The Reason Why We Still Rely On Fossil Fuels

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Ok this took me ages to research and present into a readable format, so please don't be too critical if you spot any problems.

This thread relates to the top 5 nations by defence budget spending and their comparrison with what their Government spends on Science, Research and Development. I have presented this all as raw fact and have used many sources for my information of which I will reference at the foot of the post. Please note that I intended to use figures from the same financial year of all nations, but could not, due to lack of quality data available. However all data's are 2011 figures onwards.

First I will present you with the 5 nations in question (USA,China,Russia,UK and France) showing GDP, Defence Budget and Science Budget, as below.



Now I will present you with the said 5 nations, with a graph not including the GDP so we can get a little more focus on Military spending compared to Science.



Now I will present you with % figures accurate to 2 decimel places, all currency has been converted to dollars using todays exchange rates and the original figures presented in my references.




Opinion

As you can see I do not need to add much to this as the figures speak for themselves. If only our nations could spend the sums they do on Science as they do Defence budgets, then maybe we would have developed technologically as a race so that we didn't actually need to fight over resources. I think the figures alone, prove that we are a war mongering race and that we do not really care about advancing ourselves over agression. It is a sad situation to be in. That is all I have to say folks, please add your comments and criticisms.

References

comptroller.defense.gov...
www.whitehouse.gov...
www.google.co.uk...:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=us%20gdp
www.nytimes.com...
www.nature.com...
www.google.co.uk...:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=what%20is%20china%27s%20gross%20domes tic%20product
barentsobserver.com...
www.nature.com...
www.google.co.uk...:RUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=what%20is%20russia%27s%20gross%20dome stic%20product
www.ukpublicspending.co.uk...
www.gov.uk...
www.google.co.uk...:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=what%20is%20the%20uk%27s%20gross%20do mestic%20product
www.defensenews.com...
news.sciencemag.org...
www.google.co.uk...:FRA&dl=en&hl=en&q=what%20is%20france%27s%20gross%20dome stic%20product




posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Well humans are what nature intended us to be.

Our nature will not change simply because we spend more on science as compared to war. We will just find more scientific ways to kill each other.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


and the fact that mining for rare earth minerals is far more expensive than mining for fossil fuels.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


I do not believe that can be the case as I believe Science can neuteralise many of the reasons why we go to war. Like proving once and for all about religion, making resources go further ect ect.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
What is a "defence budget" anyways? I want to respond but it's hard to gauge such an angle.
You know we're in the jungle, right?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
So why do we rely on Fossil Fuels?

Because of over inflated defence budgets?



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
So why do we rely on Fossil Fuels?

Because of over inflated defence budgets?



No because our nations lack the foresight to actually invest into the Science and potentially end the need for fossil fuels.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 



Originally posted by michael1983l

If only our nations could spend the sums they do on Science as they do Defence budgets, then maybe we would have developed technologically as a race so that we didn't actually need to fight over resources.
That could only happen if the people in control of those ridiculously large amounts of money, didn't want to stay in control of their money.

The rich stay rich, and send the poor to war.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Well personaly I think why we still use fossil fuels is because it is so incredibly efficient compared to anything else and then theres the financial aspect of it too, easy wealth generation.

AND its usefulness of its by products, plastics, rubbers, waxes, CD's, car batteries, shoes, toys, soap the list is nearly endless, what we actualy do with crude oil is fantastic.

Basicaly not utilising Fossil Fuels as a resource, in my mind seems pretty stupid considering what it allows us to do, cant make paint with Solar Energy, nope nope nope.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Tuttle
 


But you can make paint, without burning fossil fuels and fossil fuels will eventually run out.
edit on 9-2-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Thank you for providing well researched, well presented information. I share your belief that an investment in scientific research bears greater dividends than investment in defense, and that scientific knowledge will, someday, render war obsolete. Unfortunately, you do not make the case that defense spending is the reason why we still use so called "fossil fuels." Hydrocarbons yield a great deal of energy per unit of mass. They burn hot, which makes a small amount go a long way. They are thus very efficient. This is why wood and coal powered steam engines gave way to diesel. Because they remain economical, they are still in use.

France is exceptionally forward thinking among economically and technologically advanced nations because it devotes as much funding to research and development as it does to defense. It is far less dependent on other nations for its energy needs because over forty percent of its electricity is provided by nuclear power plants. That is the other side of the coin I don't think you noticed. Although I have no irrational fears of nuclear energy, many people do. They would rather be poisoned by the sulfur and mercury in coal, or the carbon monoxide released by burning petroleum than accept a nebulous risk they do not understand.

On the other hand, the case could readily be made that the out-sized spending on defense is a result of America and Europe's dependence on oil and gas. Most of the economically exploitable reserves of hydrocarbons are in parts of the world that are either unstable or even hostile. The sad fact is that, since the end of the Cold War, the militaries of the "First World" exist almost exclusively to insure access to affordable gas and oil. Madness? Yes, but welcome to the world as it is today.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Of course you can, just not as efficiently, and thats the point, thats why we still use it, its efficient, so efficient in fact to use any other product in any other way would just be a waste of time and money.

Sadly that is how it is.

And until we can basicaly engineer the building blocks of the universe to suit our selves[star trek replicators], much like chemical engineering, then thats just the way its going to be.

Crude oil as a resource is insanely usefull, no other product gives us so much in return, nothing, not even close.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
The reason we still rely on such obsolete methods of generating power is so the totalitarian technocrats can retain a measure of control over the masses.

Simple!
edit on 9-2-2013 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Tuttle
 



AND its usefulness of its by products, plastics, rubbers, waxes, CD's, car batteries, shoes, toys, soap the list is nearly endless, what we actualy do with crude oil is fantastic.


At this point, plastics are no longer the by-product, but the principal product. Modern Western society is so highly urbanized now that automobiles with an internal power plant are unnecessary. If petroleum suddenly became prohibitively expensive, the electrical grid could be rapidly expanded to permit greater mass transit and rechargeable electric cars for those who need (or want) them. The true consequence of seemingly unlimited hydrocarbons is the disposable plastic goods consumer economy. If the petroleum supply were to disappear, it would not be an energy crisis; we have energy covered. It would be a raw material crisis. Nearly everything in a modern consumer society is made out of, or relies upon, plastic.
edit on 9-2-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
While i agree with much of what you say. I must point out that oil is not only used for fuel. It's use in fertilizer alone doubled food production. It is used in everything we have, including pharmaceuticals. We can never, ever stop drilling for oil. The computer you are using to post here is contains a lot of oil.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Your post is excellent and points out something that is definitely worth talking about, however I feel there is an easier explanation for why we still rely on fossil fuels...

Fear of Obsolescence.

Here is how I see it... if you tell people that all oil today comes from fossils of some kind, whether it is dinosaurs or plants or what have you, then everyone automatically equates that to a limited amount. As long as you can convince people of that, you can drive the price of oil based on how much, or how little, people believe is left. Believing that something is limited is what gives it value (for most people). Think of diamonds, gold, silver, and of course, oil. This way, when the oil cartels want to drive prices up, they just hire a bunch of "scientists" and other groups to start making claims that we're "running out" and that the costs need to increase to find more.

This is the rub. Let's look at facts for a second...

- The Deepwater Horizon that caused the oil spill in the Gulf, drilled at a depth of 35,050 feet, minus the 4,132 feet of water, so approximately 30,918 feet down, they found oil. (Source)

- The worlds deepest dinosaur fossil was found 7,401 feet under the ground. (Source)

- This puts the Deepwater Horizon's oil find at roughly 5 times the depth of the oldest fossil on record, at the deepest depth we have found.

Logically, if you put these simple facts together, one can just about conclude that fossil fuels are the biggest lie that has been perpetrated on the people of the world. Everything we do across the planet has been done using the energy derived from fossil fuels. (coal and other sources are negligible) Generations of people have been looted and sucked dry over the cost of oil.

Abiotic oil (theoretically) is the formation of oil naturally through processes deep in the Earth's crust and has been gaining a lot of attention lately, especially given the facts above. (Source)

After the BP incident, the talk of peak oil seemed to have died out a bit, probably because the depths they were drilling to had many people realizing that there is likely not a limited amount of oil.

It is the oil companies best kept secret. As long as they have us believing the source is limited to how much life existed previously on the planet, they can continue to rob us all blind, and THAT is why I believe we still rely on fossil fuels, and not for any other reason.

S&F for the materials you presented, didn't mean to derail the post, just adding input.

~Namaste



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





it would not be an energy crisis; we have energy covered. It would be a raw material crisis. Nearly everything in a modern consumer society is made out of, or relies upon, plastic.


Exactly, thats what people fail to understand, easily the most widely used plastic, polyethylene is made from hydrocarbons, ethylene, condensate, alkylate etc

People just dont seem to understand the extent to which crude oil and or natural gas is actualy utilised in modern society, if one day we woke up and there was no more, production has infact stopped, well, sorry to say but society will pretty much collapse and stop right there with it.
edit on 9-2-2013 by Tuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 



Abiotic oil (theoretically) is the formation of oil naturally through processes deep in the Earth's crust and has been gaining a lot of attention lately, especially given the facts above. (Source)


Even if one accepts Gold's "Deep, Hot Biosphere" Model (and it is one of the "fringe" theories I am extremely sympathetic towards) it does not invalidate the Hubbert curve. If hydrocarbons are being produced by, say, subterranean micro-organisms, they are presumably being produced at a fixed rate. This raises the possibility that extractive industries are removing these hydrocarbons faster than they can be replaced. The analogy would be with pumping water out of the water table. If you remove it at a rate slower than the replenishment rate, the groundwater will last forever. If you exceed that rate, the wells go dry. China is having this very problem now.



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I think some people miss my point, I am not saying that we stop using Fossil Fuels, entirely, I do not think that will ever be the case for as long as it is still relatively easy to get oil out of the ground. What we do not need however is war over fossil fuels and development of alternative energies such as Fisson or Hydrogen could mean that we could diversify our energy supply and stop relying on the same nations for our fuel needs.

I think it is grotesque to see how much we spend on war when compared to our sciences and out of the 5 nations I choose only France makes a reasonable show of themselves. War brings death but Science brings prosperity and technology. I wish that we could as a race invest much more in Science than we do, we have so much more to discover
edit on 9-2-2013 by michael1983l because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
reply to post by michael1983l
 


Of course you can, just not as efficiently, and thats the point, thats why we still use it, its efficient, so efficient in fact to use any other product in any other way would just be a waste of time and money.



But this will always be the case unless we spend money researching alternative fuels, thats my whole point!






top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join