The search for renewable energy

cajunkiwi

In the last year, we've had coal miners die in China and New Zealand, almost die in Chile, and oil rig workers die in the Gulf of Mexico. And all of that in the name of searching for fuel supplies that are inefficient and finite.

I was doing some reading on Qatar today (I'm a soccer fan), and I found it interesting that despite having a large chunk of the earth's supply of oil, they're actively working on moving to a technology-based economy so they'll be able to continue making money after the oil runs out (I think it said they had about 37 year's worth of oil underneath them), and in the interim they're also working on renewable energy sources that will sustain their fuel needs.

So given that people are being killed all in the name of trying to get a supply of fuel that's inefficient and finite, and other countries are already actively preparing for life after oil, do you guys think the US is doing enough to explore renewable energy sources, and if not, why not?

Commy

i believe the US military already has access to some sort of energy source that would make the combustion engine obsolete.



they had planes that could go 2000 miles an hour in the 60's, and that was kept quiet for decades. you consider the literally thousands of UFO reports each year, and have to wonder what they have now. some sort of gravity or anti gravity propulsion probably. the authorities encourage talk of this being extraterrestrial, naturally.


else people might start to wonder why we're spending trillions on the military with no discernable benefit to the majority of people in this country, or planet.

JonnyPistachio

cajunkiwi wrote:

In the last year, we've had coal miners die in China and New Zealand, almost die in Chile, and oil rig workers die in the Gulf of Mexico. And all of that in the name of searching for fuel supplies that are inefficient and finite.

I was doing some reading on Qatar today (I'm a soccer fan), and I found it interesting that despite having a large chunk of the earth's supply of oil, they're actively working on moving to a technology-based economy so they'll be able to continue making money after the oil runs out (I think it said they had about 37 year's worth of oil underneath them), and in the interim they're also working on renewable energy sources that will sustain their fuel needs.

So given that people are being killed all in the name of trying to get a supply of fuel that's inefficient and finite, and other countries are already actively preparing for life after oil, do you guys think the US is doing enough to explore renewable energy sources, and if not, why not?

Great question. I don't think the US is doing enough, but I feel like in the last 2-3 years, the country has made great strides and is changing the way they think about energy potentials.

I've done a bit of research on renewable energy and have come to find that the government is giving out tons of money to research and develop hydroelectric, solar, wind powers, and a few others. These things are still pretty inefficient, but with more focus on them and the theory of peak oil along with fear of oil prices rising and the fact that it will run out, they will improve.

I'm also glad to hear that some big oil companies are finally seeing that they better do something also.. For instance, Chevron has a hydroelectric and geothermal division.

Also, there are govt programs to increase fuel efficiency of automobiles and to get more hybrids and electric cars on the roads (I believe there is even a plan in effect to have all of the white house fleet converted to hybrid and electric cars within a few years).

polaris_x

qatar is like second in greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world mainly because they have the high standard of living seen in most developed countries ...

the "accidents" you see in the mines and rigs are primarily caused by big multi-nationals that concern themselves with profit over safety ... it is much cheaper to have an "accident" than to make these work places safe ...

as far as the search for renewables go - the science and technology is well on its way but as with most policy in the US - its corporate driven and the oil and gas lobby is significant ...

we could be much further ahead than we currently are

Godfather.

I think there are already alliterative fuel sources in place waiting, there is still too much money to be made off oil and the those company's won't give that up before they have to.
I remember a video on you tube that showed a guy who fixed up a small car to run on water some how (100 miles on 1 gal. of water) and rumor on that is that the oil company's bought his patent on that invention...if it's even true at all.

Godfather.

polaris_x

Godfather. wrote:

I think there are already alliterative fuel sources in place waiting, there is still too much money to be made off oil and the those company's won't give that up before they have to.
I remember a video on you tube that showed a guy who fixed up a small car to run on water some how (100 miles on 1 gal. of water) and rumor on that is that the oil company's bought his patent on that invention...if it's even true at all.

Godfather.

fuel cells essentially run off water... hydrogen to be specific ... so, if they could figure out a way of separating the oxygen from water ... fuel cells could convert that hydrogen into energy and would only create water as a byproduct ...

JonnyPistachio

polaris_x wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

I think there are already alliterative fuel sources in place waiting, there is still too much money to be made off oil and the those company's won't give that up before they have to.
I remember a video on you tube that showed a guy who fixed up a small car to run on water some how (100 miles on 1 gal. of water) and rumor on that is that the oil company's bought his patent on that invention...if it's even true at all.

Godfather.

fuel cells essentially run off water... hydrogen to be specific ... so, if they could figure out a way of separating the oxygen from water ... fuel cells could convert that hydrogen into energy and would only create water as a byproduct ...

:thumbup:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenand ... ation.html

Jeanwah

cajunkiwi wrote:

So given that people are being killed all in the name of trying to get a supply of fuel that's inefficient and finite, and other countries are already actively preparing for life after oil, do you guys think the US is doing enough to explore renewable energy sources, and if not, why not?

As long as the fossil fuel industries control Washington, not nearly enough exploration of renewables will be done.

JonnyPistachio

"In Washington, President Obama today announced that the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Navy will invest up to $510 million during the next three years in partnership with the private sector to produce advanced drop-in aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial transportation."

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/ ... -biofuels/

Parachute

I'll take $2.00/gallon gas any day.

Drowned Out

JonnyPistachio wrote:

"In Washington, President Obama today announced that the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Navy will invest up to $510 million during the next three years in partnership with the private sector to produce advanced drop-in aviation and marine biofuels to power military and commercial transportation."

http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/ ... -biofuels/

At first glance, $510 million sounds like a decent amount of funding....until you look at this breakdown from the military spending thread:

81 wrote:

here is a high level breakdwon

Components Funding Change, 2009 to 2010
Operations and maintenance $283.3 billion +4.2%
Military Personnel $154.2 billion +5.0%
Procurement $140.1 billion −1.8%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $79.1 billion +1.3%
Military Construction $23.9 billion +19.0%
Family Housing $3.1 billion −20.2%
Total Spending $685.1 billion +3.0%

...and realize that $500 million is less than 1% of the total defense R&D budget.
What a joke.

Kel Varnsen

Godfather. wrote:

I think there are already alliterative fuel sources in place waiting, there is still too much money to be made off oil and the those company's won't give that up before they have to.
I remember a video on you tube that showed a guy who fixed up a small car to run on water some how (100 miles on 1 gal. of water) and rumor on that is that the oil company's bought his patent on that invention...if it's even true at all.

Godfather.

I never really buy stories like this when I hear them since they don't seem to make sense if you know how patents work. I mean if a guy did have a patent for a car that could go 100 miles using a gallon of water, once that patent was filed, the information in it would become public record and anyone could search for that patent (so even if an oil company bought it, it's not like they could hide it). Plus the term of a patent is only like 20 years, so even if an oil company did buy it they would only own the rights for like 20 years, before the designs became public domain.

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I never really buy stories like this when I hear them since they don't seem to make sense if you know how patents work. I mean if a guy did have a patent for a car that could go 100 miles using a gallon of water, once that patent was filed, the information in it would become public record and anyone could search for that patent (so even if an oil company bought it, it's not like they could hide it). Plus the term of a patent is only like 20 years, so even if an oil company did buy it they would only own the rights for like 20 years, before the designs became public domain.

Are you familiar with this story?



http://www.ev1.org/

In 1994, Stan Ovshinsky, the inventor of the NiMH battery and principal of Energy Conversion Devices with the late Dr. Iris Ovshinsky, sold control of the NiMH batteries to a jont venture, GM Ovonic, between GM and his company, with the goal of manufacturing patented NiMH batteries for EVs. Ostensibly, GM was supposed to go into production, and thus, it seemed, perhaps, natural to allow them control of the battery they would, supposedly, be using. In the event, Honda and Toyota used NiMH 4 years prior to GM's final release of a NiMH version of the EV1.

But passing control of the batteries to GM proved a fatal mistake for the future of EVs.

GM announced on Oct. 10, 2000 the sale of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH batteries to Texaco. Six days later, on Oct. 16, 2000, even before the sale was consumated, Texaco announced its merger into Chevron, the successor to Standard Oil of California. The sale of the batteries was finally concluded on July 17, 2001, long after Texaco had become one with Chevron.

Chevron/Texaco received "...GM's 60 percent stake in [NiMH] batteries, and a 20 percent stake in ECD itself...", giving Chevron effective control of NiMH.
In October 2000, Texaco Inc. bought GM's 60% share in GM Ovonics Battery Systems, adding to their existing 20% share in the company,[17] and restructured the joint venture as a 50-50 partnership with ECD Ovonics, renamed Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems LLC.[18][19] Less than a week later, Texaco and Chevron Corporation announced a merger plan,[20] which was completed a year as they became ChevronTexaco Corporation.[21]

In 2004 this joint venture was renamed Cobasys LLC.[22]

In addition to holding a 50% share of Cobasys, Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics.[23] Chevron maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of Cobasys' NiMH technology.[24] In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[24] On September 10, 2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[25]

http://www.answers.com/cobasys

On Mar. 6, 2001, just months after inheriting control of NiMH batteries, Chevron's associate/subsidiary cobasys filed suit against Toyota, Panasonic, their PEVE joint venture, Sanyo et al.

On December 12, 2001, Chevron's affiliates filed an arbitration demand...with the International Chamber of Commerce...In December 2002, an arbitration agreement...on Nov. 4-19, 2003, the hearing was held, and concluded on Jan. 21, 2004.

On July 7, 2004, the settlement agreement ended in complete defeat for Toyota, Matsushita and their joint venture, PEVE. NiMH was only mentioned for "hybrids", those which cannot plug in, and Cobasys, Chevron's unit, became distributor of PEVE batteries, received $20 million licensing fee, in addition to $10 million paid to Energy Conversion Devices.

"Cobasys will also receive royalties through December 31, 2013 on certain NiMH batteries sold by [Toyota] in North America."

Chevron oil, the successor to Standard Oil of California, thus worked with GM to eliminate the batteries needed for plug-in EVs, similar to how America's small urban commuter railroads were bought up by the same surprising buyers. The railroads were dismantled, the right-of-way lost to the public domain, just as the NiMH batteries are now unavailable to run EVs or plug-in hybrids that can replace our oil addiction and address global warming concerns.

Until we move to plug-in cars and electric trains, any talk of dealing with climate change, decreasing oil use, or getting free of our oil addiction anemia, is a sham.

Chevron's subsidiary sued Toyota, Panasonic and other battery makers, forcing a settlement agreement and $30,000,000 payment from Toyota to Chevron's subsidiary.

Most importantly, Toyota's NiMh EV-95 production line was closed down, and
No more EV-95 batteries are available for any purchaser at any price.
Toyota closed down their production line, and the batteries which power the RAV4-EV or the 1999 EV1 are no longer available. Chevron's patent rights don't expire until 2014.

When General Motors and oil companies claim "the batteries are not ready", they are asking you to ignore the hundreds of 2001, 2002 and 2003 Toyota RAV4-EV still running on EV-95 NiMH batteries, faultlessly performing to the specs needed for plug-in EVs and plug-in hybrids.

Don't let them get away with ignoring these real, working batteries, and oil-free cars!

It's not economical to ignore proven batteries in order to do endless "research" on battery technology that is no better than NiMH. They will lie, and say "Nickel is too expensive", but they have no documentation, no facts. Ask them how much of the battery is Nickel, and how much that recycles for. Nickel has not advanced in price much more than other metals, and it's non-toxic, recyclable, and only a small fraction of the cost of the battery.



Some more info on the main reason we are not being allowed to access EXISTING renewable energy technology (not sure how current this is) :
http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm

polaris_x

i've said it before ... the technology is already here to wean us off oil ...

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I never really buy stories like this when I hear them since they don't seem to make sense if you know how patents work. I mean if a guy did have a patent for a car that could go 100 miles using a gallon of water, once that patent was filed, the information in it would become public record and anyone could search for that patent (so even if an oil company bought it, it's not like they could hide it). Plus the term of a patent is only like 20 years, so even if an oil company did buy it they would only own the rights for like 20 years, before the designs became public domain.

Chevron's patent rights don't expire until 2014.

Interesting read, although the sentence above is the most interesting point. Even if a company like chevron buys up those patents they only get them for like 20 years, and in exchange for the patent you have to disclose in very specific detail how your invention works. So pretty much in 2014 any battery manufacturer can pull up the patent filing info from the patent office and make the batteries themselves. Some people seem to think that if you buy a patent you can bury it so that no one will ever find out what you have or how it works. Patents don't work that way, I mean why do you think the formula for coca-cola isn't patented.

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

i've said it before ... the technology is already here to wean us off oil ...

Technology, yes. Infrastructure, no.

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Interesting read, although the sentence above is the most interesting point. Even if a company like chevron buys up those patents they only get them for like 20 years, and in exchange for the patent you have to disclose in very specific detail how your invention works. So pretty much in 2014 any battery manufacturer can pull up the patent filing info from the patent office and make the batteries themselves. Some people seem to think that if you buy a patent you can bury it so that no one will ever find out what you have or how it works. Patents don't work that way, I mean why do you think the formula for coca-cola isn't patented.

Youre right, it will be interesting to see how things unfold in 2014....the legalities of patent laws are a bit beyond me, but I'm willing to bet that there is a reconcerted legal effort to supress this technology before then, or before any new EV cars hit the market.

Drowned Out

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i've said it before ... the technology is already here to wean us off oil ...

Technology, yes. Infrastructure, no.

EV cars didn't require any special infrastructure.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i've said it before ... the technology is already here to wean us off oil ...

Technology, yes. Infrastructure, no.

some infrastructure would have to be built but it's more really a change in how we think and prioritize ... look out across any urban area ... there's no reason why there shouldn't be solar panels on the majority of rooftops ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i've said it before ... the technology is already here to wean us off oil ...

Technology, yes. Infrastructure, no.

some infrastructure would have to be built but it's more really a change in how we think and prioritize ... look out across any urban area ... there's no reason why there shouldn't be solar panels on the majority of rooftops ...

I put some panels on a building project I was working on. It was a LEED building, so cost wasn't an issue. This was about 7 years ago ... I can't recall the total price, but it wasn't cheap.

I'd put them on my own house, but it's a $50K investment.

It's ridiculous that it costs so much for tech that has been around my entire life.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

I put some panels on a building project I was working on. It was a LEED building, so cost wasn't an issue. This was about 7 years ago ... I can't recall the total price, but it wasn't cheap.

I'd put them on my own house, but it's a $50K investment.

It's ridiculous that it costs so much for tech that has been around my entire life.

yeah ... i'm not a big fan of LEED as the money spent on documenting a project could easily be spent on further efficiencies ...

the other thing is that unless we start paying the true cost of the resources supply we currently use ... all the renewables will seem fiscally off ...