|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
Wait -- you're suggesting land vehicles (and nuclear energy) will be a thing of the past, and we'll all have our own flying machines? Just as was forecast in the 'forties, for the brave new post-war world? Seriously?
If not. . .what? Seriously.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in 100 years it'll probably be hydrogen...or at least sometime within those hundred years...
we develop a significant nuclear energy platform from which we use the energy to create cheap hyrdogen fuel [something that can't be done right now] once there is enough hydrogen fuel put out into the world then we can ween off the nuclear...the biggest problem facing h2 is the enormous amount of energy that has to be input at the start to get the system running...
also in the past couple decades there has been significant work done reinterpretting nikoli tesla's experiements with zero-point energy and tesla coils...which harness the energy that is just floating around in the atmosphere...
in the 50's they were using the technology to attempt to make 'flying saucers' which they were somewhat succesful at...but no rational use could be found for the technology until the development of the stealth bomber...which uses a variant of a tesla coil to help reduce its electromagnetic signature and also its long range capabilities... since a tesla coil in effect creates a situation where the coil becomes lighter due to the movement of electrons...
if you read around there is alot out there on concepts that were developed during WW2 and the early cold war which we didn't have enough understanding or technology to use, but now we have been able to find great applications for the technology... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1116
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Architorture wrote: | also in the past couple decades there has been significant work done reinterpretting nikoli tesla's experiements with zero-point energy and tesla coils...which harness the energy that is just floating around in the atmosphere...
in the 50's they were using the technology to attempt to make 'flying saucers' which they were somewhat succesful at...but no rational use could be found for the technology until the development of the stealth bomber...which uses a variant of a tesla coil to help reduce its electromagnetic signature and also its long range capabilities... since a tesla coil in effect creates a situation where the coil becomes lighter due to the movement of electrons... |
Sorry, my friend, that is fantasy, pure fanstasy.
Not something to build energy plans around... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well then you have bought into one of the biggest lies ever told by general electric...
tesla was very successful in he manipulation of electricity and energy... he main backer at the time of his work with alternating current was the founders of general electric, who immediately pulled rug out from under him when he successfully tested his coils as a means for providing free energy, since you can't make a profit off of something that is free...
you can read all about it if you like... they built the transmission tower right next to the hydroelectric dam in niagara falls... it was a successful expierement...
i'm not saying it is going to be our main form of energy generation... it wouldn't be practical... but by reinterpretting some of the lessons learned through the expierements rational and useful applications can certainly be found... such as with the stealth bomber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For what it's worth, another warning. . .difficult to sort out truth from hyperbole, as usual.
www.truthout.org/docs_030705Z.shtml
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I prefer to believe the experts and to live by these words:
"Not to fear, however; ExxonMobil believes there are some 14 trillion barrels still in the ground, including nonconventional resource fields like the tar sands of Canada and petroleum-rich shale in the western United States".....
and for these chicken-little the sky's falling claims:
"Will this happen in time? Will it happen at all? It is, unfortunately, doubtful."
and if "ifs and buts" were fruits and nuts...every day would be Christmas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
they have successfully gotten oil out of the tar fields and the shale in the mid west... the problem is right now you are putting more energy and money into getting the oil out than you will get back... so it isn't economically feasible... but everyone agrees that the oil is actually there...just no one knows how to get it easily and cheap...
supposedly the tar sands in canada equal more oil than has been discovered on the planet up until this point... maybe instead of being seen as the nice loft apartment above a party they will soon become the VIP lounge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | putting more energy and money into getting the oil out than you will get back |
rather than the fixation on oil (which is becoming reminiscent of the way that people used to talk about coal) surely it makes sense to look at newer sources of energy and newer and more efficient technologies for vehicles, etc
even from a national security viewpoint, avoiding an overdependence on one natural resource might seem sensible.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh we certainly should not be putting all the eggs in the tar sands oil basket... b/c there is certainly too many other problems with oil that make it less than desirable as a main POWER source...
although we need petroleum for many many other things that few people ever consider... such as the creation of fertilizers and such that keep the american agricultural industry moving...which of course has global implications in and off itself since so much of the worlds grains are grown in the US...
i don't know what you mean about coal... the US has enough coal to last for a couple hundred years still...and it doesn't appear that anyone is backing off of using it as a power generation fuel...i'm pretty sure the lion's share of electricity in the US comes from coal fired power plants...
but that is being greatly effected by technology such as emerging 'clean coal' and the various scrubber systems and such that have hit the market in the past decade...
as for a military stretegy standpoint... the importance of oil is that it can be immediately transformed into energy...granted it goes through a long and energy intensive process to refine it, but just looking at oil well fires shows you that it is a primary source of energy... which makes it extremely valuable in military terms...
something like hydrogen is actually just a way to STORE energy, in and off itself it does not act as oil does... energy has to be put into hydrogen and then later taken out...where as the energy in oil was put in millions of years ago...
stretegically oil makes the most sense and i would argue THAT is the reason the US is meddling so much in the middle east... not to provide cheap oil to the market or the economy or anything like that... the US saw what happened to the germans in world war 2...
the the german blitz was intended to use the very least amount of the few petroleum reserves germany had and specifically target reserves in other countries... the germans very well could have had moscow had they not decided to send half their force south in an attempt to capture russian oil fields...by the later days of the war germans were leaving the vehicles behind b/c they had simply run out of fuel...
with china dawning as a economic and military super power with unaccounted for oil resources, the US has to be sure it has a secure supply of oil for itself... thats what i think has truly been driving US policy in the middle east for the past decade or so |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Finally, some clarity -- on a couple of issues. If there are objections to any part(s) of the above, I'd rather hear them sooner, than later.
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Haut
millennium club
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 1137
Location: Nice, France
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
American interference in the Middle East is not to ensure trade in oil for America, but to assist private corporations in stealing resources.
The many Wahabi regimes helped into place by the British have enabled oil supplies to the West for decades - it is Bush who is threatening them.
The parallel with Nazi Germany implies that America is firstly an aggressor nation with a war economy and that it is seeking oil reserves to assist its attacks. But those attacks are not being undertaken for the American people.
The extent of destruction to Americas position is shown by two things: the ending of the highly influential petro-dollar, and Americas sharecropper economy. How much of the US is now in foreign hands ? $4000000000000000, if I and Buffett have the number of zeros correct.
You should be careful - the vast majority of that immense sum is in the hands of peoples who are more concerned to deal with China than with Bushs America.
_________________
Richard Haut has worked with the architectural profession for over 25 years and produces the weekly Richard Haut's Competitions, which has given architects details of many thousands of projects for which they can apply across Britain and Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
i really don't believe it is for private corporations... private corporations aren't going to be very helpful in the coming decades when we are going to see "resource wars" as a main form of conflict...
if you really believe the neo-cons are the ones running the show in the bush administration then believing it is all for private gain is ridiculous... the neo-cons are all about establishing america as a world leader for as long as imaginable... in order to do that one has to be militarily established more so than economically...
private corporate profits are only projected and planned out for a few years...there is very little interest in long term [10 or more years] b/c of the nature of stockholders and the market...
the military on the other hand has very long laid plans that are concieved of over decades and can be demonstrated... the interest in the middle east began in full when the british pulled out and you can see that through the various policies and actions taken by the US in the region...
and it seems most of those policies were aimed at creating a strong ally in at least ONE middle eastern country, in order to have an established, secure resource of oil...
you have to remember that the oil fields in texas PEAKED during the 70's, so the US knew they couldn't depend on domestic supplies in an emergency...not a fiscal emergency or an economic one...but a military conflict...
it doesn't matter how many bullets or missles or planes you have if none of them have fuel...of course during the cold war there were both military and economic overtones so the interest was two pronged...but since the collapse of the USSR...i think the US has placed more importance on the middle east as a militarily stregetic region more so than an economic boom...
the persian gulf war wasn't to "free kuwaitis" it was to stop saddam from being in control of most of the oil in the middle east...the US has never wanted a single power broker in the region, especially not one who we had questionable ties with...
everyone knows the party is over in terms of oil... if we haven't already, we are really close to reaching that peak of oil production where it costs more than a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil... at that point no one will be profitting off of it... but it will still be a very valuable resource especially to the military who is entirely dependant upon it...
corporations can change far more quickly than the military... a corporation makes some major shake ups and maybe their quarterly earnings go down a bit... the miltiary does some drastic changes and we end up getting attacked... there is definitely more at risk when moving the military away from oil...
as for comparisons to the nazis...i'll agree the US has taken on a similar stretegy...although not nearly as furious since there isn't open war with many other countries...but ideologically i don't think they anywhere close...
hitler thought of himself as charlemagne...he thought he was going to make one quasi-socialist europe that would be a cultural and economic power house... the united states isn't trying to gain realestate or territory, the US wants to know there will be resources some place that are secure when the time comes... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1712
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why "either-or" re the motivation to dominate; business AND military power is the complete formula, broadly benefitting those already in power, in both sectors?
Just because business economy can only be projected so far ahead doesn't mean they wouldn't attempt to stay on top, does it?
Oil supply benefits both military AND business interests -- why accept one and deny the other?
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donald
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 493
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I cannot prove it, but I think the prospect of war with Iran has been haunting world oil markets since last summer, when the price broke $40 and then wandered on up past $50. Sure, there were other things affecting the price of crude oil, most notably short gasoline stocks in the US and unrest in Iraq. But ever since the Bush administration committed itself to filling the 700 million Strategic Petroleum Reserve by the middle of this summer, I think a lot of people believe that reserve is being filled to make up for the huge disruption in world crude oil supplies that any sustained attack – air campaign or land invasion – of Iran would most assuredly bring.
(Right now, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – a collection of salt domes in Louisiana and Texas – holds 682 million barrels of sweet and sour crude, and given the current fill schedule, should hold about 694 million by the beginning of June. Not quite full, but close enough for government work.)
Vice President Dick Cheney said last year that the reserve would only be tapped if the US lost 50% of its daily oil imports, which right now total around 11 million barrels per day. That means, if Cheney is a man of his word (like him or not, you can usually bank on what he says), US refiners would have to lose access to about 5.5 million barrels each day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
