reply to post by dave420
dave420, thanks for replying to my post. While you may be somewhat correct in claiming that what I said belongs in some unknown conspiracy, there is
some truth to it. There are a lot of innovations and inventions which, after making the news, are quietly removed from the public eye. These are
things which have the potential to significantly change how we consume energy. Why would these things be swept away? It's quite simple. Big oil and
other corporations, and even the government, need to protect their interests and wallets. Why would a major energy provider (oil, gas, electricity,
etc.) want to promote an invention that could seriously diminish their profits?
Here are some examples:
Turning salt water into fire: www.wpbf.com...
Using water as a supplement to gas in cars: www.waterforfuel.com... www.watercarsolution.com...
Creating fuel with algae: www.popularmechanics.com...
In reading most articles and websites related to this topic, it is not uncommon to learn that some big oil company or the department of energy is
somehow involved with the research or the funding.
So why are these things not getting more attention from the media? Why do we not see a stronger push to move to some of these technologies at some
point, when they reach a point of being cost effective?
One might point to ethanol as the answer to those question. However ethanol production using corn is much more costly and detrimental than simply
using oil! www.rollingstone.com...
While it may not be possible to prove outright, some folks point to increased ethanol production as a factor for rising food costs
) and water shortages
). That aside, it is still not worthwhile to use corn to make ethanol. I can't say why
politicians are so high on it, but I am willing to speculate that it is to make it appear as though they are doing their part to support the so-called
fight on global warming. The reality is, ethanol is expensive and inefficient to produce (www.albionmonitor.com...
Interestingly, I've also read that hybrid engines are also very inefficient to make, and a lot of toxic byproducts are left over...I'll try to find
So why do things like ethanol and hybrid cars get all the attention, while these other things hardly warrant any coverage?
Oil consuming combustion engines have been used in cars for over a century. According to wikipedia, 3,667,928 cars were made by the major automotive
companies in the year 2000 (en.wikipedia.org...
). If we assume that the average price for a car that year
was a very conservative $15,000, that means those cars cost, in total, $55,018,920,000. Fifty five billion dollars. As a person working for an
automotive supplier, I can tell you that a lot of that money is not profits. However it does give an idea as to just how much money is being thrown
Getting back to my point here... there is a lot at stake when it comes to continued use of oil. People make a LOT of money off of oil. They're not
going to be enthusiastic about jumping on the bandwagon for some brilliant invention that could take a big chunk out of their income, even it is in
the best interests of humans in general. Let's say that, for some unforeseeable reason, one of these inventions manages to revolutionize the way we
produce and/or consume energy in automobiles. The costs involved in creating new automobiles to cater to this new energy could be enormous. The impact
would not only be on companies like Ford, GM, Honda, etc. It goes much further than that. Those companies have suppliers who have suppliers who have
suppliers. The engineers from, say, Ford, would have to work with their suppliers to make the new parts, and those suppliers have to go through their
suppliers to make their stuff, and so on.
It is not surprising that huge companies don't want to change. The expenses would be huge. And, since money is what the corporations are all about,
there is no reason for them to embrace something that has the potential to sink the ship. And what better way to appear as though you care about the
environment and innovation while maintaining your control on the technology than to fund the research, pick up the patents, and then let them collect