The Reason Why We Still Rely On Fossil Fuels

A few points.

1. There are various sources on the internet which challenge and contradict your statistics on research investment. Start with Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org... but there are other sources too which support this table.
2. Different countries have different models of funding research In the UK (for example) research is passed down to universities and other institutions, where in France they State retains significant control.
3. We have developed technology to replace fossil fuels. It is called nuclear!
4. For the leading research on advanced energy take a look at www.ccfe.ac.uk...

Regards

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

The science that lead to the atom bomb will be a major part of the science that will lead to cold fusion and fission technologies. The Scientists didn't use their technology for death, the Government did.

My point exactly. I'm saying that the issue is not as clear cut as the OP makes out.

There will be lives saved from the defence budget and lives taken away due to the science budget and vice versa.

What is more shocking is the total budget of the defence and science combined vs. The actual total incomming money.

Just where is the other 95% of the GDP going???

Korg.

reply to post by michael1983l

it is still cheap.

I thought it was because the horrible people that go by the name Rockefeller still are the head of the shadow cartel of big oil. I just found out recently that they are to blame for a good portion of nuclear plants existing around the world. They have major interests in uranium production today.... a very sore subject for me.

reply to post by michael1983l


People have been researching alternative fuels etc for a long time. Unfortunately the laws of physics are pretty well researched and we know the answers, and they are not good. There is nothing better than liquid hydrocarbons, and no cheap way to make liquid hydrocarbons compared to tearing up the planet.

Nuclear is the only new actual energy source discovered in the last 100 years, and it is far too impractical and dangerous to use in all the situations where people and machines could use compact energy sources.

reply to post by paraphi


The "R&D" in that table includes much private "R&D" which is very far from actual science, it is more normal business activities classified in a certain way for tax purposes.

Because, simply put, most "alternative" energies have proven to be inefficient and not practical, and the evidence points to them staying that way and that we are already hitting the limits of efficiency for things like solar and geothermal energy, and that's after tens of billions of dollars pumped into it. Fusion seems to have a number of serious technical problems that won't at least be solved for many centuries to come according to quite a number of physicists.

Modern civilization some time this century could be in big trouble when things like peak oil start to become significant.

Fusion seems to have a number of serious technical problems that won't at least be solved for many centuries to come according to quite a number of physicists.

Unless the conspiracy runs deeper than any publicly available information source can enlighten.

You cannot neatly split GDP into military spending and science. It was military spending that developed solar cells for satellites, fission and fusion reactions for use in bombs. There is an unpublished agreement over who makes money in the oil markets and the powers that be know that until the oil is close to running out there is insufficient motivation to develop new energy sources.

The question remains, if nuclear fusion reactors could be built, why are they waiting past peak world oil production to implement?

They had this discussion back in the 1960's. Proponents claimed the heat from a series of very small fusion reactions could be used to power a plant. Probably true but its very difficult to implement controlled fusion. There were fears the process could be reverse engineered into weapons especially since the fuel entering the plant would likely need to be weapons grade. I've often wondered if the real nuclear project in Iran might be the development of a fusion plant.

We the public will never know the truth. Obviously they could spend the money now to built a lot of conventional fission power plants and the infrastructure to deal with the radioactive mess. It would only take about 10 years to upgrade the US power grid to run almost everything off nuclear power. Are they waiting for a cleaner fusion solution?

The public is retarded so I'd expect some kind of "beyond thunderdome" choreography into "Tomorrow-morrow Land".
Could be pretty cool if they think it out well ahead of time though.

I think we are living in the Golden Ages. In 20 years or less,it will be the Age of Scarcity. The unlimited energy and other technologies will be reserved for the elite. They don't want the average idiot to have access to these things.

And just take a walk through Walmart...

We have to face it... those in control of advanced technologies would be suicidal to release such wonders onto the public. The first time some guy on Jerry Springer cheats on the mother of his children with her mother, she will go make an unlimited energy bomb and blow up the world because she can't face the fact that he never loved her and never will.

Then there are those who think we "need to press the reset button" who would be all too happy to kill off 95% or more of humanity. Then there are those who, for religious reasons, believe that it is their duty to kill off 40-60% or more of the world.

Then there's other people who are perfectly fine right now, but will get bumped in the head, or maybe due to some side effect to a medication or accidental chemical exposure, will suddenly go nuts and try to kill everyone.

There's too many crazies in the world.

You have to either accept their system of total control, mark of the beast and the whole shebang, or else it will never work.

That's right, you'll have to do the unthinkable no matter what. Accept the NWO... unthinkable. Give up our pursuit for technology including curing diseases, and just accept that people will die... unthinkable.

You see, once technology reaches a certain point, it will be like every one of us has our finger on the big red button... Our governments WANT to release all the wonders upon us...but in order to do so...in order to have this utopia...they will be forced to all but imprison and enslave us to make sure that nobody snaps and ruins it for us all...hence the NWO. Sure, its not all benevolent. But regardless, they will not allow unlimited power to fall in the hands of commoners who have the priorities displayed by so many...

I think they make shows like Jersey Shore and Maury Povich and Jerry Springer to say "see? This is why we treat you like cattle, and this is why you will never be trusted with any power." Yes, they push the crap like drug dealers and promote these wasteful lifestyles... That was The Test. 90% of you failed miserably. And people sit back and laugh at the people who's lives are being ruined on Jerry Springer or Maury, as if they are better. They feel good when they see others suffering. Why? Because it isn't them. It's sickening. And these same people wonder why the elites don't treat them more fairly... It's because you're all a bunch of disgusting pigs wallowing around in a pen, scrambling about to be the first to get the biggest share of slop! The small percentage of us who are not a part of this need to seperate ourselves from them. In every way. Either that or try to help them... If its even possible.

Dbl post

Based only on your graphs, I’d say the US is getting the best bang for the buck! S&F for an interesting & safe compilation of graphical comparisons…

As other posters alluded, we’re the only truly capitalist nation in your comparison--science & technology are profitable endeavors, so where is the graph that includes our US-based global technological leaders as a part of the overall “efforts”?

Along those lines, where is the graph displaying the amount of defense spending that is allocated to research & development (i.e., science & technology)?

In fact, I’d place all bets that the truly cutting-edge scientific research is now where it has always been, under the umbrella of “defense spending”--to secure capitalist freedom (in theory), the gov’t will always have the greatest financial & human resources, as well as, interests.

That introduces the point of intellectual security, as flawed as my gov’t is capable of being, I sleep better know that I don’t know the truly centurion technological breakthroughs that our world-leading scientific minds have achieved, because neither do the dirty nuke, model airplane building, blind-zealot sociopaths!

Considering that global scientific contributions aggregately favor the economic viability of fossil fuels compared to overall (& individual) expenditure of burgeoning alternatives, it’s a good bet that we’re where we are, not by lack of trying, or technological advancement, but to allow as many as possible to appreciate a relatively similar quality of life…Have you priced a hybrid car? If the gov't outlawed my trusty pickup, my new hybrid would double as my home!

ETA: If the fossil-fuel & technology discrepancy really concerns you, I'd be extremely grateful if you would invent an alternative fuel (that's not made from food!) or technology that we can adapt to our present internal combustion engines to increase mileage & efficiency, as well as, in our homes to free us from the extorting monthly utility tributes. With all the $ we'd save, we could afford to educate a more intelligent species--or not?

You realize that governments (hotbeds of incompetence and waste) are not the sole source of scientific research, right?
Thank god for that

Originally posted by michael1983l

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.

They do not lack the foresight, but they do not want to disrupt the established world wide economy.

reply to post by michael1983l


Although I agree with your general point, I think your stats are nonsense. The USA is easily the biggest spender on R&D in absolute terms, and 6th in terms of percentage of GDP:

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course such figures are debatable, however they come from pretty damn reliable sources. The US, as a country, spends around $400B a year on R&D, and probably a fair bit goes on researching more efficient ways to kill people. However most private sector research is spent on stuff like communications, software and pharmaceuticals.

Personally, I think we should be pumping money into renewables and nuclear, I just don't think there are any big breakthroughs on the cards - the only one that might happen is fusion - and this has been researched for 57 years with no sign of a breakthrough. It's all about marginal gains at the moment.

Originally posted by Cauliflower

Fusion seems to have a number of serious technical problems that won't at least be solved for many centuries to come according to quite a number of physicists.

Unless the conspiracy runs deeper than any publicly available information source can enlighten.

You cannot neatly split GDP into military spending and science. It was military spending that developed solar cells for satellites, fission and fusion reactions for use in bombs. There is an unpublished agreement over who makes money in the oil markets and the powers that be know that until the oil is close to running out there is insufficient motivation to develop new energy sources.

Right, it's known as "price".

The question remains, if nuclear fusion reactors could be built, why are they waiting past peak world oil production to implement?

Because nobody wants to pay for it today.

They had this discussion back in the 1960's. Proponents claimed the heat from a series of very small fusion reactions could be used to power a plant. Probably true but its very difficult to implement controlled fusion. There were fears the process could be reverse engineered into weapons especially since the fuel entering the plant would likely need to be weapons grade.

Do you mean "fission" plants? There are very small and efficient fission reactors, and they do use pretty highly enriched fuel, though not quite at "weapons grade". They are used for moving large boats and ships.

I've often wondered if the real nuclear project in Iran might be the development of a fusion plant.

No, they're making nuclear weapons.

We the public will never know the truth. Obviously they could spend the money now to built a lot of conventional fission power plants and the infrastructure to deal with the radioactive mess. It would only take about 10 years to upgrade the US power grid to run almost everything off nuclear power. Are they waiting for a cleaner fusion solution?

No. There is no single "they". The reality is that nobody (except the Chinese) is planning anything except how to make money now, and gas and coal are cheap.

Japan and Germany are going backwards. Japan is importing more gas, and Germany, for all their eco-rhetoric, is freaking BUILDING new coal plants. Gross.