I'll buy it when I see it
by Andy77e - 7/14/07 2:03 PM
In Reply to: True, true, however... by FredMars
First: A major sign of greed, is being consumed with what other people do with *their* money. What Exxon does with it's money is not my problem, and nor is it yours. Someone rightly said that the largest, most common mental illness, found in Americans is an inability to "mind your own business".
Second: A company should spend it's money on improving itself. It would be immoral not to. Remember the investors in Exxon have a lot of money tied up in the company. Some of them are retired people who depend on that money for their retirement.
If you have any investments, how would you like to know the company you invested in, is now putting their money into things that would kill it's own market base? You'd be outraged, and rightly so.
Why did so many people get angry at Enron? They invested in many projects that didn't pay off. The result was a huge crash that wiped out many peoples retirements. Amazing how people can get angry at them, and then turn and get angry at another company for *not* doing the same thing.
Third: One reason a company may invest in alternative energy sources, is if they believe that fossil fuels may run out. If so, then a company would *want* some other fuel source to switch to when the time comes. Or another reason would be that, as many know, Oil will be in demand for year to come, no matter what. So developing an alternate energy would just supplement their income.
Forth: Energy companies *are* investing in alternate energy sources whether you believe it or not. BP for example has invested in Bio-diesel made from Jatropha, a tree that makes inedible oil seeds. BP also has extensive investment in PV cells. Chevron for example, has investments in Biofuels, Solar and Geothermal energy sources.
As far as a gallon of gas costing more than $3 when it use to cost $0.25, well I understand your frustration, but the blame lies squarely on us, so point your finger at the mirror. The blame rightly goes to the public. Higher cost of labor, taxes, making more efficient and more clean oil rigs, taxes, more expensive chemicals required, taxes, expensive mandated 10% Ethanol blend, and my favorite, taxes. Plus, because we have prevented oil exploration and drilling, we have forced ourselves to import the oil, which means higher cost.
Over and over and over, the reason we pay this much for gas is because the public has forced us to. I'll say it till the day I die, we caused this, we did this, we raised the price on ourselves. Stop blaming everyone else for the situation you are in. Bush Sr, raised gas taxes, Clinton raised gas taxes, and Bush Jr. raised gas taxes. Currently 1 full dollar out of the price is just tax. So go add up how many gallon of gas you'll buy this year, and that same number is how much in taxes you paid just in the sale, not in the taxes on the company which is passed on in cost.
The danger of a runaway nuclear reaction and meltdown is virtually eliminated in new reactor designs. TMI was a learning experience, but nearly a non-event. No radiation was leaked, and the core only semi-melted and was completely recovered.
New un-powered convection reactors are really neat, and can prevent a melt down even if a catastrophic event de-powers the entire reactor. This is because water cools the core, while circulating by convection alone, without the need of a pump. Further, the core itself is shut down by carbon rods that will automatically fall into shut down position if power is lost, plus a time delay will open the flood gates and submerge the entire core in water, preventing any nuclear reaction from continuing.
Basically, caution is understandable and expected. However technology has advanced world wide and there is no need to hinder ourselves. As far as cold fusion, again, I look forward to a real marketable solution, but until it happens it is like putting your whole life on hold, to win the lottery, which may never occur.
If you can do it, feel free. I'm sure the automakers will buy your patent if you can make it happen. But you have your work cut out for you. 1990 or newer engines are highly efficient. Capturing the few unburnt HCx (fuel) will at best net 1 mile per gallon. Further, the HCx is vaporized in the exhaust gas which has little if any oxygen in it. Routing that back into the engine will kill mileage, not improve it. This means you would have to separate vaporized HCx from the exhaust, good luck on that.
A better solution is to simply move to Diesel. The cause of unburnt fuel is a lack of Oxygen in the combustion chamber. This is because gas engines try and get a straight ratio of air/fuel where all air is consumed by the fuel. This doesn't always happen, thus fuel is left unburnt. Diesel, on the other hand, allows unlimited air, and just changes how much fuel in added. The abundance of air, never allows for a lack of needed oxygen, and all fuel is always consumed.
But as always, there are government regulations that make Diesels hard to make, thus we've always been using regular gas which is much less efficient.
I can't believe you said that. I suppose we have an alien ship too, right? Look, if you can show me a working free energy device that doesn't quit when you away from a high power line, I'll buy it. Or if I become a fruit bat myself and start piling rocks in a pillar in my back yard to focus cosmic energies in a vortex. Someone please shoot me.