Oil marketshare conspiracies

[Glom]

So there is the usual stuff about how the oil companies suppress electric cars and renewable energy to maintain their stronghold on the energy market.

Jay once slapped a poster about by saying that the only conspiring the oil companies are doing is to be the ones bringing the products to market first. It is in their interests to move into alternatives.

Oh wise sage of the mountains, what about the oil interests are holding back nuclear conspiracy theories? Are they impeding it or are they developing it behind the scenes or what?

[Larry Jacks]

Why would US auto companies be willing to lose market share (as they did during the 1970s oil shortages and they're doing again today) in order to protect the interests of the oil companies? Likewise, why would utility companies be willing to forgo the advantages of nuclear power (assuming there are any) in order to benefit oil companies? Why would General Electric and other companies that make reactors be willing to cut into their markets to benefit oil companies?

In what possible way would any of that make sense?

[stutefish]

In what possible way would any of that make sense?

All of Civilization is a massive hoax perpetrated by a shadowy cabal, to keep the masses preoccupied with dummy crises while the PTB live extravagant secret lifestyles far away from the prying eyes of us dupes.

Neither the "auto industry" nor the "oil industry" really exist, except as puppets in a Punch and Judy show. We're supposed to be so busy laughing at their antics and shenanigans, that we never stop to ask "what about the puppetteer?"

This also explains why the Soviet Union covered up the Apollo Hoax: the nation-states and their governments are also marionettes dancing on hidden strings.

How am I doing so far?

[Matherly]

Not too shabby, stutefish.

But you need to add the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria (aka the Illuminati) in there somewhere

[stutefish]

That would be the "PTB" and the "puppetteer" I refer to.

Control is very strict about me not using their proper name(s). I see your Minder has you on a different program...

[JayUtah]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

[Count Zero]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception . . . that it is unsafe.

The caveat to this is that, to placate concerns, designers have to drastically overengineer safety & monitoring systems, which drives up the cost of building & running nuclear plants, and this makes them less competitive.

[TriangleMan]

But you need to add the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria (aka the Illuminati) in there somewhere

Did somebody call? Uh, I mean . . . the Illuminati does not exist, don't be silly!

[Glom]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

Well that's good to know.

[korjik]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

So the people behind the conspiracy to keep nuclear power down is the nuclear power industry?

[Monique]

The primary objection to nuclear power is the public perception, fueled by Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that it is unsafe. I don't know of any move by any competing energy technology to suppress it.

Don't you see industry delta team seek in and sabotaged both sites!! There is more

[Roy Batty]

Don't you see industry delta team seek in and sabotaged both sites!! There is more

...and you don't even want to know what the Alpha, Beta & Gamma teams are up to!

[galacsi]

All this is very funny ,but the actual competitor of nuclear energy is not oil but coal. And it is very well known that oil companies long ago bought coal mines and uranium mines and tried investing in nuclear energy.

So these investors are just arbitraging between their diverses portfolios. Oil is still the more juicy , coal is a good money maker and nuclear energy is too much complicated.
It is a conspiracy if you want to call it this way. Or it is just actual capitalism.

[Argos]

Brazil wouldn´t have been able to assemble its huge alcohol distribution infrastructure if there was a conspiracy by the oil giants. Instead, the foreign companies simply took on the new opportunity to make money. So did the automobile manufacturers, which acted swiftly to make their cars compatible with the 'new' fuel.

[Gillianren]

It is a conspiracy if you want to call it this way. Or it is just actual capitalism.

You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

[Kelfazin]

As a serious question, why hasen't then been more research and money going into the developing of alternative fuels/power? I'm not a conspiracy buff, I've done some research, I've read some books (I've been to the library, Gillian *grin*) and I can see that there are good ideas out there that just need some funding. But from a man-on-the-street point of view, we have the ability to be looking into these energy sources, but very little is being done. It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

Some of the auto makers have released the Hybrid vehicles, but the price is so much higher than a gasoline car that it's almost as if they don't want the hybrids to sell. It may not be true, but that is the perception. And as the saying goes, perception becomes reality. If they really want to make a hybrid vehicle work, where are the ads? Where is the incentive to buy one? Don't just tell us you want to do something..actually do it.

[Larry Jacks]

During WWII, Germany spent a lot of money developing synthetic fuel because it didn't have much natural oil of its own. During the 1970s, the US spent a lot of money on alternative energy projects like shale oil, wind, and solar. However, all of these weren't deemed cost effective. IIRC, at the time, it was estimated that these technologies would be cost effective once the price of oil increased to something like $60 a barrel. However, in the 1980s, the price of oil actually dropped (a lot).

Two things are working to increase the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources:

1) The technology has improved. Today, research is underway to find more efficient (and less polluting) techniques for harvesting shale oil. Wind technology is better today than it was decades ago. The cost of solar cells has dropped considerably, probably due to more efficient silicon technology as a result of microprocessor technology.

2) The cost of oil has increased. This makes alternative sources more cost competitive. For example, I've read that Canada is opening some massive tar sand fields for oil production. This source wasn't cost effective when oil was cheap.

To date, it seems that many of the proposed alternatives have been heavily subsidized. I remember back in the 1970s when huge tax breaks were given for large wind projects as well as individual solar systems (I had a solar hot water system in my first house). Ultimately, unless you want to subsidize a technology forever, it has to eventually be cost competitive with other sources of energy to be successful. It doesn't seem likely that the cost of oil is going to decrease any time soon, so alternatives have the potential to find place in the market.

[Argos]

Kelfazin wrote: It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

ThereŽs more to the pic than meets the eye.

The USA will become the biggest ethanol producer (surpassing Brazil) in 2006. Will all those greedy oil barons allow that?

[Swift]

As a serious question, why hasen't then been more research and money going into the developing of alternative fuels/power?

I don't how much more is more, but there is certainly R&D money going into alternative fuels, both from commercial interests, and at the academic/government level. The company I work for is involved in materials that may be used in such technologies as coal-to-gas and methane-to-gasoline conversions. A lot of our customers are from the petroleum and petrochemical industries. I just read an article in the July 3 issue of Chemical & Engineering News about research to create plastics and other feedstocks from biological materials.

I suspect how much any of this becomes commercial technologies will depend on cost and selling price. Certainly, the increase in crude oil prices has sparked much greater interest (even just judging by interest from our customers).

[peter eldergill]

Another couple of things to think about hybrid cars.

Automakers are very good at making internal combustion engines, having about 100 years experience or so at making them.

People, in general, are not willing to spend an extra dollar on fuel efficient cars (and in many cases, appliances...why are top-loading washing machines allowed to be sold in N. America?). This keeps the cost per unit very high, if there is no demand for them. A vicious circle indeed.

The infrastructure in North America (can't say about other areas) is designed for gasoline, not other fuels

Hybrid vehicles are "new" technologies, making buyers weary of quality, reliability, etc.. pretty much true with any new line of car

Time to get off my soap box now and enjoy my airconditioning...

Later

Pete

[Argos]

The infrastructure in North America (can't say about other areas) is designed for gasoline, not other fuels

Yeah, but any liquid [at room temp] fuel can fit into that infrastructure without problems.

[Glom]

I think I have it better. Uranium is not needed in such vast quantities and with lucrative mines in Canada and Australia supplying all we need, you won't get multinationals globe trotting to dig it up in ever increasing quantities and they do with oil and gas.

In terms of hardware, because nuclear reactors are very powerful, you don't need as many of them. That means, like the commercial aircraft market, there is no room for bit players. That doesn't stop some multinationals like Westinghouse, Mitsubishi and the Lord of the Universe General Electric (also a big wind provider) from horning in as well as the dedicated contractors like AECL.

I was originally thinking why my company, BP, isn't involved when they seem keen on diversifying into the renewables market. I suppose the problem is expertise. The difference between a nuclear reactor and other power hardware is the requirement that the people involved actually be intelligent to build the things. I mean how much specific expertise does it take to make a windmill? It's a giant propeller attached to a dynamo. In that way, it was probably easy for BP to get into it. On the other hand, starting up a nuclear sector requires learning a great deal more.

You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

Don't you get nervous about disposal of all that coal ash?

[galacsi]

Brazil wouldnŽt have been able to assemble its huge alcohol distribution infrastructure if there was a conspiracy by the oil giants. Instead, the foreign companies simply took on the new opportunity to make money. So did the automobile manufacturers, which acted swiftly to make their cars compatible with the 'new' fuel.

Ethanol from sugar cane like in brazil or from wheat like in france or biodiesel from colza (rapeseed ?? ) like in europe too are not price competitive with oil . , They are pushed forward by agricultural lobbies and have had limited sucess . Nothing to worry for the oil companies.

And also Oil company as powerfull as they are are not all powerfull , they must accept to let some crumbs to other peoples. Because politics is still an independant factor in some countries.

[galacsi]

You want to make a guess?

Look, like it or not, it's a system about making money. It's flawed, gods know, but it's well-established and unlikely to go away quickly. This means that, should something work better and cheaper than oil, it will in time take over. The reason it hasn't happened with nuclear is that even people who are quite rational in other fields--like me--can be made nervous by nuclear, and the less rational can be made pretty violent about it. (And to me, it's not just the whole Three Mile Island/Chernobyl thing, though given my age during the latter, that's definitley part of it. It's also the "disposal of the waste" thing.)

Hey there is no shame to be afraid of something dangerous !

[galacsi]

Kelfazin wrote: It appears that the oil companies are in with the auto manufacturers to make sure we keep using oil.

ThereŽs more to the pic than meets the eye.

The USA will become the biggest ethanol producer (surpassing Brazil) in 2006. Will all those greedy oil barons allow that?

Yes they own the fields too ! they own everything !

[Van Rijn]

Some of the auto makers have released the Hybrid vehicles, but the price is so much higher than a gasoline car that it's almost as if they don't want the hybrids to sell. It may not be true, but that is the perception. And as the saying goes, perception becomes reality. If they really want to make a hybrid vehicle work, where are the ads? Where is the incentive to buy one? Don't just tell us you want to do something..actually do it.

A hybrid vehicle is substantially more complex than a conventional vehicle, and there is less manufacturing experience with hybrids. That raises cost.

[galacsi]

Yeah, but any liquid [at room temp] fuel can fit into that infrastructure without problems.

Yes sure , you know , privilege of age i remember , 30 years ago when some people try to sell the use of methanol instead of gazoline in France . The cars companies , Renault , Peugeot said : Impossible ; methanol will wear rubber in the admission and you cannot build a car burning methanol .

Not a single scientist , ingeneer or journalist dare to contradict them .

[Glom]

Hey there is no shame to be afraid of something dangerous !

Maybe not, but nuclear is not dangerous in any practical sense of the world.

[Van Rijn]

Yes sure , you know , privilege of age i remember , 30 years ago when some people try to sell the use of methanol instead of gazoline in France . The cars companies , Renault , Peugeot said : Impossible ; methanol will wear rubber in the admission and you cannot build a car burning methanol .

Not a single scientist , ingeneer or journalist dare to contradict them .

I don't recall anyone saying you couldn't build a methanol fueled vehiclie in the U.S. but there were real world issues: Existing autos would have needed to be heavily refitted to run methanol. It certainly would "eat" various materials in the fuel system and engine. New vehicles could be built to run it, but before computer-run everything, efficient "flex fuel" vehicles were trickier. And you had to have the methanol in the first place.

[Argos]

Ethanol from sugar cane like in brazil or from wheat like in france or biodiesel from colza (rapeseed ?? ) like in europe too are not price competitive with oil . , They are pushed forward by agricultural lobbies and have had limited sucess .

In fact, better not generalize here. The Ethanol program originated from strategic considerations (regardless of their merit) by the then ruling military. Farmers just followed behind, being practically forced to produce alcohol, when they wanted to make sugar for export. So, there are no such lobbies. As to the success, well, IŽd really be lying if I told you that the Brazilian effort is a failure. Sugar cane growing and processing have changed quite a bit. Technologies have been developed. Genetically modified varieties now make production costs highly competitive. If you consider a high scale of production/consumption, as in the case of this country, you get a viable and economically sound market.