, the louder is the call to leave Nato. The Izquierda Unida, for example, says: ‘We encourage Trump to accelerate Spain's expulsion from Nato and the withdrawal of its two military bases’. That’s right, the US military bases in Morón de la Frontera (air-force base) and Rota (naval base), in the provinces of Seville and Cádiz respectively. Mind you, there’s always Gibraltar and the Lajes base in the Azores if needs must. The leftie Diario-Red wants another referendum on Nato, which would, with little doubt, achieve nothing. Vox on the other extreme says that Sánchez with his short-term savings is ‘seriously harming our national security’.

In the middle, we think 2% sounds about right and we hope that neither the USA or indeed the Russians will (violently) disagree with us.

How dangerous is the world in 2025? Ben Hodges, the former US Army chief in Europe: "We are naive if we believe war will never touch Spain", he says.

But what about a future Nato without the USA? It wouldn’t be good says the CNN: ‘Europe is staring down the barrel of a stark new reality where the United States being the backbone of Nato – the alliance that has guaranteed the continent’s security for almost 80 years – is no longer a given…’ it adds: ‘But Nato without the US is far from impotent, with more than a million troops and modern weaponry at its disposal from the 31 other countries in the alliance. It also has the wealth and technological knowhow to defend itself without the US, analysts say’.

Phew! You had me worried there for a moment.

Saturday, October 11, 2025

The Nobel Peace Prize (plus some also-rans)

Oddly, not everyone is happy with the choice from the five members of ‘den norske Nobelkomité’ for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. As you must already know, it went to the Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado "for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy".

She’s the current thorn in Nicolas Maduro’s hide. She’s popular, supported by many foreign powers as the energy behind Venezuela’s slightly ridiculous candidate for president, the doddery Edmundo González, and she lives in fear of being arrested by Maduro’s thugs.

The Magats and their leader Donald Trump are of course furious that the prize wasn’t awarded to humankind’s finest example – after all, he has resolved a dozen wars already.

On Friday, following the announcement, the White House blasted the Nobel Committee for not awarding the Peace Prize to Trump (says the BBC), noting that ‘…Trump has been outspoken about his desire for the award, taking credit for ending several global conflicts. He regularly brought it up, including during his address to the UN General Assembly in September’.

I think many of us would have blown a fuse if Donald Trump had of been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (even if it might balance the choice of Barack Obama back in 2009).

Even odder than Trump’s rage at being thus slighted, we also heard from Politico that ‘Donald Trump deserved the Nobel prize, says Vladimir Putin’ (Yikes!). ‘…The Russian president insisted that the Nobel committee has lost credibility’. 

Thanks for that mate, says Donald: ‘The US President expressed his gratitude to Putin for his recent public support for his Nobel Peace Prize bid’.

That’s right, you couldn’t make it up.

Indeed, here’s María on Friday (she knows on which side of her toast has the butter) on  accepting the honour: “I dedicate my Nobel Prize to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his decisive support of our cause!”. 

María Corina Machado may be a popular choice, but she is also something of a handful. A Vox video on YouTube has her speaking – via video-link – to a recent meeting of the Patriots for Europe in Madrid:

"Dear presidents, dear Santiago Abascal, leader of Vox and organizer of Europa Viva, dear friends of freedom. From Venezuela I want to send my warmest greetings to each one of you, our great friends from Vox and Patriots for Europe…”

Personally, I’ll take vanilla.

Some other candidates who lost out to María include Francesca Albanese, plus Elon Musk, Donald Trump and some other luminaries who haven’t made it onto my radar.

Two candidates missing from the official list were the magnificent Greta Thunberg and Spain’s Pedro Sánchez. Either one would have been a better choice.