It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

"free energy " is it really a threat to " big oil " ?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   
PART ONE

many claims are made , even here on ATS that " free energy " devices are [ if released onto the market ] going to cause the sudden collapse of the " big oil " ,

but would it ? IMHO it would not , and here is why :

1a REDUNDANCY

there are 100s of millions of engines and powerplants running on various petroleum fuels – are all of them going to be instantly retired ?

just building sufficient “ zpe “ devices would take years

1b CAPITAL COST

this is an issue that " zpe proponents " rarely address - the capital cost of replacing existing petroleum engines with " zpe " devices

a “ ZPE powerpant “ of whatever size is going to have a capital outlay

assuming that the “ zpe device “ could be made as a “ unit replacement “ for conventional power plants

as opposed to the requirement to buy an entire new vehicle

a typical car engine costs [ new] from 1500 to 4000 pounds

a typical commercial vehicle engine [ capable of the HP and torque required ] costs 3 to 10k

marine diesel engines [ of the type illustrated below ] cost millions / unit

the cost of one piston and cylinder liner is £50k , yes fifty THOUSAND

assuming that “ zpe devices “ have comparable cost / HP Kw/h output

that is 100s of millions of ponds of “ suddenly redundant “ plant that has to be retired – and then REPLACED with the new “ zpe “ equivalents

are you going to scrap your perfectly good car engine – and spend 2k + on a replacement ??

2 AVIATION

the aviation industry would have very little use for ZPE , in any form

ZPE cannot replace a jet engine - so all applications currently using jet engines or rockets would still require petroleum fuels

could "ZPE" replace turbo props / turbo fans / piston engines ?

I personally doubt it - firstly - because conventional electric motors cannot deliver the SHP [ shaft horse power ] or torque required to operate an aircraft prop

So the aviation industry will continue to rely on petroleum – that sector alone would continue to provide “ big oil “ with a revenue stream

And as I opine below – as they would stay dependant – the oil companies would be free to adjust prices upwards to maintain profit levels

3 PETRO CHEMICALS

a - lubricants , mineral oils and greases , none of these can be replaced – our “ dependence “ on mineral oil lubricants will remain

b - plastics / composites and hydro carbons , we use , or are dependant on the use of

almost all are sourced from petroleum – ZPE cannot replace the hundreds of kilograms of plastic products in your home

see also the argument in part two [ relating to pricing ]

many people are shockingly ignorant of just how vast the range of products that are chemically dependant on petroleum derivatives

almost every thing in our homes uses some none energy petrochemical in its production

even things that do not appear to have any link [ paper , textiles , metal , wood ] are secretly dependant at the manufacturing stage

the textiles , paper and lumber industries still use large quantities of petrochemical products [ b] not energy – which ZPE cannot replace

4 SCALABILITY

to a degree this has already been addressed – but an important issue is is its scalability – a ICE [ internal combustion engine ] engine can be scaled from this :



a model aircraft engine weighing just 400 grams

to this :



Or larger – a marine diesel of 20ooo SHP output – weighing 2000 tons and above

Can “ zpe “ motors deliver such flexibility ? even if they can – at what cost ? see the arguments for redundancy and capital cost .

I realise it goes in a circle – but that is real life , Something ZPE proponents blissfully ignore

PART TWO

what would " big oil " do in reaction to a " rival " zpe device hitting the market

while I am loathe to project , it is my view that it would make little difference

the hundreds of millions of application currently using [ dependant on ] petroleum would still need fuel – and by economic / practical necessity , still be used

during the “ transition phase “ as petrochemical dependant applications were retired

they would adjust their pricing structure and marketing , the price of fuel oils would IMHO fall slightly – simply to encourage uses to keep ICE engines in service

the theory is simple , if you already have a working ICE engine – bought and paid for – in order to justify the premature retirement of that unit then the procurement cost – and running cost of a zpe replacement must be lower than the running cost alone of the ICE plant – at least for the next phase of its service life

now if fuel cost dropped – the incentive to retain the ICE plant in service would be increased

thus – ICE power plants dependant on fuel oils would remain in many applications

also – using the principle of supply / demand – “ big oil “ would be at liberty to simply hike the cost of petrochemical derivatives which we cannot survive without

thus what ever “ savings “ we make by freeing ourselves from petroleum fuels – would be lost to the increased prices of plastics

infact we would be doubly screwed – as we would not only be paying the capital outlay of conversion to ZPE , we would also be paying the price hikes of petroleum derivatives

so – you could argue that it would be profitable for “ big oil “ to actually market ZPE devices – lol

PS – if you disagree with my contention that “` we cannot survive without “ none energy petrochemical products

Please start by telling us why we still use petro chemical energy ?

END

This is just a few off the cuff views / thoughts – ideas , corrections and counterpoints welcome .




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Damn ignorant you have covered a lot of ground there, so many questions it wouldn't surprise me if you may have frightened a lot of people off.

Can I just deal with one of your opinions first with one of mine.

I except a few of your arguments but the one I would like to tackle is transition.
There would have to be a transition period, a scaling of energy sources and thats where I think ideas from inventors like Stan Meyer would fit in.
An alternative fuel for the current ICE would be the logical solution that way you don't topple the whole industrial infostructure in one fell swoop.
I don't think you can substitute one power technology for another, (especially an advanced one), in a short period of time.
And that said unfortunately I do not see any change from fossil fuels until it runs out, the sheer impact it would have on the current money/power base would be akin to anarchy and that power would not allow it.
By the way I am assuming by ZPE you mean zero point energy correct me if I am wrong.

Regards



new topics
 
2

log in

join