Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Meh, hair is flammable, as are most clothes.

My hair is very flammable, put fire within a foot radius of it and it will go up.

Old news. This idea in particular has been around for 2-3 years. I Remember my brother reading the journals. This is just probably a more efficient bacteria.

Like the theories about an all powerful automotive/oil industry. If hydrogen (storage, the fuel cells arent the problem folks!) technolology was at a level good enough to be in everyones cars guess where they would have been installed 10 years ago?

Polonius wrote:
Do you really think developments in quantum mechanics or string theory are going to allow us to build a better steam engine?

You do realize that our understanding of macro-level phsyics hasn't changed substantiall in over a century, right?

Since 'substantially' is a very broad and subjective term, sure it hasn't, depending on your definition. And, actually, nuclear physics, chemistry, advanced metallurgy, and advances in material and mechanical engineering have allowed us to build a better steam engine, though most people don't think of them as such.

After all, nuclear power is a form of steam engine, though most people don't realize it.


However, on the point about optimization: incorrect. The steam engine will consistently outperform either electric or diesel in it's horsepower class at altitude. Again, it's how the thing works. A steam locomotive rated for 5000 horsepower can pull a much greater load then a similar 5000 horsepower diesel or electric system at altitude, as it's effective horsepower climbs the higher it goes. Chile found this out hte hard way when they swapped out a aging steam engine for a deisel and the diesel got stuck as it could not climb the same incline as it's steam predecessor. They found that it took almost half again as much horsepower, and so the fuel savings of 25% became a loss of 25%, plus the cost of a third engine.

Anyone remember Stan Meyer?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

Wolfun wrote:The problem with replacing gas is - most of the gas companies won't stand for it. They make too much of a profit. Like someone else said, I can see them buying this and putting a stop to it almost immediately.

Either that or the oil companies will start buying out s**t, which is interesting considering they've been feeding us theirs for years.

Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

Yeah, I gotta agree with everyone here saying that there's no secret, super tricky conspiracy of oil companies holding back sustainable energy. Truth is that bringing new tech to market that can come close to making the price and effectivenss of oil is really, really difficult.

The answer isn't to pretend we could solve this easily if only it wasn't for those dastardly oil companies. The answer is to realise that we need to spend a lot of money on research and development, and will still have to accept paying a lot more for energy than we're used to.

Polonius wrote:Interesting, the US uses less oil per capita than Canada. Thought three times what the UK uses. It's possible that larger countries (area wise) might use more fuel...

I think oil use figures, like carbon emissions, are more to do with the presence of industry and resource extraction than anything else. Countries with relatively little of either, like the UK, tend to look very good. While even countries that have put decent resources into renewable enery and improving energy efficiency look terrible in oil per capita and emissions per capita, if they have serious amount of industry or resource extraction.

It's a problem, because the country that builds stuff and provides resources in blamed, not the country that ends up using the product. We need better metrics for measuring each country's contribution to sustainability, but I'd be buggered if I know what it is.

I wonder what ever happened to Smart Cars and Seg Ways

Anyways as long as I get better fuel to miles ratio, I dont care too much

Although I read too many books, I think one told me that all the bovines or cud chewers in the world out pollute the world's transportation system 2 times over or something and that carbon dioxide is a really crappy greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

CptJake wrote:Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

The oil companies also have the money to squash anything that could be efficient before it hits the market. Ever wonder why we get ethanol from corn when there are much more efficient ways to get it? Because the Corn Growers Union (or whatever it is called) is flush with cash and ties to oil companies.

mattyboy22 wrote:

CptJake wrote:Ever wonder why the Evil Oil Companies, if they could make a bigger profit off of a non-petroleum based fuel alternative than they do with petroleum based products, don't go ahead and expand?

Those companies spend a fortune each year in exploration and research. If there was a real economically sound alternative, they would be all over it.

The oil companies also have the money to squash anything that could be efficient before it hits the market. Ever wonder why we get ethanol from corn when there are much more efficient ways to get it? Because the Corn Growers Union (or whatever it is called) is flush with cash and ties to oil companies.

I've heard rumors much darker. Assassinations and -

*Conspiracy theorist comments redacted by the Holy Inquisition*

As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

kenshin620 wrote:Although I read too many books, I think one told me that all the bovines or cud chewers in the world out pollute the world's transportation system 2 times over or something and that carbon dioxide is a really crappy greenhouse gas compared to water vapor

Cows produce an immense amount of emissions, and it is a serious problem, far more than cars (which are actually relatively clean burning). The issue with cars is the increasing scarcity of oil. In terms of carbon emissions, the massive number of cows we now keep will definitely have to come into consideration at one time or another, and their farts limited in some way. Hopefully a technological solution is available (there is research being done into the bacteria in kangaroo stomachs, because despite having a very similar diet to cows kangaroos don't fart).


As to the water and carbon dioxide thing... that's basically a load of nonsense that the anti-climate change folk have been selling us for quite a while now. They're right that that there's more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but they're absolutely ridiculous when they pretend that the only measure. It's a bit like saying not to worry about the lead in the water supply, because there's way more calcium in there than lead, as if all particals of all types have an equal effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Companies are always looking to adapt, open up new markets. It's how up and coming executives make their names. It's how management justifies its existance to shareholders. "This year we kept doing stuff as we'd kept doing stuff for the last 50 years, because change is hard and expensive, now pay me my bonus" just doesn't work.

That's creates all sorts of problems, of course, but it also has undeniable strengths.

sebster wrote:kangaroos don't fart

Well I learned something today.

sebster wrote:Companies are always looking to adapt, open up new markets. It's how up and coming executives make their names. It's how management justifies its existance to shareholders. "This year we kept doing stuff as we'd kept doing stuff for the last 50 years, because change is hard and expensive, now pay me my bonus" just doesn't work.

That's creates all sorts of problems, of course, but it also has undeniable strengths.

Many big companies prefer to go with the cheaper, financially safer alternative.

Melissia wrote:Many big companies prefer to go with the cheaper, financially safer alternative.

If there was a commercially viable tech, companies would be all over it. You'd be looking at a trillion dollar market, and if older companies stalled on entering the market, new companies would spring up over night.

No-one worried that the horse and buggy giants were buying up these new 'car' inventions and suppressing them, because their money was in horses and buggies. No, they just got on with getting left behind by this new automobile market. The same isn't happening with alternatives to oil, because there isn't an alternative that can actually match oil for cost and effectiveness.

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Bull crap. Otherwise we would still be walking, except the rich who would have horses. And listening to 8-track.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:As an aside, just because a fuel is better doesn't mean the industry wants to adopt it. Because it takes money to change manufacturing infrastructure. It's easier for a manufacturer to produce the same thing they've always been producing, but slightly different than it is for a manufacturer to produce something new.

So they resist new things, and always will.

Bull crap. Otherwise we would still be walking, except the rich who would have horses. And listening to 8-track.

Not really. And at times the Horse and Buggy Lobby really did try to push through laws to restrict cars. In Pennsylvania, for example, there are laws still on the book that you have to pull off to the side of the road and hide your car if a horse and buggy are passing by. It's not enforced anymore, but it's still on the books, along with a law that you have to stop your car and fire a rocket every two miles if driving at night, so that farmers can clear livestock off the road.

That response doesn't come close to addressing what I said. In fact, it actually helps make my point.

Even WITH restrictions from the entrenched Horse and Buggy crowd, the inovators came up with a way to not only make automobiles, but make them profitable.

If I commit a horrible crime and end up sentenced to graduate school, I'd want to research and write a paper on the inherent humanism of conspiracy theories.

All of them, deep down, belief two things: 1) that humanity is more capable than we think in some regard, and 2) some people have enough control to keep that capability a secret.

Polonius wrote:If I commit a horrible crime and end up sentenced to graduate school, I'd want to research and write a paper on the inherent humanism of conspiracy theories.

All of them, deep down, belief two things: 1) that humanity is more capable than we think in some regard, and 2) some people have enough control to keep that capability a secret.

I think you just gave me a thesis for my Gen. Psych. essay. Thanks Polonius

CptJake wrote:That response doesn't come close to addressing what I said. In fact, it actually helps make my point.

Even WITH restrictions from the entrenched Horse and Buggy crowd, the inovators came up with a way to not only make automobiles, but make them profitable.

Actually, what saved them was that car makers an petrolium companies joined force4s and were more underhanded and better organized. They systematically shut down any and all competitive modes of transportation in the United States, regardless of profitability, including rail and canal systems, bought out lumber companies and either shifted them to furniture and paper, or closed them, smeared their rivals or flat out had them killed. The idea that oil or car companies might have inventors murdered unfortunately has some basis in fact, though no direct links have ever been proven, the rise of the big five automakers was strewn with mysterious deaths, particularly among union members. Big Oil is positively infamous for using assassination as a tool of negotiation, particularly in South America and South East Asia. Over a dozen national leaders have been killed supposedly in the name of National Security but in reality, it was to consolidate the position of oil and gas firms. In Africa, oil and gas concerns are hot on the heels of DeBeers as the number one employers of mercenaries in West Africa to ensure their operations remain viable.

It's quite possible that many inventions that were more viable have appeared over the years to vanish again, unheralded.

Al Capone once suggested that he wanted to bring the same efficiency to crime that Ford brought to cars, but wasn't ruthless enough for it.

You guys are are right. Profit and expansion and inovation mean nothing to oil companies trying to get ahead of their competition within the industry and to ensure their viability as a company into the future.

It is allabout just keeping the status quo and slowing change as much as possible.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

CptJake wrote:You guys are are right. Profit and expansion and inovation mean nothing to oil companies trying to get ahead of their competition within the industry and to ensure their viability as a company into the future.

It is allabout just keeping the status quo and slowing change as much as possible.

Sorry it took me so long to realize that.

Why innovate when you have a near monopoly and can force people to pay whatever you like? Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment: the oil companies are in a position where they can actually dictate foreign policy to the most powerful nations on earth, and rape the populations for whatever they think they can excuse. The Status quo equates continued windfall profits. Innovation threatens that.

A viable alternative would mean that people would refuse to spend $5 a gallon and more at the pump.

Most big companies think that safety is better than risk. It's safe to continue doing the same thing, why should they change? Change is expensive. Doing essentially the same thing you've always done but slightly more efficiently isn't.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Why innovate when you have a near monopoly and can force people to pay whatever you like?

Because Microsoft exists.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment: the oil companies are in a position where they can actually dictate foreign policy to the most powerful nations on earth, and rape the populations for whatever they think they can excuse. The Status quo equates continued windfall profits. Innovation threatens that.

If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

BaronIveagh wrote:
A viable alternative would mean that people would refuse to spend $5 a gallon and more at the pump.

Sure, but oil companies are not somehow special. They can, and have, invested in different things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Most big companies think that safety is better than risk. It's safe to continue doing the same thing, why should they change? Change is expensive. Doing essentially the same thing you've always done but slightly more efficiently isn't.

Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

dogma wrote:Because Microsoft exists.

Wait, waht?

Microsoft doesn't innovate. It just buys out other companies, fires their employees, then steals THEIR innovations.

dogma wrote:Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

The expense is a known variable. The profit is an unknown variable. Ergo, change is risky, as it deals with expenses paid towards an unknown payoff.

dogma wrote:
Because Microsoft exists.

You do realize that Microsoft hasn't innovated for years, and has more or else shoved the same thing down people's throats for most of that time, just putting a snazzy new UI on the outside of it. Large sections of Windows have not changed since NT.

dogma wrote:
If you really believe the bit about dictating foreign policy, then you don't know much about foreign policy.

Really? Explain to me then why the majority of American wars since Korea have almost without exception taken place in countries that either possessed, or were believed to possess, large petroleum reserves. Oh, and how American companies (or their wholly owned local subsidiaries three holding corps removed) ended up with the majority of the oil contracts? Or why big oil spends more then a billion dollars a year buying American politicians (never mind everywhere else).

Never mind all the nations the US has supported in the name of oil : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

dogma wrote:
Sure, but oil companies are not somehow special. They can, and have, invested in different things.

Yes, but only now that investors are concerned about the possibility of petroleum running out (real or imagined). Previously they invested a lot of money in making people and other things that were a hindrance to them dead and dumped titanic amounts of money into politics to ensure they got their way.

So far the only countries to hold big oil accountable in a way that mattered have been places like Ecuador and Venezuela, where they nationalized their oil industries in response to corporate malfeasance. Oh, and the CIA hired assassins in both locations to try and prevent it. Venezuela they were disguised as Colombian army to try and set up a war between Colombia and Venezuela. Ecuador they pretended to be communist guerrillas. Both groups were caught and confessed.

dogma wrote:
Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

Change is always the first in Industry. The second, however, is more of a gamble.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Well, no. Change can be expensive, or change can be profitable.

The expense is a known variable. The profit is an unknown variable. Ergo, change is risky, as it deals with expenses paid towards an unknown payoff.

Which is why there hasn't been a new product release to consumers in the last 30 years...

Oh wait.

What is your point exactly?

BaronIveagh wrote:
You do realize that Microsoft hasn't innovated for years, and has more or else shoved the same thing down people's throats for most of that time, just putting a snazzy new UI on the outside of it. Large sections of Windows have not changed since NT.

Clearly you missed my point. Microsoft is an example of what happens when established corporations are beaten to the punch by start-ups.

As for innovation: systemic concerns tend to be an issue, and one that extends beyond the ability of company X to dictate.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Really? Explain to me then why the majority of American wars since Korea have almost without exception taken place in countries that either possessed, or were believed to possess, large petroleum reserves.

Because global oil prices are related to global oil supply. Note that very little of America's petroleum actually comes from the Middle East. Hell, American extraction companies would make more money (per barrel, at least) if the Middle East went to hell and stopped shipping crude.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Never mind all the nations the US has supported in the name of oil : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14774533

I don't see any indication of support in that article. Nice try though.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, but only now that investors are concerned about the possibility of petroleum running out (real or imagined). Previously they invested a lot of money in making people and other things that were a hindrance to them dead and dumped titanic amounts of money into politics to ensure they got their way.

Oil companies are not involved solely in the petroleum trade.

BaronIveagh wrote:
So far the only countries to hold big oil accountable in a way that mattered have been places like Ecuador and Venezuela, where they nationalized their oil industries in response to corporate malfeasance. Oh, and the CIA hired assassins in both locations to try and prevent it.

Of course they did, oil nationalization tends to drive up global oil prices, and we don't like that. However, oil companies do like it. You're consistently confusing the interests of corporations involved in the oil trade, with US interests.

BaronIveagh wrote:
Change is always the first in Industry. The second, however, is more of a gamble.

No, that's flatly incorrect. Change is no more expensive, by necessity, than existing is.