Reply With Quote
Also in re seatbelts and airbags, a major problem was that the consumers weren't exactly exhibiting a strong desire for them.
You really think that if the technology existed for a non-polluting engine which ran on water, for example, and could be priced in the same range as the current gas based ones that it wouldn't happen? Given how the Big 3 have been sucking it up for well over a decade if they had something like that available to them there is no way they are going to sit on it.
What's the incentive for them to not bring it to market? Sure, commercializing the technology would require some incremental investment but it's not like they would have to totally recreate their entire manufacturing and distribution ops. They are losing market share as it is so the status quo isn't exactly that desirable.
As for the major E&P companies, I'm sure they are well aware of this as a distinct threat. Hence more motivation for them to develop their reserves and improve the efficiency of their operations.
If the major auto manufacturers resisted then you can bet that someone else would raise the capital and get it started, given the potential market.
Hence the reason I feel that it is a bit of a major assumption to make that petroleum will still be used as a major energy source half a century from now. Especially with as many consumers becoming more 'concerned about the environment' over time.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 11-16-2004 at 02:28 PM.
Also in re seatbelts and airbags, a major problem was that the consumers weren't exactly exhibiting a strong desire for them.
IMHO, man will be the ultimate destroyer of the planet because of our disrespect for Mother Earth.
You prooved my damn point and the sad point is you don't realize it.
Alternative energy sources have never had the same kind of backing that oil based energy has. NEVER, and it's not even close. Why? Because the wind and the sun are not for sale.
Of course there wasn't demand for seatbelts, the general public buys what the corporations want them to buy.
Yes, all things being equal in a society where every citizen is informed about how every decision or purchase they make effects their world, there would be an outcry for cleaner and more efficent engines and alternative fuel sources.
But we don't live in that kind of information utopia and we never will. I don't think the soccer mom who drives an SUV that gets 12 miles to the gallon on a good day realizes that she places an undue burdon not only on the enviroment but also on our dependency of forgien oil.
While a taxes forcing more efficent engines and forcing people to conserve more and use mass transit whenever possible as well as car pooling would actually be a good thing in this country, you'll never see one pass becaue of numerous lobies. The unions would cry bloody murder, the auto makers and oil companies would do the same. Even if there were exemptions to save industries like the airlines and shipping from carrying the burden, they would also cry out.
If the government were to invest seriously in alternative energies, the lobbies would also raise .
Private investing? Where the is the money going to come from to compete with the Big 3 and the oil comapnies??? Godamn, I listend to the CEO rattle on and on about how they were at no risk from the electric car, and how they were going to take steps to make sure they were secure for years to come. These people don't give a flying about the consquences of their business, as long as they can show the stockholders they are making money.
Doesn't matter. Of course petroleum exploration and production is going to attract greater investment. There's a proven market and a proven technology for turning that petroleum into energy. Now with regards to "alternative energy" there is certainly a potential market, yet the problem is that the technology is not close at all to being commercialized. And don't act as though there isn't a significant amount of research currently underway into making that a reality.You prooved my damn point and the sad point is you don't realize it.
Alternative energy sources have never had the same kind of backing that oil based energy has. NEVER, and it's not even close. Why? Because the wind and the sun are not for sale.
This is the fatal flaw of your worldview. Corporations ultimately give the consumers what they want or someone else will come along and do it instead. I'm sure many a marketing VP would love to hear that all a company has to do is tell the consumers to buy their product.Of course there wasn't demand for seatbelts, the general public buys what the corporations want them to buy.
Also, if the Big 3 are so powerful why have they underperformed so badly over the last decade?
Oh, I think the public by and large understands that there is an environmental impact from using petroleum as such a major energy source.Yes, all things being equal in a society where every citizen is informed about how every decision or purchase they make effects their world, there would be an outcry for cleaner and more efficent engines and alternative fuel sources.
Oh, it's not hard to get those soccer moms concerned about the "environment". But the primary stumbling block is, again, the technology.But we don't live in that kind of information utopia and we never will. I don't think the soccer mom who drives an SUV that gets 12 miles to the gallon on a good day realizes that she places an undue burdon not only on the enviroment but also on our dependency of forgien oil.
Yeah, including the lobby of people who don't feel like spending $4 a gallon or whatever to get around.While a taxes forcing more efficent engines and forcing people to conserve more and use mass transit whenever possible as well as car pooling would actually be a good thing in this country, you'll never see one pass becaue of numerous lobies.
What about the general public? Why must we pay for your hysteria?The unions would cry bloody murder, the auto makers and oil companies would do the same. Even if there were exemptions to save industries like the airlines and shipping from carrying the burden, they would also cry out.
And yet it does.If the government were to invest seriously in alternative energies, the lobbies would also raise .
Where the did money come from to compete with IBM, for example? How'd Amazon.com raise money to compete with the major entrenched retail bookstores? Why'd DVDs replace VHS? VCs are always looking for a technology which could capture a market. Size is significant but it isn't the be and end all. What ultimately matters is whether or not you have a product that sells. If the technology existed for a car to run on water and be priced compe ively then the money could be raised.Private investing? Where the is the money going to come from to compete with the Big 3 and the oil comapnies???
Sure, expensive to operate and bersome as well. If the technology existed which enabled someone to simply fill up a tank of water and then run much like the current combustion engine model that wouldn't be a problem at all.Godamn, I listend to the CEO rattle on and on about how they were at no risk from the electric car, and how they were going to take steps to make sure they were secure for years to come.
Yeah, I'm sure Ford and GM shareholders are some happy mofos right about now.These people don't give a flying about the consquences of their business, as long as they can show the stockholders they are making money.
Last edited by Marcus Bryant; 11-16-2004 at 03:33 PM.
Perhaps if more rode bikes we wouldn't be in this mess and we'd all be a lot thinner.
Here's a thought I haven't seen posited on this thread yet, and one that CIA experts on Osama have trumpeted time and again:
The sooner the US becomes self-reliant on energy matters, the sooner we can cut ties with the Mideast and not worry about our interests, and implicit in that withdrawal is that a lot of the beefs of the Muslim world towards us will go away.
But this requires too much thought for some of you probably so I'll dumb it down:
We don't need oil from the Mideast, a lot of our reason for being there goes away, we go away, Al Qaeda and a lot of their sympathizers go away.
OK, I get it, so the sooner we discourage oil companies from focusing on oil, and encourage them to focus on some other energy source, the sooner al-qaeda leaves us alone. I say DO IT!!
I don't know that I'd say it's all about removing the focus on oil, just a coupling of the drive for alternative fuel sources being balanced out by oil companies looking closer to home for their sources.
We are also aggressively working with Russia on the oil situation - they have several large deposits, as well as many more thought to be still out there, that would allow us to remove our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, and accordingly remove our heavy involvement/presence in the Mideast. I interviewed for a job with one of the Houston oil conglomerates in the spring about a job in Russia (I speak Russian), but had no interest in going from Texas to cold ass Russia.
If we remove our interest in the Middle East (dependance on oil), our reason for having a heavy presence in the Mideast will disappear. Think back to earlier this year when we removed forces from Germany, because the Russia threat (cold war) was no longer there.
Same thing with the Middle East - if we don't need their oil to heat our homes and power our vehicles, etc., we don't need to have a presence there to make sure said supply is not messed with.
I'm glad you understand where this is coming from. There's several very knowledgable folks near the top of our national security structure who have come to this conclusion, and Bush is quietly setting the wheels of change in motion on this.
Of course, you won't hear our admin. come out and say this is what we are doing, because if we did OPEC would promptly jack up prices to capitalize while they could. One day it will happen, and we will be able to breathe a little easier WRT the ideology Osama has brought to radical Islam.
What really matters is how much of an impact the ME has on the price of crude, not necessarily if the US relies on that region for its supply.
And if we don't need them for it, their control over price goes down a ing of a lot marcus.
AHF, I've said that before. If the national mpg average were 33 we'd be self ing reliant. Yet, there is still no support for a damn gas tax. These SUV's driving down the road with one ing person are costing us BILLIONS in overseas expenditures but everyone is too damn nearsighted to view it that way.
We'd have to patrol the whole middle east, well, NOT AT ALL. That's a HUGE amount of savings.
Of course, national mpg averages are actually FALLING due to the rush for big engines with little mileage.
of course also the 1.7 BILLION that was allocated to Hydrogen Fuel cell technology is never brought up.
Im sorry man, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to dirtier energy sources. Its like people acting all high and mighty about the funding that ALS gets, when it gets 25 Million out of the 52 billion that is spent on medical research. (sorry the example is a little out of left field, but it was on my mind). Also, I hear (history channel) that we are now looking to try nuclear power again. Why do we have to continually have regressive thinking. If we want to reduce our dependence on ME oil, why not think outside the box and try to reduce our dependence on OIL (there needs to be no adjective in front of OIL), rather than just finding another way to uphold the status quo.
They are trying to bring back nuclear to eliminate the need for heating oil in the north. My brother runs a nuke power plant up about 3 hours from Chicago. The talk is to increase nuclear power production, bury the power lines, and supply heating to all homes via electrical means.
I think the big thing holding back hydrogen is it's a volatile substance.
With all the money floating around out there for energy research though, something will shake out.
1.7 Billion over how many years Tpark?
It's nothing compared to how much money is spent on oil. Maybe thats why it's never brought up. It's an atempt to patronize the public into thinking there is an attempt to develop it at the pace it should be developed. People like you buy it.
If there was really technology which could displace petroleum as a source of energy today then it would be commercialized.
Your oil controls the world conspiracy theory simply because of the magnitude of the E&P industry is naive, at best.
It's not in the interest of the people who have much to gain by continuing to sell oil. So would it be?
Heh, Manny, it seems you and I have something in common. Both of us are left leaning moderates (although I must say I am not extremely moderate, but I guess relatively I am) it seems (I say this because we argue points in other forums but not to the point of lunacy), but this particular thread is where we really go much further left than any other subject.
So what does that matter? Compe ion is the name of the game kiddo. If the technology is there to mass produce a car that will run on water and be priced the same as current autos and cost in the same range to operate then it'd be a reality.
It doesn't matter how big the E&P industry is. Large industries have been displaced before.
VCs are looking for like this all the time. A technology which can create a new market and displace an old one. I don't know where you are getting these conspiratorial ideas but I would suggest you stop believing them.
You're right, the oil companies are just going to drift off into the sunset Marcus because the consumer will demand it.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outf...ma_375_01.html
Hydrogen's Dirty Secret
President Bush promises that fuel-cell cars will be free of pollution. But if he has his way, the cars of tomorrow will run on hydrogen made from fossil fuels.
By Barry C. Lynn
May/June 2003 Issue
E-mail article
Print article
New Energy Solutions Incorporated
American Solar Energy Society
The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Ins ute
E-mail the editor
When President Bush unveiled his plans for a hydrogen-powered car in his State of the Union address in January, he proposed $1.2 billion in spending to develop a revolutionary automobile that will be "pollution-free." The new vehicle, he declared, will rely on "a simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen" to power a car "producing only water, not exhaust fumes." Within 20 years, the president vowed, fuel-cell cars will "make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."
By launching an ambitious program to develop what he calls the "Freedom Car," Bush seemed determined to realize the kind of future that hydrogen-car supporters have envisioned for years. Using existing technology, hydrogen can be easily and cleanly extracted from water. Electricity generated by solar panels and wind turbines is used to split the water's hydrogen atoms from its oxygen atoms. The hydrogen is then recombined with oxygen in fuel cells, where it releases electrons that drive an electric motor in a car. What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked from water using nuclear energy.
Such a system, experts say, would effectively eliminate most of the benefits offered by hydrogen. Although the fuel-cell cars themselves may emit nothing but water vapor, the process of producing the fuel cells from hydrocarbons will continue America's dependence on fossil fuels and leave behind carbon dioxide, the primary cause of global warming.
Mike Nicklas, chair of the American Solar Energy Society, was one of 224 energy experts invited by the Department of Energy to develop the government's Roadmap last spring. The sessions, environmentalists quickly discovered, were dominated by representatives from the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. "All the emphasis was on how the process would benefit traditional energy industries," recalls Nicklas, who sat on a committee chaired by an executive from ChevronTexaco. "The whole meeting had been staged to get a particular result, which was a plan to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels and not from renewables." The plan does not call for a single ounce of hydrogen to come from power generated by the sun or the wind, concluding that such technologies "need further development for hydrogen production to be more cost compe ive."
But instead of investing in developing those sources, the budget that Bush submitted to Congress pays scant attention to renewable methods of producing hydrogen. More than half of all hydrogen funding is earmarked for automakers and the energy industry. Under the president's plan, more than $22 million of hydrogen research for 2004 will be devoted to coal, nuclear power, and natural gas, compared with $17 million for renewable sources. Overall funding for renewable research and energy conservation, meanwhile, will be slashed by more than $86 million. "Cutting R&D for renewable sources and replacing them with fossil and nuclear doesn't make for a sustainable approach," says Jason Mark, director of the clean vehicles program for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The oil and chemical industries already produce 9 million tons of hydrogen each year, most of it from natural gas, and transport it through hundreds of miles of pipelines to fuel the space shuttle and to remove sulfur from petroleum refineries. The administration's plan lays the groundwork to expand that infrastructure -- guaranteeing that oil and gas companies will profit from any transition to hydrogen. Lauren Segal, general manager of hydrogen development for BP, puts it succinctly: "We view hydrogen as a way to really grow our natural-gas business."
To protect its fuel franchise, the energy industry has moved swiftly in recent years to shape government policy toward hydrogen. In 1999, oil companies and automakers began attending the meetings of an obscure group called the National Hydrogen Association. Founded in 1989 by scientists from government labs and universities, the association was a haven for many of the small companies -- fuel-cell designers, electrolyzer makers -- that were dabbling in hydrogen power. The group promoted the use of hydrogen but was careful not to take any position on who would make the fuel or how.
All that changed once the energy industry got involved. "All of a sudden S joined our board, and then the interest grew very quickly," says Karen Miller, the association's vice president. "Our chair last year was from BP; this year our chair is from ChevronTexaco." The companies quickly began to use the association as a platform to lobby for more federal funding for research, and to push the government to emphasize fossil fuels in the national energy plan for hydrogen. Along with the big automakers, energy companies also formed a consortium called the International Hydrogen Infrastructure Group to monitor federal officials charged with developing fuel cells. "Basically," says Neil Rossmeissl, a hydrogen standards expert at the Department of Energy, "what they do is look over our shoulder at doe to make sure we are doing what they think is the right thing."
As hydrogen gained momentum, the oil companies rushed to buy up interests in technology companies developing ways to refine and store the new fuel. Texaco has invested $82 million in a firm called Energy Conversion Devices, and S now owns half of Hydrogen Source. BP, Chevron-Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, and General Electric have also locked up the services of many of America's top energy scientists, devoting more than $270 million to hydrogen research at MIT, Princeton, and Stanford.
Such funding will help ensure that oil and gas producers continue to profit even if automakers manage to put millions of fuel-cell cars on the road. "The major energy companies have several hundred billions of dollars, at the least, invested in their businesses, and there is a real interest in keeping and utilizing that infrastructure in the future," says Frank Ingriselli, former president of Texaco Technology Ventures. "And these companies certainly have the balance sheets and wherewithal to make it happen."
The stakes in the current battle over hydrogen are high. Devoting the bulk of federal research funding to making hydrogen from fossil fuels rather than water will enable oil and gas companies to provide lower-priced hydrogen. That, in turn, means that pipelines built to transport hydrogen will stretch to, say, a BP gas field in Canada, rather than an independent wind farm in North Dakota. Even if the rest of the world switches to hydrogen manufactured from water, says Nicklas, "Americans may end up dependent on fossil fuels for generations."
The administration's plans to manufacture hydrogen from fossil fuels could also contribute to global warming by leaving behind carbon dioxide. Oil and coal companies insist they will be able to "sequester" the carbon permanently by pumping it deep into the ocean or underground. But the doe calls such approaches "very high risk," and no one knows how much that would cost, how much other environmental disruption that might cause, or whether that would actually work. "Which path we take will have a huge effect one way or the other on the total amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere over the next century," says James MacKenzie, a physicist with the World Resources Ins ute.
Even if industry manages to safely contain the carbon left behind, the Bush administration's plan to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels will wind up wasting energy. John Heywood, director of MIT's Sloan Automotive Lab, says a system that extracts hydrogen from oil and natural gas and stores it in fuel cells would actually be no more energy efficient than America's present gasoline- based system.
"If the hydrogen does not come from renewable sources," Heywood says, "then it is simply not worth doing, environmentally or economically." What do you think?
So what's the problem? That is simply shocking. "Big Oil" is hedging their bets so if the technology pans out, they can move into the next industry. They are also providing capital for that fledgling technology.Such funding will help ensure that oil and gas producers continue to profit even if automakers manage to put millions of fuel-cell cars on the road.
Honestly, re-read the article. It pretty much runs counter to your argument.
The bottomline is that you don't need the government involved if the technology is there. The investment will come from other sources.
Alternative energy pathfinder: Who needs fossil fuel anyway?
By TERENCE CHEA - Associated Press Writer - 11/16/04
Amory Lovins drives a hybrid that gets 64 miles per gallon and lives in a solar-powered house that is so energy-efficient he's able to grow bananas in an indoor jungle high in the Colorado Rockies.
Yet the 54-year-old renewable energy evangelist, who emerged as one of the most influential energy thinkers three decades ago during the last oil crisis, is no anti-establishment foe of the free market.
The United States can end its dependence on foreign oil and make money along the way, he argued at a recent environmental conference in San Rafael, Calif., with the salesman-like flair of a Fortune 500 chief preaching to a hall of shareholders.
Crude prices have hit record highs this year as haggard U.S. soldiers daily meet death in the country with the world's second-largest oil reserves, casualties in an expensive war Lovins would argue it's folly to fight if - as some Bush administration critics charge - it's really all about fossil fuel.
''The United States can get completely off oil and revitalize its economy led by business for profit,'' says Lovins, who runs the Rocky Mountain Ins ute in Snowmass, Colo. ''Saving and subs uting for oil costs less than buying oil. Getting completely off oil makes sense and makes money.''
A new book by Lovins and his think-tank colleagues, ''Winning the Oil Endgame,'' offers a technology-driven blueprint to wean the country off petroleum within a few decades: first, double the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and airplanes; then replace gasoline with alternative fuels such as ethanol and hydrogen.
The transition to a post-petroleum future will generate jobs, create new industries, reduce greenhouse gases and improve national security, he says.
For now, automakers and energy firms need to adopt new business strategies, and lawmakers need to craft policies that promote this oil-free future. By Lovins' estimates, it will require an investment of $180 billion over 10 years.
-READ THIS TPARK : do you now see why 1.7 Billion is jack ?
That's less than the U.S. involvement in Iraq will end up costing, and Lovins says it will save $70 billion a year by 2025.
''Right now, the world supply-demand balance for oil is so terribly tight that any little thing just throws the market into a tizzy,'' Lovins said in a recent interview. ''We're not going to drill our way out of this one.''
Many experts agree that the country's oil dependency is unsustainable and encourages economic volatility, global warming and geopolitical instability. Automakers are already developing more fuel-efficient vehicles that run on hybrid-electric engines, clean diesel, biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells.
But Lovins says the auto industry won't move fast enough without the guiding hand of federal authorities. To fuel a quicker transition to alternative fuels, Lovins says the government should spend more on research into fuel efficient technology, advanced materials and alternative fuels.
To pay for such programs, Lovins proposes fees on gas-guzzling vehicles and the opposite - rebates - for fuel-efficient vehicles. In addition, low-income Americans would be assisted financially to buy or lease efficient vehicles.
Lovins' message doesn't sit well with the auto industry.
It's consumers, not think tanks, who determine whether more energy-efficient technologies will succeed commercially, said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
''Consumers are in the driver's seat,'' she said. ''Many consumers don't want to sacrifice performance, passenger room, cargo space, safety and even towing ability for greater fuel efficiency.''
Other obstacles also block the road to an oil-free future - hydrogen- and biofuel-powered vehicles are years away from becoming mainstream.Even though greater fuel efficeny is more beneficial to the country, consumers are short sighted as proved by industry spokespeople. This is why it is difficult to say that consumers will drive the market in the correct direction on their own.
Lovins acknowledges the challenges, but is convinced that good sense - along with environmental sustainability - are on his side.
He's certainly never been content to follow convention. Born in Washington, D.C., he studied physics at Harvard and Oxford universities, but dropped out of both to pursue his interest in energy policy.
''I realized that energy was at the root of many security, development and environment problems,'' says Lovins, who gained national attention in 1976 with his Foreign Affairs essay, ''Energy Strategy: The Road Not Taken.''
While most analysts were focused on how to secure more oil - what he calls the ''hard energy path'' - Lovins argued for the ''soft energy path'' of boosting fuel efficiency and developing alternative fuels.
Lovins has since authored more than two dozen books, founded the Rocky Mountain Ins ute in 1982 and advised governments and industries worldwide.
While other environmentalists argue about political approaches, Lovins crunches the numbers needed to win over business executives and policy-makers in Washington.
His plan in brief:
Oil consumption can be reduced by half by doubling fuel efficiency, mainly through ultralight vehicles with advanced materials such as carbon fiber that improve both safety and performance.
''We no longer have to choose between making cars light and safe,'' he says.
Meanwhile, the nation must transition to alternative fuels. Ethanol from corn is now sold in some Midwestern states but hasn't proven economical elsewhere. Lovins advocates making ethanol from plant waste, such as corn stalks, switchgrass and poplar trees.
Another alternative is hydrogen, often touted as the fuel of the future. Hydrogen fuel cells generate electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen without harmful emissions. Lovins wants to boost the efficiency of natural gas and use the saved energy to produce the hydrogen.
If his ideas were widely adopted, Lovins calculates that the country could stop importing oil by 2040 and run without oil by 2050.
Long before then, fuel efficient cars and alternative fuels could become new growth industries for urban and rural America.
''We're in that period where one idea is dying and another is struggling to be born,'' Lovins says.
On the Net:
Rocky Mountain Ins ute: http://www.rmi.org
I disagree because most people in the consumer base don't understand the benifit that these type of measures would have. The consumer base is short sighted, and I believe this is a case where government intervention is going to be needed.
IN TNEORY, the consumer base should be able to dictate it's needs and demands very well with it's purchase power. But, when the consumer base is not aware of what is in it's best interests it will make decisions that are not in line with those which would be most beneficial.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
