Power (no spam)

[Mr Sleep]

I can't remember this discussion taking place before and it is quite an important dilemma for most country's. What is the solution for power.

Fossil Fuels obviously have very large drawbacks such as the death of our world through their use.

Nuclear power is hardly much of an alternitive due to it's toxic aspect, and disposal is an impossible task due to the half life of the average plutonium.

Hydro power is very destructive to landscapes and anyone familar with the activities of some less scrupilous companies will know how great an effect hydro power has on wildlife and humans alike.

So what in your opinion is the solution to the obvious problem of power resources.

[Eerhardt]

Sadly, we're still far away from tapping into natural resources such as solar energy or wind power over here in Belgium. By lack of an alternative, we rely mostly on nuclear power. I don't belong to any enviromentalist group, such as Greenpeace, so I'm not that well-informed on alternative sources of energy. I can only say that I don't expect a lot to change over the next couple of years, although I do expect there to be a gradual process of switching over to various other sources of "clean" energy, while still relying mostly on nuclear power.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eerhardt I don't belong to any enviromentalist group, such as Greenpeace

Greenpeace are becoming largely ineffectual now a days since they are mostly seen as a "big business" themselves.

Alternate energy sources are hard to find since they usually cost so much to produce, solar panels are not a cheap way to run a car for instance, most people take conveinience over the cleaner and safer expense...unfortunately.

I don't know of that many alternatives myself.

[HighLordDave]

Alternate energy sources will not appear as long as fossil fuels and nuclear power are cheap and readily available. The big energy companies have bought up many of the patents on things like energy cell technology and clean-burning engines but they are reluctant to share them because there's too much money in oil for them to lose.

Fossil fuels are a finite energy source. The question is how long they're going to last. The doomsayers among the earthniks say that the planet will run out of oil, coal and natural gas in 10 years. That's a load of hogwash; we're finding new sources for all three every day. However, they're right to say that someday, our consumption will exceed the available supply and remain economically feasible.

I think that if we ever get a viable cold fusion system working, that would be the first step towards eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels, although this is still many years away.

[Eerhardt]

@Sleep: when you mentioned Greenpeace becoming largely ineffectual, I remembered reading an article about how a professor in statistics argued that the figures on world polution were exaggerated. You can find something about it here.

While we still have to be careful not to trivialize the problem, I found it interesting to read about Bjorn Lomborg argueing a different view from the "Doomsday" picture most environmentalist paint us.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave Fossil fuels are a finite energy source. The question is how long they're going to last. The doomsayers among the earthniks say that the planet will run out of oil, coal and natural gas in 10 years. That's a load of hogwash; we're finding new sources for all three every day. However, they're right to say that someday, our consumption will exceed the available supply and remain economically feasible.

I recall reading text books that referenced crude oil running out in 1987...seems they might have been wrong. As Eerhardt link suggests the actual truth of most projections might be questionable.

I think you are right HLD though big business conspiracy theorys are probably for the most part true.

The question of fossil fuels isn't my only concern when it comes to power, how many people do you know actual consider getting LPG or other alternatives for their cars. How many people do you know have solar panels or other innovations on their homes. What is the average persons awareness of alternative technologys.

[Nexus]

Call me idiot, but I believe that implementing hydrogen fueled engines would have a great impact on world health.

This could be the beginning of a new era...

Having solved the problem of car fuel the world could concentrate on solving energy problem knowing that environment is less sacrificed.

Canada has already introduced hydrogen fueled buses... I hope that major car industries like BMW will speed up their research for these kind of engines.

Our lungs deserve it...

[Bloodmist]

Windmills are a nice alternative though they doesn't produce that much power. And you have to find a place to put them and don't do like the danish goverment did. They gave some windmills to hungary or some other country, nice enough. But the problem is that they put them in one of the least windy walleys in the world. Nice

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave Alternate energy sources will not appear as long as fossil fuels and nuclear power are cheap and readily available. The big energy companies have bought up many of the patents on things like energy cell technology and clean-burning engines but they are reluctant to share them because there's too much money in oil for them to lose ...

I do not understand how a company can lose money by releasing a patent that is viable in the market place - ? That is to say: if a power company buys some patent for clean-burning engines, and a market exists for clean-burning engines, then the economically rational thing for them to do is put that product on the market. How do you see companies saving their skins by continuing to repress patents?

(Also: I question whether nuclear power is "cheap" any longer. The opposition and regulation that faces a company trying to build one these days makes them an exceedingly dangerous venture.)

[HighLordDave]

If you are an oil company or company that makes money off of fossil fuel products, say ExxonMobil, Ford Motor Company or BP, and you own the patent on a clean-burning fuel engine, why would you release a product to compete with your existing line of products, which are making you lots of money?

For instance, in the 70s, Exxon and Shell Oil bought up a bunch of patents on low/zero-emmissions internal combustion engines and electric fuel cell technology and put it on a shelf somewhere. If this technology had been pursued, we wouldn't need the oil from the middle east (or ExxonMobil) to run our cars. Why would you want to introduce a technology that makes your current line of products obsolete? In the long run, it's probably a better bet to develop fuel cells, but in the short term, there's a lot more money to be made in gasoline than there is in R&D into electric cars.

[Lazarus]

@HLD: See, now you've really lost me. Personally, if I were any of those companies, I would be very, very happy to release products that would get me the heck out of the middle east! Companies don't necessarily mind creating products that compete against an existing product line. The bottom line is: will it make money. Any energy-saving device, or "clean" energy source WILL make money - especially in today's envrironmental/politcal climate.

Do you know in particular what kind of patents have been repressed in this way? A zer-emission engine? Could you provide a link to some sight that discusses this? I would be very curious to know more.

[Robnark]

and of course there is the example of the lightbulb that lasts 40-odd years. it was bought up by a leading lightbulb manufacturer, and it has been shelved, since they realised that they aren't going to be selling many bulbs with 40-year lifespans.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus @HLD: See, now you've really lost me. Personally, if I were any of those companies, I would be very, very happy to release products that would get me the heck out of the middle east! Companies don't necessarily mind creating products that compete against an existing product line. The bottom line is: will it make money. Any energy-saving device, or "clean" energy source WILL make money - especially in today's envrironmental/politcal climate.

It has to do with looking to the future. When fossil fuels get to the point where ExxonMobil, Ford Motor Company or BP cannot make enough money to out weight their investment...they will change to something else to make money.

ExxonMobil will then become ExxonFuelCell.

[HighLordDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus @HLD: See, now you've really lost me. Personally, if I were any of those companies, I would be very, very happy to release products that would get me the heck out of the middle east! Companies don't necessarily mind creating products that compete against an existing product line. The bottom line is: will it make money. Any energy-saving device, or "clean" energy source WILL make money - especially in today's envrironmental/politcal climate.

But if you're ExxonMobil, will all of your independent retailers, who own gas stations, be happy with your fuel cell engine that never needs to be refueled never mind that the only side effect is that it makes water?

Firestone and Goodyear also own patents on processes that refines rubber so that they could make tires that will last longer than the car they're on. As our friend Robnark says, this will never happen because Goodyear can't make any money if you never buy tires for your car.

I will check about some of the low/zero-emissions technology patents that companies are sitting on and get back to you this weekend.

[Gwalchmai]

Besides, think how much more money Exxon will make when they come out with their fuel cell car after the world oil supply runs out?