Solution to the Oil problem ??

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2003 @ 11:53 PM
link   
www.discover.com...

Has anyone heard anything about this??


Garbage goes in, Oil comes out...




posted on May, 15 2003 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Intreresting, I wonder how long it will take for us to start using people for this.... Soylent Green.... Is PEOPLE!!



posted on May, 15 2003 @ 08:43 AM
link   
"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming."


..and did poverty and primitive living foster this technology? Did a huge gevernment entity design this? Nope, advances in technology with the wealth to research in the private industry did this. See, they are good for something but I doubt that we'll ever slow down global warming. Its a natural occurence.



posted on May, 15 2003 @ 12:58 PM
link   
to power the time travelling Delorian!



posted on May, 15 2003 @ 06:51 PM
link   
We need little ones for cars so we can drive through corn fields on nothing but the crap that hits the car... ya... But seriously that'd be neat, they could use the gas and oil right there on the spot, just throw in your shoes, the rejected child, maybe a baseball bat...



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 10:38 PM
link   
why don't they just experiment with Hydrogen powered cars?



posted on May, 17 2003 @ 10:39 PM
link   
would it just coast too much or do they just don't want to follow that path?



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Electrics car and even solar powered cars.

There are even some car running with hydrogen and generating a few smoke because of releasing aqua instead of CO.

If the governement and the industrials aren't interested in these non-polluting energies, it's because they try to make us depending on car and oil, because they makes more dollars with raffined oil.

That"s why Georges W BUSH didn't agreed on Kyoto and South-Africa treaty abut CO and Oxygen.



posted on May, 18 2003 @ 06:33 PM
link   
There are companies that make nothing but ethanol powered cars in South America (Ethanol is made from corn, cleaner than normal gasoline and totally renewable, just grow more corn).

The big thing is that the major oil concerns are always going to find a way to make sure that normal fossil fuels are financially more sound than any alternative energy source.

For decades, it has been standard practice for the oil cartels to buy any new alternative energy source that worked, and stick them in a closet somewhere so that it was never developed to something commercially viable, and therefore posing a threat to the oil companies.

Consider that electric cars are not new: An article written by Jay Leno, who is a car collecting fanatic, he said that he owned an electric car built around 1905, and still used the original battery (which worked just fine, he drives this thing around his estate). He said the max range for this old car is about 100 miles on a single charge. He then pointed out that the max range for the new Honda Insight electric car (about $25K!) on a single charge is 120 miles.... So in almost 100 years, we only get an additional 20 miles range?

Point is, alternative fuel technology has always been there... the oil companies are not going to let go of the market though.



posted on May, 19 2003 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
That"s why Georges W BUSH didn't agreed on Kyoto and South-Africa treaty abut CO and Oxygen.


Actually, in the last State of The Union Address, the president did place a large dollar in the budget for hydrogen research.

The reason he didn't sign Kyoto: No one else would either and it excluded bigger producers of CO2 than the US. CO2 and the whole global warming theory is but a political tool at this point.

The rise in CO2 has followed a 300 year global temp increase, not caused it. No one has proven that CO2 is bad, in fact our plant life thrives on it. No one will even consider that with the rise in temperature, the rise in CO2 might be a natural reaction to produce more plant life. With the release of more of Earth's fresh water from the poles, we could be starting to see our climate returning to normal after a "little Ice Age" during Midevil times. This increase in fresh water and an atmosphere to hold it could change our climates globally and result in the slowing of desertification and deforestation and maybe even eventually reversing them. Here's a link to someone who finally put their politics aside and did some actual research.;

www.cfa.harvard.edu...

Reguardless if it hurts or helps mankind, the earth changes and we are going to have to accept the idea that we may be at the mercy of these climatic changes.
I think a lot of people here CO2 and go wild thinking its some eveil pollutant gas. Fact is, it only makes up about .04% of the atmosphere and is the gas responsible for maintaining a habitalble environment on Earth. The levels have been significantly higher in the past as well as the temperature. (The earth was globally 10 degrees C warmer when the Vikings settled Greenland) CO2 is responsible for all plant life that makes air we breath as well as containing it for us.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join