Ethanol: Not coming to a pump near you photo: Courtesy of Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

Of course we know better, but the idea is so tempting that we fell for it anyway. The peak in oil production, whether it happens tomorrow or in 20 years, will bring us back to earth, quite literally. There are persistent notions that all we need to do is find an energy source to replace oil and life will go on as usual. But if we had such a source, one as cheap and versatile and abundant as oil, we would be using it today. A list of problems with so-called alternatives makes painfully clear how far we will go to meet our energy hunger, and to what extent we are willing to saddle our children with the consequences.

Natural gas

A "sister product" of oil, natural gas is seen by many as a substitute for oil. But it will peak worldwide soon after oil does, and already has in North America. There are multi-billion-dollar plans to build tankers and terminals for importing LNG (frozen, liquefied gas), but it's by no means a long-term solution. And no one wants those floating bombs in their backyard (BANANAism: "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything").

Nuclear power

Even many "greens" these days speak out in favour of building nuclear reactors, a "clean" energy source. Worldwide, there are plans for dozens more reactors. But there is no adequate way to deal with nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for 100,000 years. The available uranium, plutonium and thorium is very limited. These limits could, on paper, be overcome with "breeder" reactors, which presume to make their own fuel, but so far they have been a miserable failure. Studies suggest that the U.S. nuclear industry has cost more in money and energy than it has produced. And then there's Chernobyl, Three Mile Island...

Coal

There is a lot of coal left in the world. But the levels of mercury and CO2 produced by burning coal make it about as amoral as nuclear power. If we were to substantially increase energy production from coal, the planet would warm up so much we wouldn't need indoor heating any more. The carefully introduced term "clean coal" will fool many, but there is nothing clean about strip mining and mountaintop removal. China plans to build approximately one coal-powered electricity plant every week for the next 15 years.

Tar sands and oil shale

There are several forms of "unconventional" oil. One hundred billion dollars has been invested in the Alberta tar sands alone. Labelled as the "most destructive process known to mankind," the industry is based on economic distortions: the producers pay for neither the insane amounts of fresh water they use, nor the mind-boggling environmental mayhem they cause. Even then, the output will remain marginal at four million barrels per day, even in 15 years when world oil demand will be 100 million. Oh, and the process uses more energy, as natural gas, than it produces in oil. Oil analyst Matt Simmons calls it "making gold into lead." Well, Matt, Canada has bet its economic future on that lead.

Hydrogen

Is not a form of energy. Period. Sounds nice only as long as there's enough energy left to produce hydrogen. You need electricity to produce hydrogen (by hydrolysis), and then use the hydrogen in a fuel cell that produces electricity to run a car or heat a house. But that process loses up to 75 per cent of the initial energy. Peak Oil guru Jay Hanson: "Obviously, alternative energy technologies that require energy subsidies are only viable as long as we don't need them!"

Ethanol and other biofuels

Many scientists claim biofuels cost more energy to produce (transport, farm machinery, fertilizers, processing) than they deliver. Still, an example: A proposed ethanol plant near Montreal intends to produce 120 million litres of ethanol per year. That's a lot, right? Well... Canada uses 127 billion litres of oil per year, over 1,000 times the production of the plant. And the energy value of ethanol is lower than that of oil, so you need even more. To supply the U.S. with enough ethanol to replace oil consumption, an area the size of Texas would need to be farmed, or 70 per cent of all currently available farmland in the U.S. Without generous subsidies, which make ethanol a fast-growing money maker for the farm industry, there would not be any significant production.

Wind and solar

The best options for last. Alas, both wind and solar power will forever remain marginal compared to today's oil industry.

But yes, do get a small windmill and solar panel on your rooftop. Get one now, while the rest of mankind is still asleep and dreaming of unlimited oil.

 
 

		Write your comment on this article!

Article too gloomy and lacks balance     Hydrogen is a viable and clean source of fuel that promises to make off-grid living a near-distant reality. Yes, you do need electricity to ignite the power of a fuel cell. But by leaving the best to last, when mentioning wind and solar power, you failed to mention that these two types of power generate the electricity to produce the power harnessed in the fuel cell. First, you buy photovolcaic sun panels for your roof and a smaller version of Axor's windmill. Then you buy a hydrogen refuelling station first built in 2000 by Canadian Stuart Energy, a company later absorbed by another Candain company, Hydrogenics, back in 2004...anyway, what I am trying to say is that, as a journalist, you have to provide balance by exploring the possibilities as well as the doomsday control of the traditional energy sectors. This is what the establishment wants you to believe...they want to fear monger because they want control of your dollar. Hydro claims that they need endless annual(actually tri-annual) increases to offset their expenses. But the reality is that they have never failed to make a profit either domestically or abroad. Also the area of bio-fuel has to be exploered more in-depth. For instance, the use of canola oil and spent cooking oils to fuel some of our city's buses is ongoing...thanks to division of Montreal-based Maple Leaf foods. The possibilities of this topic are not only beyond the theorectical but Canada, including Quebec, are on the cutting edge. Burnaby-based Ballard and Ford got together back in 2005 to put together a fleet of hydrogen-fuelled cars. The same company that has exported Hydrogen fuel cells for bus fleets throughout western Europe. Yes, oil will run out some day. But when that day happens Canada will be ready.
Heather Lee	{13 votes}	May 23rd, 2006
Misinformation     No offense to Roel Meijer, but I study Mechanical Engineering and power production and there is some painful misconceptions about energy production that most people accept as truths. Nuclear Power-> Nuclear power is a 100 year solution. Most plants in the US produce a lot of nuclear waste because they didn't build a nuclear recycling station. That's right 99% of nuclear waste is recyclable. Look at France, it's totally nuclear powered. It also produces little smog and the chances of a meltdown are minimal are usually caused by human error. If you read up on it, meltdowns were caused by Homer Simpsonesque stupidity. Still 1% is not recyclable so... 100 year solution. Wind power-> Is highly inefficient in terms of energy production. 40% of the energy is lost to turn the windmill, and of the 60% remaining maybe 33% becomes useful energy. That's why you need a LARGE amount of windmills to create enough power to power anything. One windmill on a building will do nothing. Solar power-> Until we learn to convert more than 11% of the suns power to energy it will have the same problems as Windmills... That and you need the sun all the time. Though at the moment these babies on a building CAN power the lights 24/7, it's just a little... expensive to make the panels. Other energy sources that were neglected in the article but might help our cause: Tide power-> This is a Canadian Project! The bay of Fundy has huge waves that can turn turbines and create electricity. Geothermal Power-> The earth actually has a heated core, some engineers have developed plants to harness this, but it's very expensive to drill into the earth. Cold Fusion-> The ultimate power source, fusing to molecules together instead of breaking them apart (want current nuclear plants do). Too bad it only works at absolute 0. However we've been working on it to increase that temperature, if we only had missile shield money to fund it...
Alexander Yu	{35 votes}	May 20th, 2006
Electric cars - part of the problem     While I don't agree with everything Roel says, I think the overall thesis is correct and very important for people to learn - oil has been a huge SOURCE of energy which no replacement can meet. As far as electric cars, where does the electricity to charge the batteries come from? Currently, most electrical supply - at least in North America - is stretched pretty well to the max, and this is with using natural gas and oil for some generation capacity. I have done the calculations, and even a moderate commute by car takes about 3 times as much energy as most households use for all other electric needs. So if everyone was to magically have an electric car tomorrow, we would need FOUR TIMES the current electricity supply. It is not physically possible for so many reasons. I do agree with Charles about riding bikes. I live close to the centre of Toronto, and most of the time ride my bike or take our (undersized) subway. I take the subway and a commuter train to visit a client about 80 km away. It takes 2 hours as opposed to one, but I can accomplish useful work or reading, and it is much more relaxing. One major problem of the "culture" part of car culture is that people only think about how long it takes to arrive, and not whether other useful things can be accomplished on the trip. Anyway, let's both keep riding our bikes! www.EnergyPredicament.com
Randy Park	{33 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Alternative Energy     Unfortunately, the above analysis of alternative fuels is largely correct. No solar power derivative, including wind, biofuels, hydro, and solar, can possibly replace oil, coal, and natural gas. Fission is also a poor option. Given the drawbacks of these technologies, it is important to consider other possibilities. In particular, cold fusion deserves special attention. Although many scientists have been highly critical of this technology, there is new evidence that the phenomenon may be real. Check out the article on cold fusion at wikipedia.org. There's some excellent information on the subject. If this technology can indeed be developed, it is the only one that has the potential to make up the shortfall created by oil, and therefore merits some serious attention.
Ben Earle	{9 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Life can go on: just differently. Resistance to change is a problem     Sure, electricity is a great option - here. Most of North America burns natural gas (!!) or coal (!!) to get their electricity. Abundant hydro-electric power is our particular blessing. But then why, oh why do we not have any electric transportation apart from the metro and a single commuter train line? This should be the city of electric trams, electric trolleybuses, electric street-sweepers, electric mini-van shuttles, electric cars on a big scale. This city should be the centre of a regional electric high-speed train network (towards Toronto, Ottawa, Québec, Boston, New York). If oil prices continue on their way upward, maybe it'll be enough incentive to finally overcome the inertia and opposition against such projects. The end of cheap, abundant petroleum can be an occasion for lifestyle changes such as living close to work, riding a bike, driving less or not at all, taking transit, eating locally produced food, avoiding plastic waste... all things that are not so hard and can easily improve quality of life. The big problems come from the huge investment in petroleum-dependent infrastructure, especially in transport, housing, and agriculture. (And electrical power generation, outside Québec.) Individuals making wiser choices can help up to a point, but we also need to make collective changes in big systems. And there is huge resistance to changing anything, as long as suburban sprawl, highway building, car manufacturing, industrial agriculture, etc., etc. continue to make profits on paper.
Justin Bur	{6 votes}	May 18th, 2006
About your comments on hydrogen     A good amount of electricity is needed for electrolysis (I see you called it hydrolysis), true. However, other (more efficient) methods of extracting hydrogen exist in research and in reality. There are organic methods of mass hydrogen production (strains of algae) as well as some ceramic filter alternatives. The US DOE has some patents on such technologies. Also, I'm not sure what part of the process you are talking about that is only 25% efficient. Electrolysis is efficient, but then you need to generate the electricity as well. That electricity needed can and should be provided through alternative energy sources like wind, hydro and solar. Strides are being made daily in hydrogen energy. Please don't be so quick to dismiss it. Your point is taken that alternative energy today is not ubiquitous. It will be some day. But this kind of progress takes time. I like to look at the challenge as a challenge, not an obstacle.
Jeff Handy	{4 votes}	May 18th, 2006
Uh, what about electricity -- and good ol' human muscles?     Seems to me that, in its effort to support its negative thesis, this article overlooks the energies that are most likely to replace oil (and have *already* done so in many instances). Battery-powered cars exist, and as demand grows, even hybrids will eventually become less oil dependent. Sure, at this point in time, electric cars may not perform wonders on the open road, but they certainly do the job that most people need them to do, i.e. transportation within the city. And within that context, switching to a bike is even more efficient, not to mention cheap, unobtrusive and universally available, right here, right now. If you complain about gas prices yet live within muscle range of your workplace, what the hell are you waiting for?
Charles Montpetit	{4 votes}	May 18th, 2006
All a question of numbers     Alternatives can support 500-900 million people on the planet. Organically grown food... pollution free energy sources. Hydrogen cars and electricity free. We're too crowded though... 6.5 billion. Someone will have to die off. Remember the depressing reality of our universe? The 3 laws of thermodynamics: You can't win, you can't get even... and you can't get out of the game. That's why people have fantasies to let them forget the inevitability of the most basic physical reality, fantasies which include thinking we can do away with oil and not suffer from it.
Marc Ridel	{1 vote}	May 27th, 2006
Nuclear power potential is vast     Going on raw data, it takes 100 tons of uranium per year to fuel a 1GW electric plant. (About 2.5 GW thermal) and we can recover uranium up to 20ppm on an energy return basis from light water reactors with current technology. Based on the ore quantities that exist above 50ppm (to be conservative) from phosphates and other soft ores, that leaves us with a mere 25000 years for 10000 1GW plants, enough to supply all the worlds current energy needs. The notion however that breeder reactors are a 'miserable failure' is nonsense. They have been a financial failure because uranium, as indicated, is so amazingly cheap that its hardly worth the effort, even with waste disposal costs being higher, to invest in alternative reactor techologies. But alternative reactor techologies that can supplant light water reactors do exist, particularly the molten salt breeder reactor, which can run on uranium or thorium, and has been demonstrated for years at a time. When thorium and depleted ores are considered, nuclear powers production potential runs into the hundreds of millions of years. I'm sure we'll figure out nuclear fusion sometime between now and then. Finally the issue of nuclear waste: Nuclear is the only energy industry that fully internalizes all of its waste, and its total volume is tiny. If we wished, we could intern all of our nuclear waste in dry storage casks in the desert for the next several hundred years, and really thats all we need to consider it for, because in a century or less I'm positive that we'll be reclaiming spent fuel to fuel future reactors.
Dez Akin	{1 vote}	May 23rd, 2006
Running Out of Options!     This is all pretty demoralising - there seems to be a distinct lack of alternatives available in the face of our continuing depletion of global oil reserves. There are far too many options that effectively require more energy to implement and maintain than they could ever potentially generate, while others would decimate the environment. Either way, these more dire options are by no means even sustainable in the long-term leaving us with wind and solar power as our best possible choices but how truly viable and practical are they? Don't leave us dangling Mr. Meijer - the prospect of erecting huge windmills seems at best a fool's errand of Quixotic proportions...and as for solar power, well, what happens in the dead of winter when we have precious little daylight?
Mark St Pierre	{2 votes}	May 20th, 2006
Our life style should change     There is no alternative for oil. None. We cannot rely on technological ability because even our techno-ablity depends on oil. No oil - no technology. When oil will be too expensive no car will be produced hybrid or no-hybrid, no power station will be build gas, coal, or nuclear. The only way to get out of this hole is to stop digging. Our life style should change and dramatically. We should stop this decadence of intelligence.
Boris Gelfand	{5 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Oil Energy Survival     Alternative choices are always there but for the most part we are still sticking to the oil even though we have been warned of a limiot in reserves even though countries have invested thousands of dollars. That won't keep me from thinking idealistic that some day I will afford a sun panel for the house I currently don't have and is now being heating with oil. And so much of that oil heat is then thrown out to the street because of insufficient insulation against heat loss! Electric cars can now have lighter bodies but they have their mileage limits, hydrogen energy use is impractical from a cost point of view. Tar sands are not the answer globally in the long run especially as the world population mounts even though this source served as a windfall for Alberta. Still auto industries thrive and will probably continue to do so and lobby governments to keep oil refining from becoming obsolete. I am told that bio fuel is the answer. Oil magnates should move their minds onto the use of ethanol and fermentable products that could be used as an alternative energy source. That oil energy will still dominate headlines on energy sources at the end of this century remains to be seen.
Martin Dansky	{7 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Uh, how do you think electricity is generated -- with good old human muscle?     Electricity is generated when a conductor is passed through a magnetic field. This is typically done by rotating coils of copper wires around a magnet. It is not a source of energy; energy is required to turn the coil. What do we use for this? Coal, oil, or natural gas burners or nuclear reactors are used to generate heat to drive a steam turbine. I suppose you could go and volunteer to turn a crank to run the turbine, but I think you might need some help.
Lonnie Brown	{1 vote}	May 19th, 2006
Aetheric Power     A limitless, non-polluting energy source has already been discovered, but suppressed by the greed of man. An infinite amount of energy permeates the cosmos, called the Aether. Many devices have been built to harness this infinite source of energy, and have even been patented, but have never seen the light of day due to human greed. Even Nikola Tesla developed a free energy device. I suggest Roel Meijer and anyone else interested in the Aether read: The Free Energy Device Handbook by David Hatcher Childress Free Energy Pioneer: John Worrell Keely by Theo Paijmans Tapping The Zero-point Energy: Free Energy In Today's Physics by Moray B. King The Final Secret of Free Energy by T. E. Bearden Free Energy Devices Miracle in the Void: Free Energy, UFO's & Other Scientific Revelations by Brian O'Leary The Coming Energy Revolution: The Search for Free Energy by Jeane Manning Angels Don't Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology by Nick Begich and Jeane Manning The Scientist, The Madman, The Thief and Their Lightbulb: The Search For Free Energy by Keith Tutt Bedini's Free Energy Generator Free Energy Surprise by Wm. R. Lyne Nikola Tesla:Free Energy & the White Dove by Commander X Quest for Zero Point Energy: Engineering Principles of Free Energy by Moray B. King The Tesla Papers by Nikola Tesla Fantastic Inventions of Nikola Tesla by Nikola Tesla
Chris Morris	{2 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Negative Thesis or Portrait of Reality     At first take, the article paints a dismal picture of the alternatives to cheap oil. As you think about it in greater depth and in the potnetial context of the future, the dismal options reflect reality. Based upon the Hirsch Report, wide scale meaningful implemenation of alternatives will require 10 to 15 years. If we are at Peak Oil now, we are already too late. One should not just envision fuel shortages and higher gas prices and people searching for alterantives. The reality is that we are poised for an economic collapse of unprecedented scale. It is difficult to imagine the we will be able to simultaneously implement Manhattan Project scale efforts in the midst of a total economic and infrastructure melt down. Imagine a world where there is no access to oil. With no oil we will loose wide scale electricity. There will be some places with power, but large areas reverting to the dark ages. No Oil, No Electricity? No Food, no clean water, no ATMs, no access to Cash. Living in cities and suburbs will become a challenge just to stay alive. Believing that these Alternative fuel sources will allow us to live in the future as we are living now is probably not realistic, no matter how dismal that may appear.
Chris Wood	{6 votes}	May 19th, 2006
The system is the problem     I'd like to point out to Mr. Charles Montpetit that all those cars and batteries require industrialized production which is based mainly on oil and gas. You're doing what most people are likely to do, and think of the products of the system, not the system itself. We have a system, both technically and economic which is based on cheap energy. As long as we keep trying to change the products of the system, not the system itself, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of all the lost civilizations who came before us. If you're sitting in an office like me, you will notice that all the things in it are either made from oil, using oil in the production or for transport. If you look in your refridgerator, all the food there is basically subsidized with oil, at least 10calories of oil for every calorie of food. We must start thinking about what sort of impact a lower hydrocarbon production will have on our world. This is something which will happen whether we believe it or not. Please take the time to read more about this, and not just the rosy picture the politicians or economists paint. They're looking maximum three years down the road, and planning accordingly. We need to start looking further and we need to do it yesterday.
Rune Karlsen	{3 votes}	May 19th, 2006
Bleak Picture For Our Survival.............     Roel, unfortunately, you paint a very bleak picture of the world and the future of our generational "potential" to find a solution for how we will stave off another "Ice Age". While, scientists hopefully are still conducting research on another alternative to oil, ultimately, many of the options you have presented have serious limitations or do not meet the hungry needs of the global village. I appreciate your undying honesty in your analysis. How have we become so thirsty for oil? How has our consumption rate increased exponentially over the past 100 years? How did we not see this coming and, plan for the future of our survival? This can't be so depressing, can it? Ethanol was painted as the Canadian plan for the automotive industry. There's lots of corn kicking around. But we are huge consumers and need to find replacement sources of energy for oil. Ethanol may not meet our thirst. Perhaps the solution lay somewhere out in the stratosphere, on another planet, short on inhabitants and rich in minerals and natural resources. Perhaps, the way of the future will be an intergallactic pipeline, where energy from outer space will continue to ensure our existence? We have little to be proud of though, using up resources like they are endless and putting the chance of survival of future generations on hold as we get another nice tan on the beach, lathered up with oil-based sun protection.
Steve Landry	{5 votes}	May 18th, 2006
The future ... is near!     We have this feeling that the future is something that is so far of us, and in this article I truly came back to the present to realize how absurd we are. We've been wasting the precious natural "gold" or "diamonds" as you prefer on ours day-to-day lives, and everything is sooo nice, isn't? I am concerned (as a young adult) in the consequences of this unlimited consumerism by all the human beings in the world; I am concerned in what type of world is going to be the heritage of our future generations. I am just concerned, but what I've been doing to change that? Well, not much! This whole discussion brings me to want to take any action, plant a tree, write a book and join a Non-Governmental Organization. Go Greenpeace! Let's be conscious. and let's walk more instead of using cars; let's organize more rides, instead of using a lot of cars; let's do whatever is on our power to change whatever we have chance to change and just believe that by our examples, people can be inspired!
Raquel Cavalcante	{1 vote}	May 18th, 2006
Biofuel is the answer.     Sir, I would like to address your comments re: ethanol and other biofuels. First, there is only 1 study that says ethanol has a negative EROEI and that study was done by an entomologist using farm efficiency data from the 80's. This study is contradicted by Agriculture Canada, US Dept. of Energy, USDA and countless other experts. Furthermore, the subject of these studies was corn ethanol produced via fermentation and as I'm sure you are aware, sugar cane ethanol, beet root ethanol and of course cellulosic ethanol have much, much greater EROEI. Second, ethanol and biofuels need only to bridge the gap of peak decline not replace all the oil used in modern transportation while increased conservation will yield greater amounts of oil than any discovery we could possibly find in the world. Third, my company's patented technology has the potential to convert millions of tons of renewable and waste feedstocks into billions of liters of ethanol, methanol and higher order bio-alcohols each year. Feel free to learn more about us at www.syntecbiofuel.com
Jeff Eltom	{1 vote}	May 18th, 2006
Beats Economic Collapse     Peak oil is THE problem of this generation... until it is solved all other issues are back burner. That said, time to get to work and roll up our sleaves and get to work. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/2/523 Ethanol synthesis by "Bluegreen Algae", dig a pit, add water and Dr. Coleman's little bug and wait, needs to be distilled, but biomass from both the bacteria itself, quick grow plants with a high resin content ( Hemp) pellitized and solar distillation and you have an highly energy efficient fuel source. Time to stop whining and start working... put a tax on gas and feed the money back into renewable energy or keep giving the money to those who are soooo deserving the Saudi royals.... the alternative is wait until oil hits critical mass and destroys the 'consumer' economy... you have to keep buying like a shark needs to keep swimming... buy or you die. Time for a paradigm shift.... we NEED to learn to do more with less or get ready for the resource wars and social collapse... your call.
Glenn Wilson	{2 votes}	May 18th, 2006
Aetheric Power and a New Way of Looking at Things     I would have to agree with Chris Morris about the Aether and the books written by William Lyne. Walter Russell showed in about 1927 in Westenhouse labs that he could change the gases given off from boiling water to mainly Hydrogen and then to mainly Nitrogen? Then there is the Joe Cell from Australia, Atomic Hydrogen is made in this cell and as William Lyne has pointed out this form has a lot higher out put than normal hydrogen?
John Kent		July 17th, 2006
Electricity does not grow on trees.....     I agree with Mr. Montpetit, that bicycles are efficient (and healthy) forms of transportation.... but even they require energy to produce. He has not followed the 'trail' of electricity either...... I believe he has missed the big picture..... our entire way of life is based on the black stuff.... you will find it at the bottom of everything we consume....
Deborah Crawford		May 19th, 2006
Own the World - Here's How...     So long as we believe alternative energy resources are like "tuning gold into lead" then change won't come - unitl it's way too late, of course. Let's get used to the idea that peak oil production WILL happen - regardless of when we admit it. It would only make sence to have alternative energy sources developed and comercially viable before we reach peak. You know we can do it. Consider: railroads, telegraph, radio and telecommunications, aviation and space, information - and now, engery. You know we can do it! Come on, all you Democans and Replublicrats with your Profitocracy, whoever owns this new tech will own the world's huevos, no? Oil? - just get over it! Hydrocarbons are so Twentieth Century, anyway. Who's going to beat us to it, hhhm? Wake up! What are you waiting for?
J. MacIsaac		May 18th, 2006
Thorium     "But there is no adequate way to deal with nuclear waste, which can remain radioactive for 100,000 years." What about Thorium??
Ed Hines	{2 votes}	May 18th, 2006
Electric choice     The only choice right now other the gas or hybrids cars are electric cars. The main problem with electric cars is that you cannot travel that far in them. Right now it would cost about the same to recharge an electric car as fill up a normal car.
Andrew Bremner		May 18th, 2006

Write your comment! please follow these guidelines

Information requested in blue will remain confidential   [privacy policy] Please indicate your real first and last names.

First name :

Last name :

Your email :

Confirm your email :

Title of your comment (max. 150 characters)   Your comment (max. 2000 characters)  characters remaining       LIMIT PER PERSON : one comment per article per member. Thank you. Your comment will be read by our approval team and, if it is approved, will be posted on the website within 24 hours. It could also be published, along with your name, in the printed version of Hour magazine and on any of our partner websites. In order to present the highest quality of comments, Hour reserves the right to refuse certain submissions. Any plagiarism will entail the entire removal of the member’s profile. Hour is not responsible for the opinions expressed by the members.