It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Alternative energy idea...

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:28 AM
I think the answer lies in the sun.
It's one of the most powerful forms of energy and it's right in front of our nose.
We still have so much more to learn regarding it.......

[edit on 13-1-2007 by rocknroll]

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:00 PM
Um the major oil companies threw major dollars into solar and are some of the major manufacturers of panels today - BP Solar anyone..??

In terms of both cost and profit, oil is at the top of the list. Solar has minimal profit as the cost is very high. Only a major gov/state/local push to underwrite solar would make it a reality on a large scale (and de-stablize the mid-east as their income dries up....).

Other things, even if physically possible need to be run thru the physics and P&L (profit & loss) ringer for a dose of reality and trust me if the profits were higher or costs lower somewhere else, the major energy players would be all over it and fast.... Calculate the BTU's in a barrel of oil at a cost of even 70 bucks a barrel and you will find it hard to beat in terms of energy per dollar....

I think solar is the key (it's the BIG furnace after all) and all funding needs to go there - solar microwave, PV's whatever and I hope it happens right about when my oil stocks peak (so I can sell) and then crash....

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by UofCinLA
In terms of both cost and profit, oil is at the top of the list.

And this is the problem that I don't see going away soon.
We should turn from it with the repercussions for awhile, and get back on our feet with the sun. I don't see big business and our government leaving oil though.....too much money and red tape involved.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:53 AM
I really appreciate the "thoughtful" responses, and the fact that most of you are obviously ignoring the flamer with his babbling...

I believe that perhaps you are correct about the sun being the most abundant source available to us, and should definitely be looked into as a possible way to ween ourselves off the need for oil...

I've been looking into the research being done into aether... Is it perhaps an untapped resource that could prove to be unlimited??

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:25 AM
Excellent Idea!

Whoever wins the prize will prob have to go on a witness protection program of some kind ....

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Soitenly
Any alternative means of supplying fuel will only burn more fuel, increase the time frame at which these products can meet demand and which ultimately means these products will cost more than our now conventional fuels.

This has to be one of the most shortsighted statements I've ever heard in my life! And I believe, largely incorrect.

You might as well have said, "Let's stop researching everything. Advancing technologically is expensive and a waste of time." Are you kidding me?

There's a large assumption made here, and it's that alternative energy sources require fossil fuels. Without doing the research into the alternative sources, how can we ever say that? It's faulty science at best, and I don't even think that qualifies as science.

Initially, as we learn about new sources, I'm certain that at least a good portion of the energy required could start to come from renewable sources - biodiesel and the like. Having done some research on Ethanol, I'm pretty convinced that is a very bad idea. But that doesn't mean all related ideas will also be - that's faulty logic.

Ultimately, I forsee us being able to extract energy from the Earth (magnetically), Sun (Solar), then proceeding into the currently unknown physics of the universe that may allow something like a Zero-Point Generator. Who knows? But without the research, we'll never get there.

The best suggestion I can make is, keep your politics and your science seperate. And don't hide the science from the public. A couple examples (if I may digress...) - recycling - a bad idea. With the sole exception of Aluminum, this idea is far more harmful to the environment than people know - more harmful even then just throwing everything away. Ethanol (as mentioned above) - a bad idea. We are not getting any extra energy, and it's still costing us fossil fuels to make.

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:35 AM
You are defending academic research, which has no merit in the private sector. Academics can say all they want about water supplies, global warming and alternative fuels, they will be what they are: academic reports.
In the world outside the university, supply must meet demand. Academics do not concern themselves with supply and demand, that is left to the directors of the school who market the architecture and history as a way to attract students.
Research is necessary, the mother of invention is necessity. If you are going to spend millions of dollars devouring energy, obsure elements and minerals, hire people, use real estate and expensive machines, who had better make certain that research gives a rate of return for the company.

Alternative fuels do not offer rates of return. Ethyl alcohol blend for gasoline is essential being produced to eliminate the production of MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether), not as an "alternative fuel". Solar energy has been developed as a run off cost leveling agent to develop satellites. Nuclear energy was built largely in a race against the Soviet Union to develop bombs that could eveporate an entire city.
Some of these "alternatives use agriculture products, corn for ethyl acohol, or nonabundant and rare elements, selenium in solar cells and uranium in nuclear reactors.
Oil, coal and natural gas, however, are abundant. We know where these mineral deposits are, we know how to locate and produce new deposits and when can do all this at a very reasonable economic cost compared to the "alternatives". The technology exist for oil, coal and natural gas, no such luck for the "alternatives".

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Soitenly]

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:08 PM
I beg your pardon?

Academic research has no merit in the private sector? I'm sorry - I'm pretty sure we are in the Science forum here...

Respectfully, I vehemently disagree. Academic research is directly applicable to the private sector, and directly responsible for many overwhelmingly valuable success stories. Additionally, academic research is one of the most important and, (IMO) should be one of the most encouraged, fields of science and education. To place any lower a value is simply irresponsible to humanity. The entire point of existence is to advance to higher levels of being. This is something I've never heard from a politician, which from your PTS score seems to be your foundation. In fact, you sound like a very conservative Republican to me...

Nonetheless, such blatant disregard for the very thing that has brought us to our current level of technical achievement is, at best, insulting to the human race.

It feels to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong - I'm always open to debate, I'm not picking a personal fight) that your opinions express a very politically slanted viewpoint. These statements:

Alternative energy is dangerous and therefore will lead only to dangerous circumstances and dangerous consequences.

Let me say it like this: alternative energy is worthless and a waste of time, and is not worth spending money on the research. I have read direct quotes from oil executives who have said this and I must agree. This kind of lame thinking will only put our country in peril and in place it in harms way.

The truth is, if we do not secure the oil in this world, someone else will. That means someone else will control the market. The value of the US dollar is based upon how much oil we can sell, how much technology we can sell and how many concessions we can recieve to develop projection for Petrobas, Aramco, Lukoil and other oil and gas companies controlled by state governments directly.

The US Navy, the US Army and the US Air Force cannot overhaul their infrastructure to obtain the fuels their war machines run on simply to appease a few absent minded people.

Nothing last forever....good point.

Timber does not last forever.

Salt does not last forever.

Our resources do not last forever.

Get over it, we need oil, we need timber and we need salt. What do you want to do about it: crawl in the fetal position and I'll be there in five minutes. Good night.

are just about as horrific as I can imagine! Alternative energy is dangerous? Any new technology can be dangerous - should we crawl in our caves and stop exploring so we don't get hurt?

The value of the US dollar is based on Oil? You know what - maybe. To a point. So what? Currency is but one medium of exchange - this is severe tunnel vision. Right now, we are an oil-based economy, whether we like it or not. But that can't last forever, and it shouldn't - we need to find the next source of energy, whether that be solar, hydrogen, or something else, and jump on that bandwagon or we will be left in the dust. You said, "If we don't find the oil, someone else will." Yes - you are right. But you know what else? If we don't find the next foundation for an economy, someone else will.

The Navy, Army, Air Force - right now they are largely dependent on oil. But not entirely - what about Nuclear Subs? Yes they use some oil, but not like surface ships and planes. And this equipment will not last forever. We don't need to worry about overhauling our armed forces - we need to worry about transitioning them to the next level!

You and I both know that government and military policy could be, and desperately needs, to be overhauled, which could save us a ton of resources.

Ultimately, science is what will save our butts and help us progress. Nothing will last forever, but a fetal position is useless - I choose science and research!

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in