Green energy throttled by Greedy Big Oil (54)
gardenhackle: I've heard this countless times and it's obviously common knowledge that big oil is why we don't already have renewable energy sources. By killing and blocking development of green energy for the sake of their ever important "bottom line", they are denying the US and the world the economical, natural, green, gorgeous environmentally friendly energy that we should have.
OK. Now, aside from hearing that countless times does anyone have even the slightest bit of evidence that it's actually TRUE? What green energy was throttled by big oil? What facts support the assertion that it is truly a "viable" alternative and that the only reason we don't have it is because big oil choked it to death or assasinated it.
And furthermore, if these mythical dilithium crystals really were kept away from us by big oil, there are some very big questions left.
1. How do we know it's a valid energy source if big oil kept us from knowing about it?
2. If it's an economical and plentiful green alternative, how can big oil keep anyone or any company from moving forward with it?
3. If it's economical and plentiful and green, don't you think it's a bit stupid to assume big ENERGY companies wouldn't be capitalizing on big ENERGY resources like "viable green energy"?
Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
So before we buy into the hype that big oil has kept us from having green energy, let's prove it's true with something more substantial than "everyone knows it". The all-knowing "everyone" can believe it just because "everyone else" believes it.
One can always find out on those Conspiracy-Theory Sites!OK. Now, aside from hearing that countless times does anyone have even the slightest bit of evidence that it's actually TRUE? What green energy was throttled by big oil? What facts support the assertion that it is truly a "viable" alternative and that the only reason we don't have it is because big oil choked it to death or assasinated it.
And furthermore, if these mythical dilithium crystals really were kept away from us by big oil, there are some very big questions left.
1. How do we know it's a valid energy source if big oil kept us from knowing about it?
2. If it's an economical and plentiful green alternative, how can big oil keep anyone or any company from moving forward with it?
3. If it's economical and plentiful and green, don't you think it's a bit stupid to assume big ENERGY companies wouldn't be capitalizing on big ENERGY resources like "viable green energy"?
Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
So before we buy into the hype that big oil has kept us from having green energy, let's prove it's true with something more substantial than "everyone knows it". The all-knowing "everyone" can believe it just because "everyone else" believes it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
That's where the problem lies.
Fossil fuels are portable before conversion to energy. "Green" fuels (those with minimal or no environmental detriment -- solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) are not. They must be converted to energy first, and then transmitted to wherever the energy is needed.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I agree completely GH, for the energy companies are aware that fossil fuels are limited in supply, therefore, it would make good business sense to invest in R & D in order to provide profitable alternatives (your point#3).
If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Blues63: I agree completely GH, for the energy companies are aware that fossil fuels are limited in supply, therefore, it would make good business sense to invest in R & D in order to provide profitable alternatives (your point#3).
If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
Most "Big OIL" are really Energy-Corporations anyway!If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
And the Funds for R&D are beyond what most Individuals are able to raise!
So either way those Corporations will make decisions on the Economic Viability of any new Energy Source!
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: I've heard this countless times and it's obviously common knowledge that big oil is why we don't already have renewable energy sources. By killing and blocking development of green energy for the sake of their ever important "bottom line", they are denying the US and the world the economical, natural, green, gorgeous environmentally friendly energy that we should have.
OK. Now, aside from hearing that countless times does anyone have even the slightest bit of evidence that it's actually TRUE? What green energy was throttled by big oil? What facts support the assertion that it is truly a "viable" alternative and that the only reason we don't have it is because big oil choked it to death or assasinated it.
And furthermore, if these mythical dilithium crystals really were kept away from us by big oil, there are some very big questions left.
1. How do we know it's a valid energy source if big oil kept us from knowing about it?
2. If it's an economical and plentiful green alternative, how can big oil keep anyone or any company from moving forward with it?
3. If it's economical and plentiful and green, don't you think it's a bit stupid to assume big ENERGY companies wouldn't be capitalizing on big ENERGY resources like "viable green energy"?
Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
So before we buy into the hype that big oil has kept us from having green energy, let's prove it's true with something more substantial than "everyone knows it". The all-knowing "everyone" can believe it just because "everyone else" believes it.
OK. Now, aside from hearing that countless times does anyone have even the slightest bit of evidence that it's actually TRUE? What green energy was throttled by big oil? What facts support the assertion that it is truly a "viable" alternative and that the only reason we don't have it is because big oil choked it to death or assasinated it.
And furthermore, if these mythical dilithium crystals really were kept away from us by big oil, there are some very big questions left.
1. How do we know it's a valid energy source if big oil kept us from knowing about it?
2. If it's an economical and plentiful green alternative, how can big oil keep anyone or any company from moving forward with it?
3. If it's economical and plentiful and green, don't you think it's a bit stupid to assume big ENERGY companies wouldn't be capitalizing on big ENERGY resources like "viable green energy"?
Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
So before we buy into the hype that big oil has kept us from having green energy, let's prove it's true with something more substantial than "everyone knows it". The all-knowing "everyone" can believe it just because "everyone else" believes it.
When one considers how far reaching the uses of are oil on the planet, meaning everything from baby bottles to mind drenching patch covering thongs, one realizes that changing over to other sources would have a dramatic (to say the least) affect on the economy. It is just not going to happen as fast as some greeners would like, so they make up these conspiracies. Well, mr smart guy, go buy green, get rid of your oil based products and help that way. No one forces you to buy cars, plastic goods, face creams, dvd's etc etc etc....
Green energy and renewable sources are growing at a rate that is commensurate with those willing to fund the expansion of business in tandem with those willing to purchase their products. I doubt big oil has any affect on them at all, except that people aren't buying it in large enough doses yet. It's more likely that these new companies are like big oil, affected by their own bottom line.
There is a water conspiracy though. Headed by Conrad of course. He's been extracting hydrogen from the universe for decades, leading up to his maniacal plan to take over rain clouds and faucets.
I think he is partners with Antjo, but don't take my word for it. 
------ This thread is Archived ------
I think they should completely convert central Mexico to solar fields. Then sell that energy to the States.
------ This thread is Archived ------
venusenvy: I think they should completely convert central Mexico to solar fields. Then sell that energy to the States.
Oh hell, drug traffickers would steal them and sell them in America.
------ This thread is Archived ------
venusenvy: I think they should completely convert central Mexico to solar fields. Then sell that energy to the States.
You generate it, we'll buy it. Deal.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Blues63: I agree completely GH, for the energy companies are aware that fossil fuels are limited in supply, therefore, it would make good business sense to invest in R & D in order to provide profitable alternatives (your point#3).
If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
We do? Most people have never even SEEN an electric car so how can it be a failure already? The gasoline powered automobile has been around for a 100 years and in the early days it was probably looked upon as a failure too. I think electric cars need more time to develope before we lable them a failure. They certainly make a lot of sense for urban use.If the companies don't do this, there is a question of viability. It is naive to believe the energy providers are stifling development in order to protect their interests in a dwindling resource.
Sure, alternative forms of energy can supply power to the grid (e.g. solar and wind), but these sources cannot meet the requirements of modern civilisation. We all know the electric car is a failure and hybrids aren't as environmentally friendly as originally believed. I've been watching some European developments using hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles and that may be viable. It still has to be created, transported and dispensed and the energy companies are well placed to do this, but it's early days yet.
------ This thread is Archived ------
ooby_dooby: We do? Most people have never even SEEN an electric car so how can it be a failure already? The gasoline powered automobile has been around for a 100 years and in the early days it was probably looked upon as a failure too. I think electric cars need more time to develope before we lable them a failure. They certainly make a lot of sense for urban use.
Failure as in absence of success. It's not practical. It may eventually become practical, but it's not yet practical, hence it is a failure in terms of being a competitive and viable marketable product. In order for it to be anything but a nice idea that isn't practical (i.e. a "failure"), there are a lot of serious hurdles that will have to be overcome and there isn't a light at the end of the tunnel yet for any of them that I can see.
* It has to be more efficient
* It has to have quicker recharge time
* It has to have lower battery weight with more storage
* A practical method for recharging en route will have to be established.
All very serious roadblocks (no pun intended).
But the good news is that if it CAN be practical, you can bet your last dollar that business will be very anxious to build and market a new innovative and practical product like this. It'll be worth billions or even trillions, so it will be pursued when and if science can circumvent the shortcomings of the design and application.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: You generate it, we'll buy it. Deal.
Its really very viable G...Its largely unpopulated due to the fact that its just too hot and deserty. But thats a perfect environment for solar fields.
------ This thread is Archived ------
venusenvy: Its really very viable G...Its largely unpopulated due to the fact that its just too hot and deserty. But thats a perfect environment for solar fields.
There are a few questions that must be answered before this can be assumed to be practical, though.
1. What would be the cost to build the infrastructure.
2. How much electricity would it generate
3. How much would be lost in transmission
Then the numbers could be crunched and viability assessed. It's hard to say if the numbers would be good or not, but such things are certainly worth investigation and a bit of research and if it's practical, someone can make a lot of money. :)
------ This thread is Archived ------
venusenvy: Its really very viable G...Its largely unpopulated due to the fact that its just too hot and deserty. But thats a perfect environment for solar fields.
One other thing. YOu'd also likely have to combat a campaign against such a proposition by greenies (ironically) ranting about the horrible destruction of wild environment and ecosystems. I can see them marching now to save the rare striped ant eating rock roach.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: There are a few questions that must be answered before this can be assumed to be practical, though.
1. What would be the cost to build the infrastructure.
2. How much electricity would it generate
3. How much would be lost in transmission
Then the numbers could be crunched and viability assessed. It's hard to say if the numbers would be good or not, but such things are certainly worth investigation and a bit of research and if it's practical, someone can make a lot of money. :)
1. What would be the cost to build the infrastructure.
2. How much electricity would it generate
3. How much would be lost in transmission
Then the numbers could be crunched and viability assessed. It's hard to say if the numbers would be good or not, but such things are certainly worth investigation and a bit of research and if it's practical, someone can make a lot of money. :)
Well, considering the alternatives and whats happening in Japan its time we got off our asses and got serious about investigating solutions just like this.
------ This thread is Archived ------
gardenhackle: One other thing. YOu'd also likely have to combat a campaign against such a proposition by greenies (ironically) ranting about the horrible destruction of wild environment and ecosystems. I can see them marching now to save the rare striped ant eating rock roach.
Well the great thing about the region is, nothing lives in that environment except scorpions and snakes
------ This thread is Archived ------
venusenvy: Well the great thing about the region is, nothing lives in that environment except scorpions and snakes
Trust me, if you planned to turn the desert into a field of solar collectors, the environmentalists would be up in arms. Sounds crazy since environmentalists also want green energy, but you can bet those snakes and lizards and scorpions would have an army of defenders.
------ This thread is Archived ------
I've actualy had experience with alternate energy and the " Big Oil Companys " . In the 80's Chevron bought Solerex from Ochemphski ( I think that's how he spells it ). This was the time when oil prices where going down . What they did was dump lots of money in it ( mostly for show ) and hired a bunch of PHD's to run it . Through mismanegment and lofty expectations they realy took a " bath " in that one .I had friends who worked there at the time. By the time they came to I.T.I. ( the company I was working for ) They where a little more aprehensive . The engineering team they sent was in my estamation probably there just to evaluate us . I think it ended up in a " once bitten, twice shy " ending . At the time oil was getting so low that it wouldn't be economicly feasable . Why no one thought of the future is anyones guess . Oh well! How long are we going to keep stalling ?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Frankinstien: I've actualy had experience with alternate energy and the " Big Oil Companys " . In the 80's Chevron bought Solerex from Ochemphski ( I think that's how he spells it ). This was the time when oil prices where going down . What they did was dump lots of money in it ( mostly for show ) and hired a bunch of PHD's to run it . Through mismanegment and lofty expectations they realy took a " bath " in that one .I had friends who worked there at the time. By the time they came to I.T.I. ( the company I was working for ) They where a little more aprehensive . The engineering team they sent was in my estamation probably there just to evaluate us . I think it ended up in a " once bitten, twice shy " ending . At the time oil was getting so low that it wouldn't be economicly feasable . Why no one thought of the future is anyones guess . Oh well! How long are we going to keep stalling ?
If your position is that "it's not economically feasible" but dump a lot of money in it, anyway, because maybe some day it will be feasible.... well, you're going to have a really tough sales pitch to make if you want to sell that to anyone that's smart enough to have money to invest. It was a bad deal for Chevron. They lost money. Why would anyone expect them to want more of that sort of thing?
Everyone wants to make money. Getting investors in a deal that is a sure-fire winner isn't hard. Getting investors to buy into something that has no track to be profitable is anything BUT easy and for some pretty obvious reasons.
------ This thread is Archived ------
(Solarex downsizing). Seems to have more to do with thin-strip technologies being the better money maker than the silicon wafers made by solarex than any other reason.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
Ladies
Democrats destroyed America
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
Kultur-multur
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Unions support Democrats!
your favorite topic?
Why is this shameful?
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
3,012 Views
53 Comments
Created: Mar 2011
Last Viewed: 1 hrs ago
Last Commented: Mar 2011
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
- Ladies
- Democrats destroyed America
- Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
- Kultur-multur
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Unions support Democrats!
- your favorite topic?
- Why is this shameful?
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
OK. Now, aside from hearing that countless times does anyone have even the slightest bit of evidence that it's actually TRUE? What green energy was throttled by big oil? What facts support the assertion that it is truly a "viable" alternative and that the only reason we don't have it is because big oil choked it to death or assasinated it.
And furthermore, if these mythical dilithium crystals really were kept away from us by big oil, there are some very big questions left.
1. How do we know it's a valid energy source if big oil kept us from knowing about it?
2. If it's an economical and plentiful green alternative, how can big oil keep anyone or any company from moving forward with it?
3. If it's economical and plentiful and green, don't you think it's a bit stupid to assume big ENERGY companies wouldn't be capitalizing on big ENERGY resources like "viable green energy"?
Make no mistake, "Big Oil" is really "Big Energy" and they don't care what the fuel is. Their business revolves around delivering FUEL and it matters not one bit to them whether that fuel is oil, gas, alcohol or anything else.
So before we buy into the hype that big oil has kept us from having green energy, let's prove it's true with something more substantial than "everyone knows it". The all-knowing "everyone" can believe it just because "everyone else" believes it.