The Future of Fuel and Energy Technology

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

The most revealing reason behind Shell's efforts to push nitrogen-enriched gas might be its decision to suspend research on alternative fuels. In March 2009, Shell announced it would hold back indefinitely on funding and research for solar and wind power. Hydrogen power was given the boot, too. Analysts cited recent drops in oil prices and an economic downturn as possible reasons for the move [source: Hadhazy]. (I'll post a link later.)
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/nitrogen-enriched-gasoline.htm/printable

This is why I have such little hope for us finding any alternatives in time. Since absolutely none of the proposed alternatives come close to the 30 to 1 return on investment as oil, they remain viable only if oil is expensive. Implementation of any such system will take near a decade. If we're going to wait until then before doing further research, any solutions are still a long, long way off....

Heretic wrote:

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

The most revealing reason behind Shell's efforts to push nitrogen-enriched gas might be its decision to suspend research on alternative fuels. In March 2009, Shell announced it would hold back indefinitely on funding and research for solar and wind power. Hydrogen power was given the boot, too. Analysts cited recent drops in oil prices and an economic downturn as possible reasons for the move [source: Hadhazy]. (I'll post a link later.)
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/nitrogen-enriched-gasoline.htm/printable

This is why I have such little hope for us finding any alternatives in time. Since absolutely none of the proposed alternatives come close to the 30 to 1 return on investment as oil, they remain viable only if oil is expensive. Implementation of any such system will take near a decade. If we're going to wait until then before doing further research, any solutions are still a long, long way off....

After reading this piece that Scorpion posted in another thread, it seems that while the US is engaged in a holding pattern as far as legislation and research, other countries are forging ahead. What that means to us is our prosperity and standard of living will decline as other countries continue to invest in wind and solar.

Do you like pie?

Fiore has done it again...

"What if the world dealt with the Nazis of yesterday the same way that it deals with the scourge of global warming today?"

World Domination!

Ha! He should have included Inhofe's latest screed - "God's still up there. . . It's just a cycle!!"

Crazy, despotic rulers come and go, but the earth will still be here!

Scorpion wrote:

Fiore has done it again...

"What if the world dealt with the Nazis of yesterday the same way that it deals with the scourge of global warming today?"

World Domination!

The Nazis were real. Global Warming as it is being preached is a myth. So it's hard to compare the 2 like that. While it may be true that through the entire history of the earth it has been generally warming since the ice age that also means with a little help from solar events the earth was warming all on it's own even when there were less than 5 million people in the whole world. Otherwise it would have been pretty cold just about everywhere before the industrialization era began.

While even I admit that more localized actions will have an affect on local climate what gets me is they keep telling the US to do thus & such to improve the planet when elsewhere the greater problem countries doing the most damage are doing little or nothing to clean up their act. So tell me how is it helping the planet to make it less desirable to manufacture in the US so we have to buy our goods from countries like China where they add to the problems far worse than any US company would have? That just makes no sense! All you're doing is help ship our jobs offshore.