Let

[Atreides]

Sounds cool. Mini wind-mills with blades that chop off anything that come within range. I bet people'd gtfo of the way so you can go faster too on your way to warp speed.

 

Hook me up Scotty.

Edited March 27, 2006 by Atreides

[thepixiesrock]

They would be mini turbines, not large ones that people would get out of the way for.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Would it not be easier just to attach a mast and sails to the roof of every car?

Edited March 27, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh

[Surreptishus]

How likely is it that oil companies are hampering research into alternative fuels or trying to monopolise it, so that they would own the patent for any viable alternative fuel technology?

[LoneWolf16]

Very likely.

[Atreides]

How likely is it that oil companies are hampering research into alternative fuels or trying to monopolise it, so that they would own the patent for any viable alternative fuel technology?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They'll hamper alternate sources, but not in the way you may expect. As long as they supply oil and it's cheaper than the alternative (unit for unit of energy) there won't be a strong shift to the new tech.

[LoneWolf16]

How likely is it that oil companies are hampering research into alternative fuels or trying to monopolise it, so that they would own the patent for any viable alternative fuel technology?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They'll hamper alternate sources, but not in the way you may expect. As long as they supply oil and it's cheaper than the alternative (unit for unit of energy) there won't be a strong shift to the new tech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes sense, from a business point of view, to spend readily available millions today on a future replacement for your current billion dollar industry. They know full well that they've got a finite product, so why not prepare for the future while still managing to completely erradicate every last source of oil on the face of the planet, which, for all we know, may be very important to our survival some time down the road?

Edited March 27, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Atreides]

I agree it makes sense to spend now on R&D. Spend lots now because it's obviously too late to spend on R&D once the sky falls. It makes economical sense to invest in R&D.

 

What I'm suggesting is that people won't actually make the major shift itself until it's economically reasonable to do so.

[astr0creep]

Would it not be easier just to attach a mast and sails to the roof of every car?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The uses for oil go beyond fuel for cars.

 

Rubber, clothing, cigarettes, etc. Rubber is an amazing product by the way, used in a great many things, not just tires and superballs.

 

The information I received in school some 10-15 years ago is that fossil fuel(such as oil) is not renewable in our lifetime. It is renewable over thousands of years, being a state of decomposition of dead things like people, animals and vegetation(you know, fossils...). With the amount we use and have been using in full force at least since the 1930s, isn't it possible we might run out soon?

 

Concerning cars: I think the electric engine is the best thing. A battery recharged with the energy from the turning wheels, like mini turbines.

Also of note are that the street buses used to be built with electric engines(some still are). Some people here in Quebec actually have patents for a fully electrical bus model that is still ready to be mass produced but every year car and oil companies, through lobbying and various tactics keep the project from seeing the light of day.

 

I don't think ethanol is the solution as it is still raping the environment and we will end up with the same problems in the long run.

 

Finally, North America gets most of its oil from Venezuela, the US also gets it from Saudi Arabia and Canada.

Europe and most notably China get their oil from Iraq(and other "smaller" sources). So controlling Iraq means controlling most of Europe and China's economy, much like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela control most of North America's economy.

 

I have no references, only what I've been casually reading and watching. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong or disillusionned.

[LoneWolf16]

I agree it makes sense to spend now on R&D.  Spend lots now because it's obviously too late to spend on R&D once the sky falls.  It makes economical sense to invest in R&D.

 

What I'm suggesting is that people won't actually make the major shift itself until it's economically reasonable to do so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well of course they won't. Which is why we're pretty much screwed until some major players in business swallow the fact that they're going to take a potentially massive hit to their early profits in order to achieve their current standard again further down the line with a new product.

 

Since the likelihood of that happening is so small at present, I recommend we all start praying...to anything.

[Atreides]

Well of course they won't. Which is why we're pretty much screwed until some major players in business swallow the fact that they're going to take a potentially massive hit to their early profits in order to achieve their current standard again further down the line with a new product.

 

Since the likelihood of that happening is so small at present, I recommend we all start praying...to anything. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which major players? The oil companies or companies in general?

 

It's an interesting question whether the major oil companies should be the one doing the research. They specialise in oil and they might not be the most efficient dudes to go into the alternate fuel business. Having said that, I could see them eventually developing an alternate fuel branch when/if they're convinced the time's right.

 

The thing is is that what's good for the country? There's a conflict of interest if the alternate fuel branch of say Shell collaborates with the main oil branch to maximise profits (say by delaying the release of new tech). Independent companies would probably avoid those questions, and if anything they might be pressed harder to compete with the oil companies.

 

Eventually it'll again come down to whether it makes financial sense to make the switch. With all the pain from seeing China (and soon India?) make everything for cheaper I don't think US companies will be eager to switch to tech that'll cost more - effectively giving the Chinese a bigger advantage.

 

The good that might come out of it is that the US might be a leader in alternate fuel research and infrastructure and when the crunch time does arrive the US will have the advantage of having most of the stuff online while the rest of the world plays catch up.

[LoneWolf16]

Which major players?  The oil companies or companies in general?

 

It's an interesting question whether the major oil companies should be the one doing the research.  They specialise in oil and they might not be the most efficient dudes to go into the alternate fuel business.  Having said that, I could see them eventually developing an alternate fuel branch when/if they're convinced the time's right. 

 

The thing is is that what's good for the country?  There's a conflict of interest if the alternate fuel branch of say Shell collaborates with the main oil branch to maximise profits (say by delaying the release of new tech).  Independent companies would probably avoid those questions, and if anything they might be pressed harder to compete with the oil companies.

 

Eventually it'll again come down to whether it makes financial sense to make the switch.  With all the pain from seeing China (and soon India?) make everything for cheaper I don't think US companies will be eager to switch to tech that'll cost more - effectively giving the Chinese a bigger advantage.

 

The good that might come out of it is that the US might be a leader in alternate fuel research and infrastructure and when the crunch time does arrive the US will have the advantage of having most of the stuff online while the rest of the world plays catch up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The oil companies. They've got the cash, the political backing, and a "needed" product.

 

Either of those three things by themselves would give a huge advantage to them in terms of their ability to draw consumers. All together, that makes for one hell of an economic juggernaut. The smaller companies have a mountain to climb, and at the top, a dragon to slay, if they're going to get their foot in the door far enough to keep it from slamming shut.

 

Random thought: NASCAR is pointless. How much fuel is that wasting every race?

[Atreides]

I think the oil companies would have the advantage and experience of having a solid distribution network - their gas stations and delivery etc. The thing that gets me is that the possible conflict of interest.

 

I'm not familiar on who's funding the research among academic circles and research companies. Probably the government largely?

[Blank]

Alternate Fuels? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE... before it matters to us, so why are we caring? Because of our children? Yeah, right, And Uwe Boll creates good movies.

[taks]

It makes sense, from a business point of view, to spend readily available millions today on a future replacement for your current billion dollar industry.

you assume it is only millions. trillions is a better assumption. after billions already spent on solar power, it is still too inefficient for general use. wind power has seen billions as well, and it is horribly inefficient. billions have been spent on making ethanol, yet it still cost 29% more fuel to make than the corn produces. still.

 

They know full well that they've got a finite product, so why not prepare for the future while still managing to completely erradicate every last source of oil on the face of the planet, which, for all we know, may be very important to our survival some time down the road? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given that you borked the very first assumption, i'd say the rest is suspect.

 

taks

[taks]

Concerning cars: I think the electric engine is the best thing. A battery recharged with the energy from the turning wheels, like mini turbines.

unfortunately, fossil fuels are the most widely used way to generate electricity... and if you think gasoline output is bad, take a look at a coal plant.

 

 

I don't think ethanol is the solution as it is still raping the environment and we will end up with the same problems in the long run.

the people pushing the ethanol, btw, are the ones that stand to gain from it. they don't care about the environment any more than anyone else... they just want the money.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

Concerning cars: I think the electric engine is the best thing. A battery recharged with the energy from the turning wheels, like mini turbines.

unfortunately, fossil fuels are the most widely used way to generate electricity... and if you think gasoline output is bad, take a look at a coal plant.

 

 

I don't think ethanol is the solution as it is still raping the environment and we will end up with the same problems in the long run.

the people pushing the ethanol, btw, are the ones that stand to gain from it. they don't care about the environment any more than anyone else... they just want the money.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with you on both replies.

 

We need to invent parts and systems that will compensate for not using fuel at all. The combustion engine needs to be put to sleep zwhat I'm saying. I obviously don't know how though. But that should be the goal of R&D imo.

 

Everyone only cares about money in these industries, wether it be oil, cars or R&D. It's always about money. The only way we can properly solve humanity's problems is by allowing some things to be done for free and providing the necessities of life for those who do them.

Or, eradicate money, like Star Trek. :D

[~Di]

Ethanol is at least renewable. Oil isn't. When it's gone, it's gone.

 

(Waits for the obligatory "there's enough oil in the planet for a hundred million years!" reply. :D )

[LoneWolf16]

It makes sense, from a business point of view, to spend readily available millions today on a future replacement for your current billion dollar industry.

you assume it is only millions. trillions is a better assumption. after billions already spent on solar power, it is still too inefficient for general use. wind power has seen billions as well, and it is horribly inefficient. billions have been spent on making ethanol, yet it still cost 29% more fuel to make than the corn produces. still.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alrighty, I assumed incorrectly. Was thinking more along the lines of what one would pay for a patent or something on a new concept, not the research that's already taken place.

 

They know full well that they've got a finite product, so why not prepare for the future while still managing to completely erradicate every last source of oil on the face of the planet, which, for all we know, may be very important to our survival some time down the road? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given that you borked the very first assumption, i'd say the rest is suspect.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? You're saying that they, meaning the oil companies, aren't looking into alternatives in order to maintain a tight grip on future fuel sources? If not, that's a bit short-sighted of them, don't you think? Eventually, and we're talking decades, not centuries, we'll run out of crude...so they lose their product...

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that they'd be right there to buy out any actual competition on the grounds that they need to protect both their current profits and may one day need the information or technology for future endeavors?

 

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about. The point was there, but I lost it by trying to sound intelligent and debate-like.

[astr0creep]

It makes sense, from a business point of view, to spend readily available millions today on a future replacement for your current billion dollar industry.

you assume it is only millions. trillions is a better assumption. after billions already spent on solar power, it is still too inefficient for general use. wind power has seen billions as well, and it is horribly inefficient. billions have been spent on making ethanol, yet it still cost 29% more fuel to make than the corn produces. still.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alrighty, I assumed incorrectly. Was thinking more along the lines of what one would pay for a patent or something on a new concept, not the research that's already taken place.

 

They know full well that they've got a finite product, so why not prepare for the future while still managing to completely erradicate every last source of oil on the face of the planet, which, for all we know, may be very important to our survival some time down the road? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given that you borked the very first assumption, i'd say the rest is suspect.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? You're saying that they, meaning the oil companies, aren't looking into alternatives in order to maintain a tight grip on future fuel sources? If not, that's a bit short-sighted of them, don't you think? Eventually, and we're talking decades, not centuries, we'll run out of crude...so they lose their product...

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that they'd be right there to buy out any actual competition on the grounds that they need to protect both their current profits and may one day need the information or technology for future endeavors?

 

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about. The point was there, but I lost it by trying to sound intelligent and debate-like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aren't they the only ones who really know how much crude is left? I would guess that when it runs out, they will sell everything to the highest bidder before the wells are dry, buy a country like Australia and retire, multi trillionnaires. They don'tcare about future generations, only theirs.

 

Meh.

Edited March 27, 2006 by astr0creep

[LoneWolf16]

Aren't they the only ones who really know how much crude is left? I would guess that when it runs out, they will sell everything to the highest bidder before the wells are dry, buy a country like Australia and retire, multi trillionnaires. They don'tcare about future generations, only theirs.

 

Meh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why have trillions when you can have zillions?

[taks]

Alrighty, I assumed incorrectly. Was thinking more along the lines of what one would pay for a patent or something on a new concept, not the research that's already taken place.

patents are actually pretty cheap (and equally meaningless anymore). $25k assuming you've done your homework. less if you're a "small business."

 

research, as you realized, is the key.

 

How so? You're saying that they, meaning the oil companies, aren't looking into alternatives in order to maintain a tight grip on future fuel sources? If not, that's a bit short-sighted of them, don't you think? Eventually, and we're talking decades, not centuries, we'll run out of crude...so they lose their product...

uh, not so much what i was getting at. i think a better way to say is that they realize how much it is going to cost short term, and that even though the supplyis finite, it has a pretty long shelf life. if we stopped discovering new sources today, estimates range anywhere from 50 to 100 years or more. we keep finding more oil, however.

 

as a result, they see no need to spend the billions up front, but would rather wait it out, slowly developing alternative ideas.

 

Doesn't it stand to reason that they'd be right there to buy out any actual competition on the grounds that they need to protect both their current profits and may one day need the information or technology for future endeavors?

yes and no. it actually stands to better reason that they'd rather be the ones inventing the new technology. sort of like dow chemical inventing the replacement for R-12 refridgerant.

 

I have no idea what I'm talking about. The point was there, but I lost it by trying to sound intelligent and debate-like. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe. there's good meat in what you said, don't worry about that. i'm not trying to be mean, just point you in the direction of what seems plausible from an ultimate capitalist viewpoint. and oil companies are ultimate capitalists.

 

taks

[Atreides]

Besides the conflict of interest (I'm not sure why you're so keen on oil companies being the ones that pioneer alternate energy sources) there's the question whether it makes business sense for them to go into new tech.

 

They know how to prospect, extract and distribute oil. That's what they do better than anyone else and that's where they get their advantage. There may not really have a relative advantage to others if it's planting corn on a large scale and extracting the ethanol because they hardly know anything about it.

 

From a shareholders point would they want the oil companies to diversify? The shareholders can drop some shares in the oil companies and invest in alternate fuel source companies if they want - doing the diversification themselves. It's been a relatively recent trend where shareholders prefer to diversify their own portfolios than have companies do it for them.

[taks]

Aren't they the only ones who really know how much crude is left? I would guess that when it runs out, they will sell everything to the highest bidder before the wells are dry, buy a country like Australia and retire, multi trillionnaires. They don'tcare about future generations, only theirs.

 

Meh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why have trillions when you can have zillions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, oil companies hire out their services. logging companies are the ones that know where and how much oil is left, and there is so much competition in that arena that there's no way they're keeping it secret. i.e. everyone knows about current reserves, it's the undiscovered stuff we don't know about. there's also the issue of deposits such as shale, which are just first becoming economically viable again.

 

taks

[astr0creep]

Aren't they the only ones who really know how much crude is left? I would guess that when it runs out, they will sell everything to the highest bidder before the wells are dry, buy a country like Australia and retire, multi trillionnaires. They don'tcare about future generations, only theirs.

 

Meh.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why have trillions when you can have zillions?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually, oil companies hire out their services. logging companies are the ones that know where and how much oil is left, and there is so much competition in that arena that there's no way they're keeping it secret. i.e. everyone knows about current reserves, it's the undiscovered stuff we don't know about. there's also the issue of deposits such as shale, which are just first becoming economically viable again.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well(pun intended) ok, that makes a lot of sense.