PDA

View Full Version : Alternate energy projects, killed off by the oil companies.


montys ex teaboy
14th Sep 2005, 22:13
Anyone got any idea how many alternate sources of fuel, have been killed, or bought, off by the oil companies.

We are all aware how low the tabacco industry will stoop to protect their interests. I suspect the oil industry has a lot to answer for also.

hemac
14th Sep 2005, 22:56
You mean like the ever lasting light bulb, the rights for which was bought by one of the major lighting manufacturers and hidden away safely out of harms way.

H.

Send Clowns
14th Sep 2005, 23:10
Has anyone any idea how many conspiracy theorists have been abducted by the US government (or is it the oil companies? Even better, Halliburton has connections with both!) to hide the fact that they are right?

Thinking straight, why is it in the interest of any company to hide new technology unless it means their market will shrink (the light bulb example)? The Energy market will not shrink with new sources, in fact it will grow. Anyone with new technology is certain to either increase market share or licence the product and so take profit from all users. They'd make a killing.

Sorry, no motive, no conspiracy.

eal401
15th Sep 2005, 07:03
The only thing you'd need to worry about with an increase in alternate fuels is where the Government would increase tax to cover losses from their fuel duty/VAT rakings.

montys ex teaboy
15th Sep 2005, 07:07
Not so send clowns

If some bright person was able to invent an engine to run on water (H2O, when broken down could power a rocket engine), or better still to get existing engines to run on water I can't see the oil companies being overjoyed at the prospect. Can you??

ORAC
15th Sep 2005, 07:23
Not sure about the oil companies, but Im sure God would be pissed off at the laws of thermodynamics being changed without his permission.....

SASless
15th Sep 2005, 08:20
Where does the energy come from to break down H2O into its component bits? When water becomes in short supply....then what do we do? If we go to using water....does New Orleans find itself above sea level again?

Oh...this is getting confusing!;)

TURIN
15th Sep 2005, 09:15
I watched a documentary on UK TV some years ago (QED or Equinox) which showed various inventions that appeared to defy the known physics of energy conservation.

All involved water and several were able to extract more hydrogen energy than electrical energy was required to to do it.

One involved spinning a perforated drum inside a cylinder. The output was instant super heated steam of greater energy value than the power required to spin the drum in the first place.

I never heard of any of these processes again.
Maybe it was a spoof.

Anyone else remember it?

hemac
15th Sep 2005, 10:54
Send Clowns

Where is the benefit for a company set up to manufacture millions of light bulbs and market them all over the world, all of which have a limited life span, to suddenly make a fraction of the quantity for a limited period because the new product doesn't wear out. They may make a short term profit but there is no longevity.
Why dismiss all conspiracy theory when so many have been proven right.
Governments and big business have their own agendas, woe betide the little people who get in the way.

H.

Kolibear
15th Sep 2005, 11:12
Taking the lead out of petrol so that catalytic converters can be fitted, increases fuel consumption by 10%. And don't even think about the side effects of lead-free petrol.

Maxflyer
15th Sep 2005, 11:23
But what about the lead in my pencil?

PanPanYourself
15th Sep 2005, 11:40
There is a moderately entertaining movie on this topic called "Chain Reaction" Starring: Morgan Freeman, Rachel Weisz, and another guy. Its probably worth watching if you're into conspiracy theories and such.

I would have to agree that there must be some shady business on the part of the oil companies to keep a lid on new technologies or at least slow them down or make them financially unviable. Afterall these guys are making literally trillions of dollars off this business and that basically means they rule the world. Who would give that up?

The technology to make electric cars has existed for many many years. Some excellent prototypes have been built but they never left the test track.

Computer technology is improving at an exponential rate, what 5 years ago was a state of the art machine that only the most accomplished professionals could have is now obselete and almost worthless. If even a fraction of that dedication and funding was applied to making practical electric cars we would all be driving one right now (while posting on this forum). By the way I am a software engineer and not at all trying to take anything away from the amazing progress in computer technology. Just saying that maybe governments should focus less on making oil companies happy and more on finding alternatives. But of course they all get a piece of the pie.

Maxflyer
15th Sep 2005, 11:51
If even a fraction of that dedication and funding was applied to making practical electric cars we would all be driving one right now (while posting on this forum).

Trouble is they would all have to start in Safe Mode!

tony draper
15th Sep 2005, 12:02
Read somewhere that if we all started driving electric vehicles we would have to be turning out new power stations to charge the buggas up at a rate of one a week, so unless we go totaly nuclear there will be no advantage gained there,we would still be using fossil fuels to produce the juice.
Nuclear powered cars! now theres a thought.
:E
Incidently working electric vehicles have been around for fifty years or so,one was offered a job in a factory that produced same when one first left school,and that was a long long time ago,those vehicles were good at delivering the milk.
:rolleyes:

frostbite
15th Sep 2005, 12:06
Nuclear powered aircraft!

Now there's another thought. Best not to go there...

PanPanYourself
15th Sep 2005, 12:11
There is a moderately entertaining movie on this topic called "Chain Reaction" Starring: Morgan Freeman, Rachel Weisz, and another guy. Its probably worth watching if you're into conspiracy theories and such.

I would have to agree that there must be some shady business on the part of the oil companies to keep a lid on new technologies or at least slow them down or make them financially unviable. Afterall these guys are making literally trillions of dollars off this business and that basically means they rule the world. Who would give that up?

The technology to make electric cars has existed for many many years. Some excellent prototypes have been built but they never left the test track.

Computer technology is improving at an exponential rate, what 5 years ago was a state of the art machine that only the most accomplished professionals could have is now obselete and almost worthless. If even a fraction of that dedication and funding was applied to making practical electric cars we would all be driving one right now (while posting on this forum). By the way I am a software engineer and not at all trying to take anything away from the amazing progress in computer technology. Just saying that maybe governments should focus less on making oil companies happy and more on finding alternatives. But of course they all get a piece of the pie.

tony draper
15th Sep 2005, 12:17
A nuclear powered aircraft was tried in the sixties,leastwise a aircraft carrying a small nuke reactor, dont think it actually flew on it, but that was the eventual plan,the foot thick lead shielding wall betwixt the cockpit and the business end proved a bit of a weight penalty though.
:rolleyes:

ORAC
15th Sep 2005, 12:29
NB-36H (http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-84.htm). Flew 47 times.

A nuclear reactor (which did not actually power the aircraft) was mounted in the aft bomb bay. The reactor was a 1000-kilowatt design weighing 35,000 pounds. The reactor could be removed from the aircraft by a crane while on the ground. A number of large air intake and exhaust holes were installed in the sides and bottom of the rear fuselage to cool the reactor. The crew was housed entirely in a highly-modified compartment in the fuselage nose section. The compartment was composed of lead and rubber, and entirely surrounded the crew. A four-ton lead disc shield was installed in the middle of the aircraft. Only the pilot and co-pilot could see out through the foot-thick, leaded-glass windshield. A closed-circuit television system enabled the crew to watch the reactor. The aircraft was redesignated XB-36H. It bore the name "Crusader" on the fuselage side.

Its first flight was made on September 17, 1955, with test pilot A. S. Witchell, Jr. at the controls.. All of the test flights were carried out over sparsely-populated areas, and the reactor was not turned on until the plane was at a safe altitude. Flying alongside the XB-36H on every one of its flights was a C-97 transport carrying a platoon of armed Marines ready to parachute down and surround the test aircraft in case it crashed.

In the autumn of 1956, the aircraft was redesignated NB-36H. However, at about this time, the Air Force decided to cancel the WS-125A nuclear aircraft program. The NB-36H made its last flight on March 28, 157. Up to that time, a total of 47 flights had been made. The NB-36H was decommissioned at Fort Worth in late 1957. It was scrapped several months later, with the radioactive parts being buried.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/nb36h-1.jpg

A nuclear powered version was ordered but cancelled, it never flew. Review of Manned Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program (http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/anp-gao1963). US General Accounting Office, February 28, 1963 (13.5 MB PDF file)

compressor stall
15th Sep 2005, 12:49
re motivations...

imagine the effect of the US economy if an alternate energy source (like cold fusion) was discovered. Suddenly there is no need for oil.....(except for plastics making, but that is insignificant in this context).