This isn't entirely my idea, I'm not clever enough.

Everyone's complaining that our dependency on foreign oil is causing not only economic problems at the pump, but ecological problems in the world. Greenhouse gasses are drowning polar bears and making crushed ice out of the polar regions.

The problem is, that we need a cleaner burning, cheaper alternative to petrolium products.

The further problem is, that oil companies have so much money invested in the production of fossil fuels, that they can, and for all we know are, preventing the production of alternative fuel sources to protect their profits.

What if.....and this cramps capitalizm HARDCORE, but it sure would be a solution.

Every dollar in profits that oil companies make selling petolium based products, they keep fifty cents. The government gets the rest to put into research and development on alternative sources.

HOWEVER. Every dollar made by these companies on the production and sales of alternative sources, they keep it all.

This would serve two purposes.

1. It would give the government the funds it needs to speed up production of alternative sources.

2. It would provide incentive for oil companies to either shift their focus to alternative sources that would benefit the economy and environment, or at the very least diversify.

But.....it'll never happen. Ever.

But its not a rotten idea.

Well, there is no garuntee that the government wont just pocket the money gained from the gas companies. That and the the companies would raise the cost of gas to an ungodly amount out of spite.

Even thought that particular proposal failed, there are numerous government initiatives to foster alternative energy sources, at the state and federal level.  These initiatives include grants for R&D, renewable energy requirements for utilities, subsidies and tax credits for investment, and others.

One can question whether we are doing "enough", but there is a certain amount of time and money being put into this.

Oh, its far from a flawless idea, thats one thing that makes me glad its not my idea.

Maybe.....a price cap? Hell, if we're gonna violate the principals of capitalism once, lets do it again.

tallen702 wrote: Regulation of the fuel oil industry...

Would guarantee higher prices for everybody.  If there is one thing that capitalism does really, really well, it is keeping prices low.

.Ryan wrote: It's not totally about the price at the pump though, man. You have to consider the strategic crap hole out need for Middle Eastern oil and the environmental impacts of burning old-style fossil fuels...

Addressed to me?

I agree with your general point - I was just responding to tallen, who appeared to be making a price-specific point.

tallen, we can't build new refineries, or even update the ones we HAVE. It looks like its for the same reason we're not tapping into out own natural reserves of crude oil. Environmental lobbyists are fighting the production of such facilities tooth and nail, and as a testament to the power they have, we haven't made progress in terms of new refineries in many years.

I'm not saying that the hippies are the only reason we're stuck in this oil quagmire, but its a pretty solit reason from where I sit.

Environmental lobbyists only protest. Since when do the Gov. listen to them. [Hint spotted Owl]

 Exxon and the like are given Billions to stop Alternative fuel and thier production of it not to mention denouncing anything new.

welcome guest wrote:  Exxon and the like are given Billions to stop Alternative fuel and thier production

Please, do tell - details?

Clark Kent wrote: welcome guest wrote:  Exxon and the like are given Billions to stop Alternative fuel and thier production Please, do tell - details?

You ask and now you shall recieve.

people will start moving forward once that effects us

(sigh) humans are the dumbest of all animals

welcome guest wrote: You ask and now you shall recieve. POLITICAL PEDDLING The return ExxonMobil gets for the millions it spends on lobbyists and campaign contributions comes back in the billions. The industry as a whole receives up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies, according to experts. http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html - http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

Non-responsive.  $113bn/year in "subsidies" just means they get a bunch of money.  How much of that is actually paying them NOT to do alternatives?  I'm guessing close to zero, unless you are talking about just general incentives for pro-oil behavior?

Many millions, at least, of those subsidies are actually supporting alternative energy.  Millions more have nothing to with energy at all.  So that number is quite misleading.

Clark Kent wrote: of those subsidies are actually supporting alternative energy.

My turn.

Now show me one alternative fuel patent that was used that Exxon bought the rights to.

Why is it the big oil co. are buying patent rights to alternative fuel, and not use them? Is this thier way of support alternative fuel?

[Simple search alternative fuel patents]

welcome guest wrote: Clark Kent wrote: of those subsidies are actually supporting alternative energy. My turn. Now show me one patent that was used that Exxon bought the rights to. Why is it the big oil co. are buying patent rights to alternative fuel, and not use them? Is this thier way of support alternative fuel?

I know little about these patents - but I will offer these links as a starting point:

http://www.bpsolar.com/ - www.bpsolar.com - British Petroleum is one of the world's leading investors in solar projects.

http://www.fpl.com/ - www.fpl.com - FPL Group (Florida Power & Light) is the overwhelming leader in the development and ownership of wind energy projects in the US.

http://www.shell.com/solar - www.shell.com/solar http://www.shell.com/wind - www.shell.com/wind - Shell is also a major investor world-wide in wind and solar energy, as well as geothermal and other alternative sources.

http://www.gewindenergy.com/ - www.gewindenergy.com - General Electric, one of the world's largest manufacturers of parts for oil/coal/gas/nuclear power plants, is also one of the world's leaders in wind mill manufacture (they bought this operation from Enron - remember them?)

The same goes for Siemens:  http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/en/windpower/index.cfm - http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/en/windpower/index.cf m

There is this idea floating around that "alternative" energy is somehow backed by an entirely different crowd than the "regular" energy crowd.  The truth is that many, if not most, of the major players in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources are also major players in old-fashioned energy sources.

There are very few "pure" renewable companies.  http://www.vestas.dk/ - www.Vestas.dk is one, and probably the largest.  After that, the renewable energy industry is dominated by the regular cast of characters.

That doesn't make any sense...  The subsitute fuels (wind, sun) are pretty hard to control.

Those guys are leaders in the field because they can (and do) underbid others.  If they started raising prices they would quickly get underbid by the ponytails.  This is one field where a minimum amount of competition is almost inevitible (unlike oil & gas, which is very susceptible to anti-competitive behavior).

I have a fair amount of respect for Mr. Dougherty, so either he is being quoted out of context, or he was sleepy that day.

My question still has not been answeared.

Now show me one patent that was used that Exxon bought the rights to.

Why is it the big oil co. are buying patent rights to alternative fuel, and not use them? Is this thier way of support alternative fuel?

At home, everyone can try making hydrogen. You only need two batteries, two paper clips, and a cup of salt water. Battery has to be connected with paperclips and the other ends of the paperclips should be put in water and you'll get bubbles of gas coming off both wires. One is oxygen, the other is hydrogen. Putting a tablespoon of salt in the water greatly increases the conductivity, and hence the rate at which gas is formed, or you can just use two or more batteries – that will also speed up the process. Bear in mind that you can build quite high voltages with just a handful of batteries.

In fact, when you get your hands wet with salt water, even a single 9V battery can give you a quite painful shock. So think before you act.

http://www.hydrogenfueling.com/cat/364/ - http://www.hydrogenfueling.com/cat/364/
If you can make HHO in a cup with a 9v battery. I'm sure you can make more HHO gas with a 13gl fiberglass fuel cell and 3000vlt alt to run the car on.

Welcome Guest - I have no idea what you are talking about with these patents that Exxon holds.  Please explain.

As to hydrogen - it is a red herring.  Hydrogen is merely a battery, and not a particularly good one at that (although potentially better than most other current utility-size battery technology).  Batteries have to be charged, and to charge them takes energy.  Hydrogen ends up simply being an alternate transmission system for electricity.

Tallen points out the principal problem with current renewable energy - scale - and correctly (IMO) points out the only current reasonable alternative energy source:  nuclear.  We should be putting up nukes by the dozen.  Grr. 

That said, renewable has come a very long way.  The MW/acre for wind energy has sky-rocketed over the last 20 years, and continues to improve.  The same is true for concentrating solar, although it lags far behind wind.  And PV solar, of course, holds the potential to change everything - there is no lack of space issue, since any surface is potentially a PV collector.  If manufacturing costs come down and volume up enough, every roof will be a solar roof.

But tallen - I object to your lumping together of the "anti-oil, anti-nuke, anti-fossil fuel contingency".  While there are certainly plenty of people that fit that bill, I think you will find that most people in the industry are anti-somethings but not anti-everything.  Nuclear, for instance, is gaining quite a following within the "green" community, and CO2 sequestration is changing many alliances as well.  As it turns out, most people who know what they are talking about end up being fairly rational.

welcome guest, Clark listed plenty of alternitive energy ventures other oil companies are involved in, even if your arguement were a little more clear(why dont you show me these patents they are buying to keep new tech. off the market) just one oil company hardly makes a case that they are all doing it. I'm glad you found a new website to parrot, but chill the hell out already. How about providing context for your quote.

Also, the hydrogen thing. I'm impressed at your memory of 8th grade science, but 9 volt batteries and salt water have nothing to do with hydrogen as a source of fuel for vehicles. You need a crapload of electricity to make enough hydrogen, the 9volt battery method isn't exactly practical. Nuke plants could provide that electicity. Hydrogen as a fuel just makes sense since it's not too radically different technology to burn it in a car engine, and also does not give off CO2 when it's burned. Ethanol, biodeisle, etc do.

I think it would make a lot more sense to build more nuke plants to either produce hydrogen fuel(or when battery tech improves, to charge your electric car) than to pay Brazil to bulldoze rainforrest to increase corn production, and continue burning a fuelthat not only gives crappier milage, but still gives off CO2 emissions.

http://auto.pege.org/2006-hannover/wasserstoff-gastank.jpg - http://auto.pege.org/2006-hannover/wasserstoff-gastank.jpg

http://us.geocities.com/procrast_race/FuelCell.jpg - http://us.geocities.com/procrast_race/FuelCell.jpg

Clark Kent wrote: Welcome Guest -   Please explain. As to hydrogen - it is a red herring.  Hydrogen is merely a battery, and not a particularly good one at that

HHO is not a battery it is a gas. Professor Yul Brown's discovery

AKA Browns gas

Two words: Algae Bioreactor

Do I hear one word?

welcome guest wrote: HHO is not a battery it is a gas. Professor Yul Brown's discovery AKA Browns gas

Yes, HYDROGEN is a gas.  But it is a battery for our purposes - as opposed to a fuel - in the sense that we can "store" electrical energy in hydrogen, by extracting H2 from wherever it is, and then taking the electricy out when we need it.  We lose energy, however, at both ends of the process.  We get less energy out of hydrogen than we spend extracting it.  Using hydrogen as a fuel is a net negative process.  If we were to discover a pool of hydrogen someplace that would change, but until then hydrogen is fundamentally merely an expensive battery.

Coal, on the other hand, is a fuel - we cannot anything in it, but it is easy to extract the energy contained in the coal, and we get lots more energy out than we have to spend to get it out.  Net positive process - hugely so.

As to "Brown's Gas" - what about it?

rednekk98 wrote: welcome guest, (why dont you show me these patents they are buying to keep new tech. off the market)

rednekk98 wrote:  just one oil company hardly makes a case that they are all doing it. I'm glad you found a new website to parrot, How about providing context for your quote. Also, the hydrogen thing. I'm impressed at your memory of 8th grade science, but 9 volt batteries and salt water have nothing to do with hydrogen as a source of fuel for vehicles. You need a crapload of electricity to make enough hydrogen, the 9volt battery method isn't exactly practical. Nuke plants could provide that electicity. Hydrogen as a fuel just makes sense since it's not too radically different technology to burn it in a car engine, and also does not give off CO2 when it's burned. Ethanol, biodeisle, etc do. I think it would make a lot more sense to build more nuke plants to either produce hydrogen fuel(or when battery tech improves, to charge your electric car) than to pay Brazil to bulldoze rainforrest to increase corn production, and continue burning a fuel that not only gives crappier milage, but still gives off CO2 emissions.

Nobody is perfect just some ideas.

There's already been several viable alternative option mentioned , guess who has been producing vehicles for shipment to South America for over 20 years ? (Answer ALL 3 American manufacturers , Ford , Chevy , and Dodge produce Dual fuel vehicles for E-85 fuels ) .

Biofuel patents and technology are currently held by , you guessed it , oil companies

Browns gas is also a viable option, almost , the capitol cost is relatively high (several thousand for a generator to run a vehicle )and maintenance is on a par with normal systems (but beyond the average car owner's ability or desire to accomplish) .

This is all old news , I found out by researching it about 8 months after purchasing my new pick-up when I saw a 60 minutes special on the subject last year .

Somebody already hit the nail on the head when they said money talks , <poopy> walks , and right now oil companies hold all the cards ... collectively american consumers dont have enough political clout to "Make" anybody do anything , sad but true . After all there are 3 or 4 major oil companies in the US . and how much money do we individually give them each week , grumbling and cursing as we fill'er'up ? I donate about $60.00 every week to my continued dependence on oil .

 Damn,,,, if they were dealing drugs , we'd all be junkies.......

EE

According to Dr. Sega, the Air Force is also looking at alternative sources of energy, from potential conversion of natural gas or COAL to jet fuel, to increased use of renewable energy sources.

http://www.blackanthem.com/scitech/military_2006031102.html - http://www.blackanthem.com/scitech/military_2006031102.html

Not to mention that the conversion of coal to diesel (or other liquid fuel) is truly horrific from a pollution perspective...

Nevertheless, the coal-to-liquid process is gaining ground.  Last time I checked, there are several new plants in early/middle stages of development.  We'll see how they fare at the political level.

tallen702 wrote: Dude, Again, you fail to give us any reasonable alternatives to the current fuels we use. Heck, in that last statement you just suggested offloading dependency on one nearly-depleted (if you believe the critics) fuel source to two others.

Did you ever hear about Bio Diesel from Jetropha Curcas or Algae Bioreactor?

Jetropha Curcas/Jatropha Curcas is an interesting crop/source for biodiesel, and subject to the same advantages and disadvantages as any other source.  Biodiesel is still new enough (in terms of serious interest) that a variety of crops are still being explored.

But there is nothing particularly new, technology wise, about it.  We shall see which plant turns out to be the best biofuel source.

Algae bioreactors are part of a larger (and growing) field of science that uses algae for a variety of interesting applications, from air scrubbing to surface cleaning to electricity generation and more.  This IS new (relatively speaking), but so far purely experimental.  We shall see where it leads.  Algae have many interesting qualities, and can be bioengineered to do different things.

Luz (a solar energy pioneer) just (a few months back) signed an MOU with PG&E (Northern California utility) to develop a large solar energy facility using algae technology.  This technology is as yet unproven, however, and most doubt that he will be able to build the thing.  Nevertheless, the technology is gaining ground and has some potential - in the future.  Right now it is just pie in the sky.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: I say we make a car that runs off of the homeless. Two birds. One stone.

Ya what happen to Joe Snuffy?

tallen702 wrote: The problem with 99% of the current ideas for renewable or alternative fuel sources is that they just aren't thought through well enough.

If I can limit your statement a bit...  It's not that the ideas aren't thought through well enough, it is that the public fails to understand the limitations of the technology.  The people in the business generally understand it well enough.

Couldn't agree more.

Maybe Tippmann should make a engine!

How does this work? >  

Tippmann Clicker -- Air Powered Die Press 15 Ton

OR

The Tippmann "Boss" Leather Hand Stitcher:
Sew Through Leather, up to 3/4" Thick.

No need to worry about cords, outlets or mechanical hook-ups because this machine is designed to be completely self sufficient. A Simple pull of the handle is all it takes to start stitching.

They also made Tippmann Clicker 1500

That gives you 15 tons of cutting pressure. Requiring no electricity or hydraulics, this die cutter operates on 100 PSI of air pressure.

They should make an engine! 

Tallen wrote : Again, you fail to give us any reasonable alternatives to the current fuels we use. Heck, in that last statement you just suggested offloading dependency on one nearly-depleted (if you believe the critics) fuel source to two others.

Tallen , the big difference is that the alternatives are RENEWABLE energy sources , in so much as they can be grown at will with much more control of the output and price than any other source known today . EE has a valid point and it needs to be seriously considered because it has already been proven to be both ecomonically feasible and environmentally friendly , problem is ,,, again there's too much money to be made in oil right now .

I helped discover and pinpoint the oil reserves in North America during the late 70's and early eighties , Yes, its there , and yes , its capped off for "Strategic reasons" (approximately a 200 year supply by most accounts , including shale coal , natural gas and crude oil) Arco , Sohio and a couple other nonrecognizable names hold the rights to most of it .

Tallen your statement of a couple posts up is Oh so very true , but as you also can grudgingly admit , politics and laws are driven by "Big businesses interests"  , so while Brazil and most of the rest of South america can run happily on (and self sufficiently produced) renewable energy resources , somehow it isnt fweasible here to do so in the worlds most technologically advanced country ,,, Go Figure....

tallen702 wrote: Also, when it comes to the 15 tons of cutting pressure W.G., that's easily achieved through hydraulic/pneumatic principles, give me a big enough cylinder and 10psi and I can give you many times more cutting pressure. Any Jr High physics student could tell you that.....

Well can you tell that to some engineers who think you can't get out more than you put in it.

Tallen , I am not insinuating we should abandon our efforts to find a "Perfect answer" to our energy demands (which I believe will ultimately be fusion related ) , but that we could accept any viable diversification of possible resources within our reach in todays world .

For now , that would be ethanol based fuels , they satisfy many of the concerns we have as consumers of energy , and produce fewer negatives than other sources of energy available currently . why not shoot for the ultimate realization of energy utilization and follow some of Nikoli Tesla's concepts to their fruitition . (Tesla is the father of modern electricity , and therefore the modern world as we know it . Edison was a third grader next to this mans ideas and inventions . )

Some of his most recent work involved wireless transmission of usuable power , antigravity (which was demonstrated in the early 1900's ) , force shields (sounds astounding , doesnt it ?) .

some of his established accomplishments are (Virtually unchanged today , after 100 years ) The first transatlantic transmission of radio waves (Betcha thought it was Marconi , didnt you ?) , the Electric motor , the AC power transmission grids we still use today (High tension lines) , the flourescent light , the Tesla coil , the flouroscope (forerunner of the modern X-ray machine) and Transformers to name a few .

The contemporaries of his day that he actually hung out with included Einstien , Mark twain , J.P.Morgan , Mr Westinghouse (this guy bought the patent for the electric motor for a pittance to partially support Tesla's continuing research in less commercial endeavors)  , and most of the other less recognizable A-list people of that era .

I digress , but most of the homework has already been done several times over , there's just still too much money to be made in today's fossil based and fueled economy , and By George !! somebody's gonna make that money until there's no money left to be made , then the  "discoveries" will happen again , but by then they;ll be a couple hundred years old .

As for Welcome guest's contribution to this thread , let him believe what he will , the real world will continue to operate according to principles and laws of physics . He is happy believing what he does

Tesla was broadcasting power into the Ionosphere in colorado the basis of what you said is true , and that is what made his idea so eloquently simple , the conductor (ionosphere)and insulator (as you so kindly mentioned)were already in place for a worldwide transmission system (think one HUGE CAPACITOR). He was trying to broadcast usuable power coast to coast , but logistic problems shut him down , that and denver could not generate enought power for his experiments .

It was one of his projects that never realized commercial sucess , for a variety of reasons , metalurrigical (sp?) economic , and his profusion of other projects . Not every idea of his made money (Does this sound similar to the conversation of the previous 4 pages of posts , not being ecomonically feasible for whatever reason ? Hmm?)