Are we that stupid?

[Gecko Brothers]

Excellent-Mr. Burns

[JohnL]

Back when SciFi was runningh their technology shows like C/Net Central, one of them had a demonstration of a new artificially created fuel. It was a chemical that could be added to water to produce fuel. Supposedly it was cheap and easy to produce, plus it didn't burn in the open. They showed them waving a blowtorch over the top of the liquid in a tub and nothing happened. I wish I remembered what it was called so that I could see if there was anything about it on the net. The paranoid part of me says that the oil companies probably paid a fortune for all rights to the formula so that they could bury it.

[wickednick]

I really hate these doomsday theorists that say we are all going to be dead in ten years because of global warming. The fact is that temperatures have been going up and down on are planet in drastic degrees since the earth was first formed. To say that things are hotter or colder now than it was 50 years ago is just plain dumb. You can't expect that we know everything about are climate in just the few years we have actually been recording and studying it.
But no one should be lead into a false sense of security though.Are world is destined to change, whether it be by are own hands or gods we will see natural disasters happen to are world again. Of course when the next ice age comes or a asteroid or even when Yellowstone erupts again, those who are living now may not be alive to see those things happen.
But I have a thought now and hear me out.Is the human race not apart of nature, of course we are.And the disasters that we may cause are just anouther step in the evolution of are world. Those animals that die because of are influance will be replaced by other creatures that are suited to live along side are species.And we are selves will of course change because of are actions.
.



Post Edited (05-07-04 06:47)

[ulthar]

JohnL wrote:

>The paranoid part of me
> says that the oil companies probably paid a fortune for all
> rights to the formula so that they could bury it.

More likely it was something that was cool in a lab setting (and probably a novelty kind of thing) that did not 'scale up' to industrial use very well.  We see these things all the time.  Folks claim to have discovered The Next Big Thing(tm), only to learn upon closer examination that it is either (a)something known all along, and they are attempting a true scam or (b) they see some behavior in a 50 mL beaker and think that will work well in a 200 ton vat.

Not saying these statement apply to what you saw, but I'd think this more likely than some giant conspiracy by the oil companies.  I've mentioned this before, but what is the motivation of the oil companies to keep new technologies down?  Really? If they learn of a new technology, and THEY are the ones to develop it (because they have financial resources to do so), they stand to make LOTS and LOTS of money.  

There is no rational business motivation for 'Big Oil' to suppress new energy technology.  That notion is just pure anti-American, anti-capitalism hogwash perpetuated by ding-dongs that would not know a real science book if it smacked them in the head.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

They showed them waving a blowtorch over the top of the liquid in a tub and nothing happened

You can do that with just about any flammable liquid - you just refrigerate it first.  It's the fumes on top of the surface of the liquid which catches fire, and the colder a liquid is the less fumes it puts out.  You can toss a lit match in a cold bucket of gasoline and it will go out, just like if it was water.

That's extremely typical of the Sci-Fi Channel, broadcasting a parlor trick and claiming it to be hard science.

[mr. henry]

what's wrong with FARGO>>>>>>?????????????????/

[wickednick]

Mr. Hockstatter wrote:

> That's extremely typical of the Sci-Fi Channel, broadcasting a
> parlor trick and claiming it to be hard science.
Cough.John Edwards.Cough.

[odinn7]

Huh? You mean John Edwards isn't for real? snicker...

[ulthar]

John Edwards, the Democrat Senator from NC, former presidential hopeful, is not for real??  Who'd a thunk it.

[JohnL]

>I've mentioned this before, but what is the motivation of the oil companies to
>keep new technologies down? Really? If they learn of a new technology, and
>THEY are the ones to develop it (because they have financial resources to do
>so), they stand to make LOTS and LOTS of money.

If someone were to develope a fuel that's cheaper to produce, what profit would there be for the oil companies to develope it? If they sell it for a cheaper price, they'd lose money compared to gasoline sales, and if they jack up the price, people won't see much incentive to switch.

>You can do that with just about any flammable liquid - you just refrigerate it first.

I didn't know that.

[ulthar]

JohnL wrote:

>
> If someone were to develope a fuel that's cheaper to produce,
> what profit would there be for the oil companies to develope
> it? If they sell it for a cheaper price, they'd lose money
> compared to gasoline sales, and if they jack up the price,
> people won't see much incentive to switch.
>

The point is if the Oil Companies see a viable product, one that *WILL* revolutionize the 'energy industry,' it'd be foolish for them to try to 'suppress' it rather than be the ones to capitalize on it.  The issues are not 'cheaper price' so much as renewable (no such thing as renewable energy, unless we want to rewrite the laws of nature), cleaner and more efficient.

Talk to an Oil Company exec...ask 'em.  Go to the source.  As them "If you saw research that showed a fuel product 5% more efficient than petroleum based fuels, that was cleaner burner and could be relatively easily engineered to be used in existing applications (cars, trucks, planes, etc), would you invest in it, or try to bury it?"

I'd be willing to wager they would want to jump on that as an investment in a heartbeat, and would be more likely to break insider (or similar) laws trying to exploit the new technology than to suppress it.

Suppression of technological advancement sounds cool as a conspiracy theory, but it makes absolutely no business sense.

[odinn7]

*Talk to an Oil Company exec...ask 'em. Go to the source. As them "If you saw research that showed a fuel product 5% more efficient than petroleum based fuels, that was cleaner burner and could be relatively easily engineered to be used in existing applications (cars, trucks, planes, etc), would you invest in it, or try to bury it?"*

I think you would be hard pressed to find an oil company exec that was willing to admit that they would try to bury something like that whether they were or not.
I look at it this way...assume that we some how discovered that water is the fuel of the future. With minor work, it could be used to power all kinds of things that used to need gasoline. Do I believe the oil companies would jump on getting that idea working for them and out to the public? I can't say that I do. How could they drive the price up and make money off of something like that? Water is everywhere. Of course, that is just me who believes that all major companies are inherently evil. Gas is $1.93 for regular where I live. It has gone up 20 cents within the last 2 weeks. Why? What's happened over the last 2 weeks to cause a 20 cent increase? They can raise the prices and nobody can do anything about it. They will then at some point lower the price down to $1.70 or so and everyone will breathe a sigh of relief because the price came down...never thinking how it's way higher than it had been before. This I call evil. I understand companies are in business to make money but this has gotten way out of hand. This is why they won't find a cheaper alternative to fossil fuel until it is absolutely necessary to find something else.

[Mr. Hockstatter]

I agree with you about the oil companies - my favorite was when they raised prices in anticipation of an especially cold winter, which would drive demand way up.  But, wait, who's stupid enough to think anybody can predict what the weather is going to be like months in the future?  Yesterday they said is was supposed to rain all day today, yet today it's not raining.

I'd only choose a different adjective to describe the oil companies.  Greedy to the point of excess, perhaps.

But something to keep in mind:  Everybody remembers the good old days when gas was 50 cents a gallon.  And everybody's outraged that it's almost $2.00 a gallon today.  Yet nobody seems to remember that back in the good old days, a  new car cost $4,000, and now they're 15 - 20,000.  Yet no outrage over the tripling or quadrupling of car prices.  It's just that gas is one of the few things we keep track of.  We hear our parents talk about how they bought their first house for fifteen thousand and chuckle.  We listen to how they paid fifty cents a gallon for gas and we're outraged.  Yet cars get much better mileage today, which lessens the impact of the price increase by quite a bit, 50% or so maybe (Well, if you choose to buy a fuel efficient one at least).  Actually we should probably be much more outraged about real estate prices and a hundred other things.

Anyhoo, my two cents worth.

[ulthar]

The fundamental "flaw" (as I see it anyway) is that so many seem to think the fuel itself has to be cheap.  In your analogy, yes, water is everywhere.  *BUT*, the technology to use that water as a fuel is not, and whoever develops that technology stands to make a *LOT* of money, and win a lot of good will for helping develope 'greener' energy system.  We have to focus on the energy system as a whole, not just the fuel itself.

As for the price of gas, well, that's a complicated issue.  There's an old adage in economics and price valuation: "whatever the market will bear."  There is nothing evil or non-evil about an industry charging a 'fair' price for their product.  Now, you don't think it's fair because it is more than you paid six months ago.  But in an objective analysis, the higher price has not curbed use, so the product was underpriced before.  Only when a significant drop of consumption occurs can it be said the price is 'too high.'

That said, I don't think the oil companies themselves are to blame for the increase.  Really, there is a LOT of stuff going on here, and it is easy to blame 'big oil' only because that is fashionable.  I offer that federal and state taxes on gasoline (and other petroleum products) comprise well over 50% (in some areas, 60-65%) of the cost, and those taxes are slated to be raised (at least in this state; here, it keeps coming up to raise the gas tax, it keeps failing, but the politician way is to keep bringing it up until it passes).

Also, we buy our crude oil from out-of-country, at least a lot of it.  That means we are subject to global market prices on crude; why on the earth should 'big oil' absorb those rising costs (ie, not pass them to the consumer)?  Overhead in a big industry is an ever increasing, upward spiraling thing, in the form of employee benefits, employee taxes, etc.  My goodness, what industry could survive if it could respond to rising costs of raw materials?  That is not realistic at all.

Further, there is constant research in the petroleum industry to increase efficiency of production (and, for that matter, increasing efficiency on the consumer end), and to make things cleaner.  It is not the Sierra Club or some such that has sunk billions  of dollars into petroleum research to make gasoline burn with less pollution, and to make cars last longer and run more efficiently.  It's good old American big industry.  This research costs money (just like pharmaceutical research costs money, a lot of it, and we also attack the parm. ind. in a similar fashion as we do big oil).  To the oil companies, this research cost is an investment, one they recover in gaining market share in their industry.  Not by hosing the consumer, but by gaining consumer confidence in THEIR version of the product.  Some of the research is mandated, too, as regulated by environmental policy.

Our production facilities in the US are, and have been for many years, operating at maximum capacity.  We have had very few, if any, refineries constructed in the past ten years or so.  This means if demand goes up, cost *MUST* go up to TRY to keep supply and demand in balance.  I honestly don't know what folks expect Exxon, et al to do...snap their fingers and produce gasoline from oil?  The real world does not work that way.  Old refineries also mean decade (or older) technology and decade or older efficiency in refining.

Et cetera.

Okay, so in the end, we can all hold whatever view we want of 'big oil.'  I myself refuse to believe that Americans, who work for those companies and must buy the gas too, as well as the company as an industrial entity, would seek to undermine the very industry it server.  In my opinion, we have to look at it as 'energy industry,' not the more narrowly focused 'oil industry.'

To make this sorta On Topic to the board, I think we have all seen too many 'corporate America is bad' movies, and easily lose site of economic reality.

[Jay]

I think we have all seen too many 'corporate America is bad' movies, and easily lose site of economic reality.

Here?  You think? :)