"Big Oil" trying to suppress alternative energy right before our eyes.

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
This is a good one, it came to me today while reading an earlier thread here sourced with information from natural news claiming thousands of deaths from Fukishima.

Now, the study was written by the same people who did an earlier one claiming baby deaths after Fukishima, I spotted the study's blatent misuse of information a few months ago.

And then again this new study pops up, addressed here.



After reading through all these posts on and off the boards related to Fukishima with a very heavy anti-nuclear position, the question popped up in my head just exactly, "Who is anti-nuclear?"


That's when I found this article:



Nuclear power’s main energy competitor is of course Big Oil, which had no problem with nuclear weapons, but was not happy to lose its grip on the world’s major source of energy. Nuclear energy was not under their control, requiring by definition major government involvement and regulation of the industry. Its widespread use would leave Big Oil with falling profits, and would mean the end of Big Oil’s economic hegemony.

This led to a bizarre situation where oil companies both founded and funded ecology-related organisations, including the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, Nature Conservancy, Greenpeace, Sierra Club and others to protest the peaceful use of nuclear power. These groups have all received backing from the oil industry, notably Atlantic Richfield Oil and BP (formerly the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now employing greenwash by marketing itself as “Beyond Petroleum”). Recall that BP is responsible for the world’s worst environmental disaster in recent times, last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Big Oil’s logic has been to rein in the movement for the arguably cleaner nuclear energy and keep the very dirty oil flowing.




OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH.

Okay.

Starting to make sense now.

For the longest time I hadn't given the nuke issue much thought. And while there are some sincere activists out there, it takes money backing to form large organizations. Where's that money coming from? Big Oil of course.

The irony about this, is that on alternative blog and news sites, often-both "Big Oil" and "Nuclear" are both the inferred enemies of the people.

Really it's just two sides playing it out on each other.

So here is a technology that big oil most likely, really is trying to suppress. Very plausible. Of course the suppression efforts have not led to the eradication of nuclear energy, and soon, if hot-fusion pans out, they probably don't have a hope in hell to stop the nuclear industry.

---

So the next time you see Gunderson or other "Specialists" on the news who are paid by the anti-nuclear lobby, just remember that you might be buying into "Big Oil" propaganda by feeding off of what they say.

And vice versa.

Information only has one purpose. It's up to you to take it in neutrally.

edit on 16-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Oh come on why would they suppress new tech?

Not like they have BILLIONS of dollars invested in the current way of doing things or anything...

Or like they have a global monopoly on prices for energy...

Yea no reason at all for the oil company to stomp on innovation.

I am a big believer that there is tech out there that will solve all our energy problems, it just that the old cows still giving milk... They want to wait till thats dead first.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
Oh come on why would they suppress new tech?

Not like they have BILLIONS of dollars invested in the current way of doing things or anything...

Or like they have a global monopoly on prices for energy...

Yea no reason at all for the oil company to stomp on innovation.

I am a big believer that there is tech out there that will solve all our energy problems, it just that the old cows still giving milk... They want to wait till thats dead first.


I think the biggest chance of a shift in energy use/production to happen would be the success of future hot fusion projects like ITER:


Scientists from all over the world have come together in ITER to work toward a lofty goal: harness the energy produced by the fusion of atoms to help meet mankind's energy needs.


Link

In the past few months there have been a few threads on the topic. Forgive me for not posting links as I had trouble with a search.

Now, the Oil industry may be trying to suppress or slow down nuclear energy, but it has no chance of stopping it if hot fusion is successful. There are billions of dollars and countries around the world invested into hot fusion.


The reason I find this interesting though, is because we are always taking in claims of "Big Oil" suppressing some new free energy device that mysteriously never goes to market while the inventor walks off with/or continues soliciting funds.

The important thing here, is an example of Big Oil actually trying to suppress something and failing for the most part. Which only leads me to identify that as more evidence painting a picture of bogus inventors who are trying to scam gullible people out of their investor money.

There is suppression, but the problem is that you can't really suppress something that people want. If you could, there would be no "war on ______" (Insert verb/noun in blank space)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl


I am a big believer that there is tech out there that will solve all our energy problems, it just that the old cows still giving milk... They want to wait till thats dead first.

 


What makes you think they are capable of suppressing technologies when they have for the most part failed suppressing something they are openly trying to suppress?

Their successes in this venture have been localized in specific areas where their efforts worked. But widespread suppression has not worked.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
As long as the technology fits the current infrastructure and allows us to stay on the grid, they'll be happy. Doesn't matter if it's oil, nuclear, wind turbines - as long as it feeds into the grid and can keep a meter going.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
It seems to me that as an "intelligent" society, getting a cheap, renewable source for energy should've been a top priority for some time now. Right??
Things like solar, wind and nuclear energy have been put on the back burner in favor of a dirty, expensive, NON-renewable fossil fuel... It seems counter intuitive...
It angers me that the greed of big oil has kept humanity dependent on their product. They are squeezing every cent they can out of us.

Big oil is purposely steering humanity in the wrong direction for their own personal gain. And big brother is allowing it..



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by benrl


I am a big believer that there is tech out there that will solve all our energy problems, it just that the old cows still giving milk... They want to wait till thats dead first.

 


What makes you think they are capable of suppressing technologies when they have for the most part failed suppressing something they are openly trying to suppress?

Their successes in this venture have been localized in specific areas where their efforts worked. But widespread suppression has not worked.


I suppose in the Nuclear case, over many other alternative energy areas, there is an equally powerful and well funded opposition to Big Oils attempts at supressing it.

Grass roots energy technology inventors and innovators (and even accidental discoveries) very often don't enjoy such powerful and well heeled allies as the Nuclear industry does.

As well as funding opposition groups, such as those you mention, it also wouldn't suprise me in the least if BO was behind a huge % of the 'alternative energy scams' that have done the rounds on the internet for years....it would surprise me if they weren't behind most of them actually.

When alternative energy or free energy, or cold fusion or water car or whatever energy is mentioned these days, it's almost always accompanied by the words 'Scam, con artist or hoax'...so...it would seem BO is doing a very good job moulding public perceptions regarding any alternative form of large scale energy, creating the idea that it's either a scam or doesn't work...we are supposed to be in an energy crisis, heading for a meltdown (pun intended)...where are the Billions and Trillions in R&D funding actively looking for a viable solution to the impending energy drought we are constantly being force fed?

Nowhere. If the energy situation was genuinely as dire as were led to believe (to inflate Oil prices and energy prices in general), the main officially supported drive would be to pour as much money and human resources into finding a workable solution as humanly possible, to ensure our way of life and progress is maintained...this isn't happening.

What is a 100 Million in R&D if it produces a working and cheap, clean and safe alternative energy system at the end of it? What is a Billion even or 100 Billion? Chicken feed, even if the money doesn't produce a working system, it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things...Energy poverty, a stone age existence, lack of progress, national disintegration and stagnation and probably ultimately the demise of our species is what is on the cards if the energy 'runs out of juice'...and to solve that isn't worth throwing everything you have at it?

Well, not if you happen to hold the monopoly on producing and controlling the current energy supply apparently.

There are scams, unfortunately i reckon most of them originate with those who want to increase their already obscene wealth and power while taking more and more of it from the little guy.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX


What is a 100 Million in R&D if it produces a working and cheap, clean and safe alternative energy system at the end of it? What is a Billion even or 100 Billion? Chicken feed, even if the money doesn't produce a working system, it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things...

 


While it's not 100 billion ITER is spending a fair chunk on their project, and there are many others out there as well:


On 21 November 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[9] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years – 10 for construction, and 20 of operation. ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €5billion, but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design have seen that amount more than triple to €16billion.[10] The reactor is expected to take 10 years to build with completion scheduled for 2019.[11] Site preparation has begun in Cadarache, France and procurement of large components has started.[12]


Link

I think the moral is you can't keep a good idea down. You many be able to slow the progress, but never kill it completely.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
spam removed by Admin
edit on May 16th 2012 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by MysterX


What is a 100 Million in R&D if it produces a working and cheap, clean and safe alternative energy system at the end of it? What is a Billion even or 100 Billion? Chicken feed, even if the money doesn't produce a working system, it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things...

 


While it's not 100 billion ITER is spending a fair chunk on their project, and there are many others out there as well:


On 21 November 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[9] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years – 10 for construction, and 20 of operation. ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €5billion, but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design have seen that amount more than triple to €16billion.[10] The reactor is expected to take 10 years to build with completion scheduled for 2019.[11] Site preparation has begun in Cadarache, France and procurement of large components has started.[12]


Link

I think the moral is you can't keep a good idea down. You many be able to slow the progress, but never kill it completely.


Oh i don't know Boncho...i would love to believe that.

If enough money and power is at stake, i reckon you can keep a good idea down for just about however long was thought necessary.

Every heard of Nitinol Alloy?



I hadn't until recently, yet this Nickel Titanium alloy has been around since the 60's....in the late 60's and mid 70's, designs for engines and turbines built using this metal and exploiting it's very odd properties to drive electrical generators were being built and the authorities including Universities and the DoE were seeing great things for this stuff, even going so far as to state they could see this being made into generators that would pay for themselves in a short time, and then provide effectively $/£ cost free energy from then on.

They were even confident enough to go so far as to say that this metal and the generators and systems made from it, after refining and innovating design, would reduce or eliminate US dependence on Oil.

And then...not very much, an article from the early 90's, a few manufacturers producing the alloy more as a novelty, or for use in sensors and regulation equipment is about it.

Engineered properly, a low temperature differential, Nitinol based prime mover using scavanged heat from friction (or general waste heat) or taken directly from the environment (Solar, Geothermal, ground source etc), or repeatable chemical reactions using gasses, or even powered using relatively small amounts of electricity would potentially power the world, it's non polluting, safe, get's stronger the more it's used, cheap to produce, and while not free as in 'against the laws of physics free', would after a short time be cost free.

Yet, we see no engines powered by this stuff, no power stations built to use it, despite the rhetoric from governments about the environment and 'climate change' etc.

Obviously, it hasn't been publically engineered into workable and effective designs because Oil would take a huge hit, and so would the government in terms of the revenues it generates from Oil or nuclear based power.

If they're big and powerful enough, the ideas may still circulate, but won't be put to any real use if it doesn't suit them.
edit on 18-5-2012 by MysterX because: Added link



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Unfortunately the cow that is being milked is the planet earth, and when that dies, so do we all. These people don't care about that, all they care about is profit.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX


Every heard of Nitinol Alloy?

 


Yes.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's not hidden.




Yet, we see no engines powered by this stuff, no power stations built to use it, despite the rhetoric from governments about the environment and 'climate change' etc.


No.

Just because a video can look cool and promising doesn't mean anything when it goes into practical development.


Energy, Engineering, and the Military
Wang now researches, among other applications, the possibility of using Nitinol as a
source of energy. Because solid-state heat engines require nothing more than a heat
source to generate power, they could become a very clean power source. ITI has
studied the feasibility of power plants based on Nitinol. To date, energy yields from
Nitinol engines have been low. Wang has found no easy way to increase their output,
but he hopes to overcome these problems [17].

Wang has built a number of prototypes of Nitinol engines, based on the conversion of
thermal energy to mechanical energy (Figure 6). The changes in Nitinol as it passes
through two water baths—one hot and one cold—causes the motion in the prototype
engines. The hot water heats the Nitinol to its transition temperature, and it contracts,
while the cold water cools it below its transition temperature, and it expands. The
resulting force and torque can drive an engine which could theoretically generate
electricity, turn flywheels, propel an airplane, or power a car [17]. ITI markets the
Thermobile™
, an educational toy that demonstrates the conversion of heat energy to
mechanical energy


Link

pdf

In any case, Nitinol is not suppressed as it has thousands of uses besides the hopes of free energy. Be it cost or other.





---

What have they got out of the research? An educational toy. Ahh.



Is someone going to scale up the Newton's cradle too?




edit on 18-5-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Of course Nitinol isn't hidded, it was out in the wild before it could be bought and buried.

That and the fact it is very useful in other areas, and turns a very tidy profit doing so.

But in terms of the subject of the video, energy production, not 'free energy' i hasten to add, merely 'very, very..very cheap' energy, a child would have to admit, the horror in the board rooms of Oil companies if this special alloy would ever be exhastively persued for energy production.

You saw how fast that large relatively heavy metal wheel was spinning against the friction and forces of the water in the tank...right?

And you personally don't see any serious energy generating potential there? At all?

If you don't, fair enough, we can't all have engineering minds. But then again, you don't really need one to see the potential in that one, very simple and very crude (no pun intended) device. Once refined, properly engineered and scaled and placed in high enough quantity, this alloy, together with natural heat and cold differentials (the ambient temperature of the air against the regular and dependable temperatures below ground would be cost free to use for desired effect.

Heck, even the whole thing could be cited underground, no water bath or cryogenics gases are even needed.

Take London...the below ground temperature gradient looks like this (surface temps during measurements was 2.50 degC): at 1 meter below ground it is 6.93 degC...at 5 Meters it levels off at 12.25 degC, unless you go significantly deeper (like a coal mine deep)

Nitinol Alloy only requires a temp differenial of around 20%...other later formulations have improved upon this, to somewhere around only a few % difference is required. Remember, the temperature is NOT important, only the difference between the two temperatures is.

You still don't see why this would have had Oil executives awake at night crying like babies into their wives' bossom? You don't think there was any drive to supress energy generation innovations using this, despite it being out in the open and used for other practical purposes?

Think about it.





new topics
top topics
 
11

log in

join