Fossil Fuel Production. What GREEN AGENDA?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Moi621, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fossil Fuel Production and
    what Green Agenda?


    Besides being like psychedelic to stare at for long times
    and try figure out where is what produced :hmm:
    it seems the "fossil fuel producers" claim to have a Green Agenda?

    How Green? Not to interrupt their fossil fuel profits too abruptly?
    Ideas?

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ten-countries-greatest-fossil-fuel-170000073.html
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    How Green are the most fossil fuel profiting nations?



    Moi :oldman:
    Don't stare at the images too long





    No Canada-1.jpg
    Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
    regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.


     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  2. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019
  3. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    POINT:
    Can a major fossil fuel producer,
    a nation that depends on fossil fuel production as a major part of its economy
    really have a sincere GREEN Energy Program, or is it just a ruse
    to protect a nation's economy?



    Consider :flagcanada:
    or :flagus: or Saudi Arabia etc.


    Moi
    :oldman:



    :flagcanada: Hoards The Secret of
    Ice Power
     
  4. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yes it can. Do you doubt the sincerity of the Green adherents?
    US oil production is big and influential but many voters aren’t in the oil companies pockets.
     
  5. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it can't.

    I doubt the sincerity of :blahblah: GREEN by major fossil fuel producing nations.
    The plutocracy aims to keep their fossil fuel profits.

    Y'think if they had the tablet that turned water into automobile fuel and cheaper too, "they" would release it or shelve it?



    Voters are suckers! Rarely get it right.


    Moi :oldman:




    Canada-3.png
     
  6. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    13,684
    Likes Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think most Americans will go with green energy if it is cheaper than fossil fuels. If it isn't, most will stick with fossil fuels. Agenda or no agenda, that I think is the bottom line.
     
  7. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Oh yes it can.

    Once hydrogen fuel R&D reaches critical mass,

    Voters aren’t all suckers. If you could motivate the mass of US citizens who could vote, who knows what could happen.

    Coal and oil could be decided to be unconstitutional and hydrogen fuel the only way to go.

    Remember the wowsers who backed alcohol prohibition? Seems unlikely doesn’t it.
     
  8. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Sallyally uh-uh! :no:

    The problem is getting "it" to market where the consumer has a choice.
    Remember, "The Arnold's" proposal for a hydrogen highway across California.
    Fuel cells were also being developed to be more versatile and accept a
    variety of gases such as methane, propane, butane.

    Ford was marketing a bifuel series for a while.
    Gasoline or Natural Gas.

    I don't believe "the market" ended these ideas.
    The bipartisan plutocracy did! Profit off fossil fuel as long as possible.


    Moi :oldman:
    Just because I'm a conspiracist
    doesn't mean it isn't!



    :nana: :flagcanada:
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
  9. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ford Aust was still building an LPG car up until they withdrew.
     
  10. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why did they do that?

    And Toyota only leased the hydrogen fuel cell cars.
    There is a fuel station included at the gas station near my home.
    Market Failure or Market Manipulation?
    (psst. Market manipulation. No real fossil fuel competition permitted.)
     
  11. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Do what? Withdraw or build LPG cars?

    LPG used to be very cheap. All taxis used to run on LPG.

    Ford and GMH stopped building Australian cars.

    More electric recharging stations are being provided.

    Don’t know about hydrogen fuel cells.
     
  12. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @Sallyally

    Electric cars will always have range problems
    The fossil fuel people don't worry about them.
    But, hydrogen or hydrocarbon gas to electric fuel
    cell cars are a worry and were subverted.
    Delayed as long as possible.
    Even mechanical cars with a not liquid fuel. Methane, Propane, Butane, etc.ane.
    We Witnessed.
    It wasn't people didn't buy them, was it
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  13. Sallyally

    Sallyally Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2017
    Messages:
    9,338
    Likes Received:
    16,873
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There has always been the idea that oil companies buy up patents for alternative motor fuels or fuel saving engines, and suppress research into them.
     
  14. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has been in the works since the 80s. Petro fuel was just too cheap for fuels from algae to compete. But some producers are claiming to be down to the 5$ per gallon mark - down from over $30 a gallon when I first got involved in 2006. And gas and diesel have tripled in price since the Dept of Energy explored this option back in the 80s. When the price lines cross, it will be cheaper to buy algae fuels than petro fuels. And that is when petro fuels go away.

    Fuels made from algae are carbon neutral - they produce no new carbon, unlike petro fuels which release carbon that was stored for millions of years, Algae fuels only release the carbon required for the algae to grow and produce fuels.



     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Sallyally likes this.
  15. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is, there was no viable option to replace petro fuels until we discovered the potential of algae. I know, I made it my mission in life to help solve the energy problem. All of those magic technologies didn't really work. Either they were impractical, too expensive to produce, or simply impossible to market successfully.

    Take for example the 100 mpg carburetor. To a certain extent it did work. But it required a large chamber of heated gasoline vapor on top of the engine, which had a tendency to explode. It was inherently dangerous. It was an unavoidable aspect of the concept.

    A few decades ago, a guy in my home town made one these from the plans. He blew up his garage and he died.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Sallyally likes this.
  16. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @HereWeGoAgain too

    Or by political contacts deny infrastructure for alternative fuels,
    like the gases.
    Remember Schwarzenegger's Hydrogen Highway!
    And influence the manufacturer like Ford or Toyota not to distribute in many places.


    The Free ;) market no longer decides.
    "They" do!

    Ref.:
    http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/can-they-be-trusted.513616/
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Sallyally likes this.
  17. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hydrogen isn't a fuel source. We had no viable options. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, other biofuel crops, geothermal, ocean wave energy, you name it, either they were too limited or impractical. Often we find that the energy cost of production exceeds the energy return. Something might seem promising, but when you do the math down to the last gory detail, it can't work. And magic perpetual motion machines and the like are just nonsense. As a physicist, I have been approached many times with such schemes.

    We all see this constantly. And they generally don't make it past physics 101. On an elementary level, they can't work. A few ideas like cold fusion were better founded in that it was based on laboratory experimental evidence, but still didn't work. The experiment was flawed and there was no net energy gain. I was actually there when they [Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann] presented their paper and they got torn to shreds.

    All of this conspiracy crap is just noise that drowns out the important information. After spending over 40 years studying this problem, I am telling you, algae is the final solution. And it isn't being hidden. There are tens of thousands of variables that all had to be explored at great expense. But this is just an engineering problem. On a fundamental level, unlike any other option, algae can completely replace petroleum. And the oil companies are motivated to be leaders in this because they know the life of oil is very limited.

    Stop the conspiracy crap and learn about the real problems, and the real solutions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
    Sallyally likes this.
  18. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @HereWeGoAgain

    Hydrogen is as easy as solar powered electrolysis.
    Fuel cells were under development that could manage various
    hydrocarbon cases.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  19. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You get a 50% return on your investment. ie. put in 100 Joules and get 50 Joules back. Not a very good deal.

    The ONLY reason people believe we had options, is they don't understand the physics. We had no options until we discovered the potential of algae. It converts solar energy directly to fuels. Algae can also be used to produce hydrogen.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  20. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hydrogen is an enticing alternative. But the cost of the fuel would be astronomical. And you have to convert every engine in the world. Algae fuels can be used in all existing engines. It doesn't require an entirely new infrastructure. It doesn't have the storage problems that we have with hydrogen. It doesn't leak like hydrogen. And it doesn't have to be stored at insanely high pressures, like hydrogen.

    Converting to hydrogen power is probably beyond the total GDP of the US

    Hydrogen also has a much lower energy yield, on a practical basis.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  21. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With solar panels, when they are spent, you have toxic waste.

    With algae, once you take out the fuel, you have a high-grade feed for cattle. thus reducing the load on other food sources. And algae can be farmed in closed systems in the ocean, thus freeing up arable land and fresh water now used to grow feed for cattle.

    The chemicals needed to produce the algae fuels are recovered and used again. They are only used as a catalyst for other reactions.
     
  22. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As for nuclear: It would take about 1000 of the largest nuclear power plants to replace all other fuel sources, assuming a 100% conversion factor. But for something like hydrogen, we might expect a 50% loss of energy at the point of production, with more losses in the infrastructure and in the efficiency of the engines. So in reality, it would probably take about 2000 of the largest nuclear power plants at about $6 Billion each,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

    So now that we've agreed to spend $12 trillion for nuclear, we need to distribute up to 2000 nuclear power plants over the 50 States. Where do they go?

    And also allow that nuclear plants are good for perhaps 50 years. So that's 12 trillion every 50 years. And of course there is no way we could build them all, even if we had the money. It would probably take 200 years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  23. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  24. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    18,728
    Likes Received:
    10,764
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  25. Moi621

    Moi621 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    5,294
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    @HereWeGoAgain

    Over ten years ago I saw a TV program about some
    Scientist / Engineer type who built a house with
    no lack of lights and energy.

    He had solar panels that in one piece converted
    water to its gases.
    The system harvested the hydrogen and stored
    it for use whenever.
    The house was equipped with Fuel Cells.

    And his point was he did it all with "off the shelf" components.
    No New Science.


    So?


    Fossil Fuel Central likes the idea of Energy Hubs selling their electricity
    and resists the idea of individual energy freedom. Y'think.


    Moi :oldman:
    Just Because I'm A Conspiracist
    doesn't mean it isn't.




    Canada-3.png
     
    Sallyally likes this.

Share This Page