Pilgrim
Wugger
Hehe, glad to see the world is still ending...
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
The End.
- Thread starter StrongTurd
- Start date
wrathex
Expert Member
Thus, if one heeds all the warnings, and one is in a country like South Africa where the poor outnumber the middleclass, one can surmise that:
- resources are becoming rarer and thus more expensive
- this trend will continue
- the poor will become desperate
- crime will increase
- the middleclass will become the target of the poor
- clashes will be very violent in countries like SA
Conclusion: invest in personal security if you are a resident
- resources are becoming rarer and thus more expensive
- this trend will continue
- the poor will become desperate
- crime will increase
- the middleclass will become the target of the poor
- clashes will be very violent in countries like SA
Conclusion: invest in personal security if you are a resident
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Eastern Europe's credit time bomb
I've mentioned this earlier in this thread. EU banks in countries like Austria, UK and in the Scandinavians nations are massively leveraged in Eastern Europe. Were Eastern European countries to start defaulting, as is looking all the more likely, a run on the EU banks and the resultant collapse of the EU's financial system is not at all far fetched.
One has to wonder if the EU, and the world for that matter, can tolerate a significant portion of £1.3 trillion being lost in Eastern Europe, especially given the diabolical economic situation we're already in.
Link.
I've mentioned this earlier in this thread. EU banks in countries like Austria, UK and in the Scandinavians nations are massively leveraged in Eastern Europe. Were Eastern European countries to start defaulting, as is looking all the more likely, a run on the EU banks and the resultant collapse of the EU's financial system is not at all far fetched.
One has to wonder if the EU, and the world for that matter, can tolerate a significant portion of £1.3 trillion being lost in Eastern Europe, especially given the diabolical economic situation we're already in.
Link.
No we dont learn, and whether we move forward is questionable as well. We do move in some direction though.
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Peak Oil Overview - July 2009
Here's an extract from an excellent article that was published yesterday on The Oil Drum:
If you want to familiarise yourself with the very basics of current peak oil theory and what effect it is already having on your life then this is as good a start as any. This article is written in less technical terms than most articles on The Oil Drum and should be required reading for anyone trying to understand what is currently happening in the world around us.
Here's an extract from an excellent article that was published yesterday on The Oil Drum:
If you want to familiarise yourself with the very basics of current peak oil theory and what effect it is already having on your life then this is as good a start as any. This article is written in less technical terms than most articles on The Oil Drum and should be required reading for anyone trying to understand what is currently happening in the world around us.
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Peak fish
Unfortunately the following is a rather dated graph but it shows the caught seafood per capita of the world between 1970 and 2000 with a future projection:
http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/2009/07/graph-of-day-caught-seafood-per-person.html
It would be very interesting indeed to compare more recent data with the future extrapolation on that graph to see how well the actual data compares to the projection. Even in the absence of this, it should be very obvious that this graph forms a pretty normal bell curve which is consistent with the classic model of resource depletion (like peak oil). As such, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this does not bode well for a species like ours with an exponentially growing population. Needless to say, when any species outgrows its resource base, the end result is not pretty.
To be perfectly honest I can't say that I'm surprised by this graph. Environmental degradation and resource depletion have now reached a level where they've created so many positive feedback loops that these are now starting to overwhelm negative feedback loops, quite possibly leading to runaway destruction of the biosphere. It is of course anyone's guess what the world's population will be in 2100 but I don't think it is unrealistic to guess that only a few hundred million might remain IF we don't go extinct altogether...
Here's another graph related to the first one that displays the biomass of North Atlantic fish of 1900 compared to 2000:
North Atlantic Biomass
That's another shocking little picture, isn't it?
Unfortunately the following is a rather dated graph but it shows the caught seafood per capita of the world between 1970 and 2000 with a future projection:
http://desdemonadespair.blogspot.com/2009/07/graph-of-day-caught-seafood-per-person.html
It would be very interesting indeed to compare more recent data with the future extrapolation on that graph to see how well the actual data compares to the projection. Even in the absence of this, it should be very obvious that this graph forms a pretty normal bell curve which is consistent with the classic model of resource depletion (like peak oil). As such, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this does not bode well for a species like ours with an exponentially growing population. Needless to say, when any species outgrows its resource base, the end result is not pretty.
To be perfectly honest I can't say that I'm surprised by this graph. Environmental degradation and resource depletion have now reached a level where they've created so many positive feedback loops that these are now starting to overwhelm negative feedback loops, quite possibly leading to runaway destruction of the biosphere. It is of course anyone's guess what the world's population will be in 2100 but I don't think it is unrealistic to guess that only a few hundred million might remain IF we don't go extinct altogether...
Here's another graph related to the first one that displays the biomass of North Atlantic fish of 1900 compared to 2000:
North Atlantic Biomass
That's another shocking little picture, isn't it?
Aeron
Senior Member
I see STD is back to scare mybb members with his doomsaying. Shocking picture indeed. You obviously either 1) Enjoy the feeling of power doomsaying gives you, or, 2) You somehow benefit from scaring people enough to make them change their minds on what they do with their money.
Maybe you're buying when everyone else is selling, eh? <conspiratorial>
Really.
"If we don't go extinct altogether", followed by the all-implying ...
...
...
...
...
zzzzzzzzz
....
Maybe you're buying when everyone else is selling, eh? <conspiratorial>
Really.
"If we don't go extinct altogether", followed by the all-implying ...
...
...
...
...
zzzzzzzzz
....
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Hello there Aeron,
As a rule I don't reply to baseless posts like yours but it would be interesting to hear what goes through the cornucopian's mind when faced with data such as what I presented and I would appreciate if you would enlighten me.
My question is this: When you are presented with data from solid, reputable sources like those that I linked to (the source of my first graph was this guy a Phd with over 500 published works to his credit or these people, all of them qualified oceanographers, most of them at the doctorate level), and the data presented to you paints a picture to you that should obviously be a matter of grave concern to any reasonably intelligent person, then what goes through your mind?
Do you honestly believe that I'm part of some massive conspiracy aimed at scaring the masses or, even more bizarre, that I'm somehow trying to make some sort of financial gain by presenting this data? I would hazard a guess by saying that it is neither of those but rather that cornucopianism is so ingrained in your psyche that you are simply unable to deal with this.
Your reply would be greatly appreciated.
As a rule I don't reply to baseless posts like yours but it would be interesting to hear what goes through the cornucopian's mind when faced with data such as what I presented and I would appreciate if you would enlighten me.
My question is this: When you are presented with data from solid, reputable sources like those that I linked to (the source of my first graph was this guy a Phd with over 500 published works to his credit or these people, all of them qualified oceanographers, most of them at the doctorate level), and the data presented to you paints a picture to you that should obviously be a matter of grave concern to any reasonably intelligent person, then what goes through your mind?
Do you honestly believe that I'm part of some massive conspiracy aimed at scaring the masses or, even more bizarre, that I'm somehow trying to make some sort of financial gain by presenting this data? I would hazard a guess by saying that it is neither of those but rather that cornucopianism is so ingrained in your psyche that you are simply unable to deal with this.
Your reply would be greatly appreciated.
MidnightWizard
Executive Member
Paper Money Ponzi and Shell Games
This guy pretty much sums it up.
Gotta go back and look at where money and "credit" started
von Mises -- Katz
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Aristocracy-Howard-S-Katz/dp/0916728013/ref=cm_cr-mr-title] The Paper Aristocracy [/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Warmongers-non-fiction-Howard-S-Katz/dp/0916728064] The WARMONGERS [/ame]
"fiat" money and "banking" -- the legal Ponzi scheme.
MW
This guy pretty much sums it up.
Gotta go back and look at where money and "credit" started
von Mises -- Katz
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Paper-Aristocracy-Howard-S-Katz/dp/0916728013/ref=cm_cr-mr-title] The Paper Aristocracy [/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Warmongers-non-fiction-Howard-S-Katz/dp/0916728064] The WARMONGERS [/ame]
"fiat" money and "banking" -- the legal Ponzi scheme.
MW
Aeron
Senior Member
I'm so honoured that you replied to a baseless post like mine, std. Usual superiority complex active, I see.
They thought the world was going to end in the Cold War. The Yanks built bomb shelters because some nutcase parked a dozen nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The world believed that, in the year 2000, everyone would be telepathic or dumb as cockroaches. And behind every bull**** lie, there is someone making a buck. Behind every "proof" there is someone making a buck.
If you can't understand the incentive behind a million scientists all over the world saying the same thing, you don't understand much at all. Sure, you "know" a lot, but you don't really "get" it. And it doesn't even have to be part of a "conspiracy". Scientists like to scare people with big charts and graphs, visual representation of statistics that mean nothing in most cases. They do that so that people don't argue when billions of their taxes are used for research.
Global warming due to humans theory is my personal favourite. The majority of scientists agree with it, because it ensures another "problem" for them to "solve". The rest of the scientists agree with them because they don't want to be called loony fringe scientists or have their funding cancelled. And the liberal people of the world agree with it because they need a "cause" to fight for. Makes them feel better for all the other atrocities they commit. Governments serve the people so they agree with it as well. And of course, behind everything, you've got someone making a buck out of it.
But that's another story.
I'm not refuting the claims per se, I'm just saying that there is so much incentive behind making the world believe in global warming, food running out, etc, that most things need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I can just see this fish theory being used to refute price-fixing claims. If someone is doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons, it's a wrong thing. Like a gossip who will only tell the truth if it will do more damage.
Std, you are far too intelligent to believe everything you read, no matter how many little star stickers the writer has to its name or how many people agree. You should be intelligent enough to know that scare-mongers are everywhere and that someone benefits from it. And I don't think, for a moment, that you are in anyway concerned with what the articles you post say. And that might indicate that you are posting in bad faith.
Awaiting the "tin foil hat" or "uneducated bastard" or simply "empty" reply with utter anticipation.
They thought the world was going to end in the Cold War. The Yanks built bomb shelters because some nutcase parked a dozen nukes 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The world believed that, in the year 2000, everyone would be telepathic or dumb as cockroaches. And behind every bull**** lie, there is someone making a buck. Behind every "proof" there is someone making a buck.
If you can't understand the incentive behind a million scientists all over the world saying the same thing, you don't understand much at all. Sure, you "know" a lot, but you don't really "get" it. And it doesn't even have to be part of a "conspiracy". Scientists like to scare people with big charts and graphs, visual representation of statistics that mean nothing in most cases. They do that so that people don't argue when billions of their taxes are used for research.
Global warming due to humans theory is my personal favourite. The majority of scientists agree with it, because it ensures another "problem" for them to "solve". The rest of the scientists agree with them because they don't want to be called loony fringe scientists or have their funding cancelled. And the liberal people of the world agree with it because they need a "cause" to fight for. Makes them feel better for all the other atrocities they commit. Governments serve the people so they agree with it as well. And of course, behind everything, you've got someone making a buck out of it.
But that's another story.
I'm not refuting the claims per se, I'm just saying that there is so much incentive behind making the world believe in global warming, food running out, etc, that most things need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I can just see this fish theory being used to refute price-fixing claims. If someone is doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons, it's a wrong thing. Like a gossip who will only tell the truth if it will do more damage.
Std, you are far too intelligent to believe everything you read, no matter how many little star stickers the writer has to its name or how many people agree. You should be intelligent enough to know that scare-mongers are everywhere and that someone benefits from it. And I don't think, for a moment, that you are in anyway concerned with what the articles you post say. And that might indicate that you are posting in bad faith.
Awaiting the "tin foil hat" or "uneducated bastard" or simply "empty" reply with utter anticipation.
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Aeron, unlike your first post, which I'll maintain was completely baseless, at least this post was well argued, and I thank you for taking the time out to reply.
Firstly, let's just get the superiority complex thing out of the way. I'm disappointed that you perceive my attitude to be such. Maybe it is because I entertain strong and, let's be frank, quite radical opinions do you feel that way? Whatever the case might be, may I give you the assurance that I value everybody's input and that if I am perceived to harbour such a complex that it is not intentional. Having said that, I do believe that I am probably better read on the subject of population overshoot and resource depletion than almost anybody else on this forum.
The problem is, however, that almost all of the negative replies that I've had to this thread have been without any substance. If you were to take the time to review the entire thread (I did just that this past weekend), you'll notice that there's been nary an attempt by anybody to refute any of the arguments and accompanying data that I've presented. Instead, the lion's share of replies have fallen into one of these groups:
It's ironic that you should say that I don't "get it" when in fact mainstream opinion has only recently started acknowledging as true what I've been maintaining at least for the last five years (referring to peak oil theory here). I think that this fact is ample vindication of my ability to reason for myself and to actually "get it". What is even more ironic is that I'm being accused of posting in bad faith when we have yet to see anyone post any data to refute my evidence.
So just to wrap things up, here's my basic argument again: The human population is growing exponentially. This was made possible by the harnessing of the massive energy locked up in cheap, abundant light sweet crude oil and has allowed us as a species to far exceed the natural carrying capacity of the earth's biosphere. Unfortunately for us, resources are finite and there are no prizes for guessing that a perpetual growth model like capitalism is ultimately not compatible with a finite, non renewable resource base. The end result of this cannot be anything other than massive population overshoot with its resultant implications.
The only way out of this situation is if we were to come up with an energy source to replace light sweet crude oil that offers the same very low cost, extremely high energy density, ease of portability and global abundance. Alas, I'm still waiting for someone to point out an alternative. Cold fusion, perhaps?
Firstly, let's just get the superiority complex thing out of the way. I'm disappointed that you perceive my attitude to be such. Maybe it is because I entertain strong and, let's be frank, quite radical opinions do you feel that way? Whatever the case might be, may I give you the assurance that I value everybody's input and that if I am perceived to harbour such a complex that it is not intentional. Having said that, I do believe that I am probably better read on the subject of population overshoot and resource depletion than almost anybody else on this forum.
The problem is, however, that almost all of the negative replies that I've had to this thread have been without any substance. If you were to take the time to review the entire thread (I did just that this past weekend), you'll notice that there's been nary an attempt by anybody to refute any of the arguments and accompanying data that I've presented. Instead, the lion's share of replies have fallen into one of these groups:
- Oh, you're just posting these things to scare us.
- This is all a big conspiracy.
- Stop preaching doom; you're negatively affecting the markets.
- Those things are true but the scientists are bound to find a solution.
- Electric cars, biofuels and wind farms are going to save us.
- Those are all just lies.
- ...and my personal favourite: Oil is actually abiotic.
It's ironic that you should say that I don't "get it" when in fact mainstream opinion has only recently started acknowledging as true what I've been maintaining at least for the last five years (referring to peak oil theory here). I think that this fact is ample vindication of my ability to reason for myself and to actually "get it". What is even more ironic is that I'm being accused of posting in bad faith when we have yet to see anyone post any data to refute my evidence.
So just to wrap things up, here's my basic argument again: The human population is growing exponentially. This was made possible by the harnessing of the massive energy locked up in cheap, abundant light sweet crude oil and has allowed us as a species to far exceed the natural carrying capacity of the earth's biosphere. Unfortunately for us, resources are finite and there are no prizes for guessing that a perpetual growth model like capitalism is ultimately not compatible with a finite, non renewable resource base. The end result of this cannot be anything other than massive population overshoot with its resultant implications.
The only way out of this situation is if we were to come up with an energy source to replace light sweet crude oil that offers the same very low cost, extremely high energy density, ease of portability and global abundance. Alas, I'm still waiting for someone to point out an alternative. Cold fusion, perhaps?
Aeron
Senior Member
If you really are arguing in good faith, and really are worried about the current situation, then you deserve a reply.
Don't worry about it. If the world is too full, mother nature will respond. She always has and always will. I just love the way humans think they can fight nature. Hurricane Katrina told New Orleans a different tale.
Hydrogen, a most-explosive, clean fuel is all around us. 70% of the world's surface is covered by a substance that is 66% hydrogen. All we need to do is to have Exxon relinquish the patents for cheap hydrogen extraction from water and we're saved. And they will; when oil hits $1000 a barrel and everyone is driving powered unicycles. Come on, std, you know it's there. They have the world's greatest minds in 18hour a day think tanks to come up with things they can patent. The company earns over $ 500 billion a year in revenue. Do you really believe a company with those resources does not have the answer?
If mother nature does not respond, the West will just think up another excuse (swine flu?) to send UNICEF through Africa, vaccinating kiddies with diseases their immune systems can't fight. They will die and leave Africa weak(er) and ripe for the taking. The second Colonial era will follow.
What the world needs is a crisis. A crisis to make it forget its bull**** international human rights bull****. A war or a plague that ravages 50% of the world;s population. It'll come, I promise you. We probably won't be around to see it.
Then, the over-populated West and East will fight like dogs over Africa, destroying much of each other. The winner will claim Africa, the most beautiful, resource-rich continent in the world.
Don't worry about it. If the world is too full, mother nature will respond. She always has and always will. I just love the way humans think they can fight nature. Hurricane Katrina told New Orleans a different tale.
Hydrogen, a most-explosive, clean fuel is all around us. 70% of the world's surface is covered by a substance that is 66% hydrogen. All we need to do is to have Exxon relinquish the patents for cheap hydrogen extraction from water and we're saved. And they will; when oil hits $1000 a barrel and everyone is driving powered unicycles. Come on, std, you know it's there. They have the world's greatest minds in 18hour a day think tanks to come up with things they can patent. The company earns over $ 500 billion a year in revenue. Do you really believe a company with those resources does not have the answer?
If mother nature does not respond, the West will just think up another excuse (swine flu?) to send UNICEF through Africa, vaccinating kiddies with diseases their immune systems can't fight. They will die and leave Africa weak(er) and ripe for the taking. The second Colonial era will follow.
What the world needs is a crisis. A crisis to make it forget its bull**** international human rights bull****. A war or a plague that ravages 50% of the world;s population. It'll come, I promise you. We probably won't be around to see it.
Then, the over-populated West and East will fight like dogs over Africa, destroying much of each other. The winner will claim Africa, the most beautiful, resource-rich continent in the world.
Hi Aeron,
I think that you have just confirmed StrongTurd's point: "If the world is too full, mother nature will respond"
Are you familiar with the theory of population dynamics? It basically states that a population will keep expanding until its carrying capacity is reached. With regard to the human race, the carrying capacity has been steadily increased by the abundance of oil. However, it is mathematically impossible for the population of the world to carry on expanding (eventually we will run out of space to stand). StrongTurd's argument, is that the carrying capacity of the world has already been reached due to the fact that we have hit peak oil, and will therefore see prices rise, and an increasing famine from here on.
That it will happen unless the world's population is bought under control (stops expanding) is certain. The only question is as to the time frame. StrongTurd veers on the relatively short-term, while most of the population believe it will happen in the longer term.
Secondly, with regard to hydrogen:
The splitting of water to form hydrogen and oxygen is an endothermic reaction - it requires energy to be input. There is no way around this; if there was we would be violating the immutable laws of thermodynamics.
Look at it this way - if we were able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn hydrogen to get water and energy we would have a perpetual motion machine.
The only way to produce hydrogen is through some other method - be it burning fossil fuels, solar power, wind power or geothermal power. So yes, a hydrogen car can exist, but if we were to use them in SA we would be doing the environment more harm than using a petrol car.
Aeron
Senior Member
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102555.htm
Do you really think this is breaking news? Exxon Mobil is one of the main inhibitors of the Green Revolution. It gains threefold. 1: It owns the patents (the good ones) to alternative fuel sources, thus keeping oil demand high. 2: By agreeing with the Greenies, it effectively helps shoot the oil price into the stars. 3: When oil is unaffordable, (long before it's finished) Exxon will "discover" this brilliant new way of creating clean energy.
Solar, geothermal, wind; all "clean". All readily available. Problem is, they are owned.
Money can buy everything. Lawyers, politicians, etc. And Exxon's got money.
Do you really think this is breaking news? Exxon Mobil is one of the main inhibitors of the Green Revolution. It gains threefold. 1: It owns the patents (the good ones) to alternative fuel sources, thus keeping oil demand high. 2: By agreeing with the Greenies, it effectively helps shoot the oil price into the stars. 3: When oil is unaffordable, (long before it's finished) Exxon will "discover" this brilliant new way of creating clean energy.
Solar, geothermal, wind; all "clean". All readily available. Problem is, they are owned.
Money can buy everything. Lawyers, politicians, etc. And Exxon's got money.
I take it that post was in response to my earlier comment.
I don't disagree for one second that there are efficient and inefficient ways of causing a chemical reaction, and that photosynthesis is for example far more efficient than electrolysis. However, that doesn't diminish the fact that the production of hydrogen is still and endothermic reaction - electrolysis uses electricity as an input of energy while photosynthesis uses light. Hydrogen does, however, form a useful substitute for fossil fuels, particularly for heavy users of energy like airplanes. For cars, electrical engines may be more efficient (for reasons that an electrical engine has maximum torque at 0 RPM) - here I am speculating to a large degree, not knowing the relative efficiencies of hydrogen engine vs. an electrical engine.
With regard to the question as to other forms of alternative energy, I believe the only truly viable one will be solar. I know little about the political battles over the use of solar power and am happy to concede that it may be inhibited by the large oil companies. I do know that photo-voltaic cells are still highly inefficient, and am not too clued up on other techniques such as boiling water by focusing many mirrors on a boiler.
Incidentally, I did read that the venture capitalists who created silicon valley, are investing heavily in renewable energy - will be interesting to see if something comes of it.
You do realise that you are beginning to sound remarkably like StrongTurd?
StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
@ Aeron,
Thanks for those replies. I do get your point but alas, I have to say that I'm not buying this whole Big Oil conspiracy theory one little bit. Think about this: You are saying that Exxon (or one or more of the oil majors) are in possession of technology to extract clean hydrogen from water at a price point comparable to that of conventional oil but that they are first waiting for the oil price to reach the stratosphere before capitalising on this technology.
Now, if we were for the moment to disregard the fact that hydrogen extraction is but one of the considerable hurdles preventing its widespread adoption and that storage and transportation of compressed hydrogen is fraught with unsolved technical hurdles, then it still leaves us with the question as to why they would keep such technology secret.
I don't know if you noticed but those multi-billion dollar profits posted by all the oil majors during 2008 were eroded to such an extent during the first quarter of 2009 (due to the plummeting oil price) that some of them actually applied for a share of the bailout package! Google it; it's true. But I digress...
Now, you have to realise that anybody who is in possession of the technology to extract cheap, plentiful hydrogen from sea water is sitting on what may well be the single most significant piece of intellectual property that anybody has owned in at least the last hundred years, if not in all of human history. The application of such technology would allow its owner in a very short period of time to become the most powerful organisation in the world. It will be able to impose its will on all of mankind, including even the US military.
$500 Billion of annual profit will be absolute chicken feed compared to what such technology will earn you. There's just no denying this. The board of directors of such a company will literally become the rulers of the world. Now you've got to ask yourself why anybody would sit on such technology.
@ Tassidar: Thanks for your posts. You make some very valid points.
Thanks for those replies. I do get your point but alas, I have to say that I'm not buying this whole Big Oil conspiracy theory one little bit. Think about this: You are saying that Exxon (or one or more of the oil majors) are in possession of technology to extract clean hydrogen from water at a price point comparable to that of conventional oil but that they are first waiting for the oil price to reach the stratosphere before capitalising on this technology.
Now, if we were for the moment to disregard the fact that hydrogen extraction is but one of the considerable hurdles preventing its widespread adoption and that storage and transportation of compressed hydrogen is fraught with unsolved technical hurdles, then it still leaves us with the question as to why they would keep such technology secret.
I don't know if you noticed but those multi-billion dollar profits posted by all the oil majors during 2008 were eroded to such an extent during the first quarter of 2009 (due to the plummeting oil price) that some of them actually applied for a share of the bailout package! Google it; it's true. But I digress...
Now, you have to realise that anybody who is in possession of the technology to extract cheap, plentiful hydrogen from sea water is sitting on what may well be the single most significant piece of intellectual property that anybody has owned in at least the last hundred years, if not in all of human history. The application of such technology would allow its owner in a very short period of time to become the most powerful organisation in the world. It will be able to impose its will on all of mankind, including even the US military.
$500 Billion of annual profit will be absolute chicken feed compared to what such technology will earn you. There's just no denying this. The board of directors of such a company will literally become the rulers of the world. Now you've got to ask yourself why anybody would sit on such technology.
@ Tassidar: Thanks for your posts. You make some very valid points.
Aeron
Senior Member
You are very correct. An invention of that magnitude would throw the world into total chaos.
Allow one mere company to dictate to the world? No way in hell. Obama, and the entire America's population will agree with it, will nationalize the patents, claiming it was a matter of national security. Imagine that company selling the patent to Russia or China? Even if America did have it, the entire world would scream foul. The UN would demand America to release the patent. At this time, governments still have too much control over organizations to allow one company to dictate to the world.
A patent as revolutionary as that will not be allowed to be owned by one nation. Europe will demand it and China and Russia and the Middle East will unite together to **** up the rest of the world to get the technology. And that's not even being dramatic. Remember, we're talking about unlimited, clean energy. It's like a blood diamond. No matter who dies for it; someone wants it more.
Well, there you have it. The mere invention of a device that can change water into hydrogen without gulping too much energy in the process, would be enough to plunge the world into another war. Some things are simply "too revolutionary". I'm not saying the technology will never be revealed; not at all. It will be introduced over the next few decades, maybe a century or two, until Exxon has mined enough gold out of oil and other sources.
Even for technology not quite as revolutionary as the hydrogen thing, there are things to keep in mind. We have ethanol cars and electric cars and industrial solar panels and geo-thermal power plants. But...
You can't change the standard of things in a day. If someone makes a cheap hydrogen car today, you'd still have people afraid of kissing the stratosphere if they were in a crash. Even with something like setting up geo-thermal power plants everywhere (more clean, nearly free energy); imagine the amount of unemployed coal miners in the world? The governments won’t allow that and will drown you in red tape.
As for the Big Oil "conspiracy", remember that Exxon, along with five of the other top ten largest oil producers (if not more) was Rockefeller's baby once upon a time. He was the richest man in history. His family had more money than they could want so, what do they do? They ensure the family stays rich until the end of the world by creating a constant, sustainable income stream.
Exxon, and other companies of that magnitude, have a very long term view. Long enough to make your head spin. And it's been that way for ages. They will wait until circumstances are perfect for the release of a certain technology, or certain move, and then do so. (JP Morgan waited for the effects of the 1929 depression to change banking laws so that it could combine its commercial and investment banking departments.) It's not "conspiratorial" because it's not even in any way illegal.
It's just...good business.
Allow one mere company to dictate to the world? No way in hell. Obama, and the entire America's population will agree with it, will nationalize the patents, claiming it was a matter of national security. Imagine that company selling the patent to Russia or China? Even if America did have it, the entire world would scream foul. The UN would demand America to release the patent. At this time, governments still have too much control over organizations to allow one company to dictate to the world.
A patent as revolutionary as that will not be allowed to be owned by one nation. Europe will demand it and China and Russia and the Middle East will unite together to **** up the rest of the world to get the technology. And that's not even being dramatic. Remember, we're talking about unlimited, clean energy. It's like a blood diamond. No matter who dies for it; someone wants it more.
Well, there you have it. The mere invention of a device that can change water into hydrogen without gulping too much energy in the process, would be enough to plunge the world into another war. Some things are simply "too revolutionary". I'm not saying the technology will never be revealed; not at all. It will be introduced over the next few decades, maybe a century or two, until Exxon has mined enough gold out of oil and other sources.
Even for technology not quite as revolutionary as the hydrogen thing, there are things to keep in mind. We have ethanol cars and electric cars and industrial solar panels and geo-thermal power plants. But...
You can't change the standard of things in a day. If someone makes a cheap hydrogen car today, you'd still have people afraid of kissing the stratosphere if they were in a crash. Even with something like setting up geo-thermal power plants everywhere (more clean, nearly free energy); imagine the amount of unemployed coal miners in the world? The governments won’t allow that and will drown you in red tape.
As for the Big Oil "conspiracy", remember that Exxon, along with five of the other top ten largest oil producers (if not more) was Rockefeller's baby once upon a time. He was the richest man in history. His family had more money than they could want so, what do they do? They ensure the family stays rich until the end of the world by creating a constant, sustainable income stream.
Exxon, and other companies of that magnitude, have a very long term view. Long enough to make your head spin. And it's been that way for ages. They will wait until circumstances are perfect for the release of a certain technology, or certain move, and then do so. (JP Morgan waited for the effects of the 1929 depression to change banking laws so that it could combine its commercial and investment banking departments.) It's not "conspiratorial" because it's not even in any way illegal.
It's just...good business.