http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/pdiscussion.aspx
If we could produce reliable alternative fueled vehicles with the infrastructure to support them, then the Middle East, the environment and dozens of other issues would be significantly impacted in positive ways. I am certain that we have the technology to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or some other mean of alternative fuels. Is it a matter of will, corporate profits, oil companies and their political allies working against it or ? Below is just one of hundreds of opinions on an energy policy that seems to address some of the questions.
Jonathan Lash is currently the President of the World Resources Institute. Previously, Mr. Lash served for five years as co-chair of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Jonathan has also served on a broad range of national and international environmental committees, and is an accomplished attorney.
| Quote: |
In the next 25 years, it is estimated that the world will spend some $16 trillion on energy production. That investment and the economic leverage it represents will flow to those whose technologies and innovations will meet the enormous future demand for energy while minimizing the damage to our atmosphere and our natural environment. The broad outlines of where that money should be spent are clear.
We need very quickly to reach a point at which carbon capture and storage and renewable technologies are driven into the market by simple economics, and that will take government action.
We need a 25 year phased program that starts with technology investments and incentives, and then phases in a cap and trade system that becomes more stringent in 5 year increments. We will have to make significant investments in a transition for the transportation sector. Hybrids, advanced clean diesels, biofuels, and at some point hydrogen will drive future mobility. Even though some companies are starting to realize this, and are taking some important steps the staggering scale of the problem means that governments will have to act decisively.
The challenge of a fundamentally new energy system for the 21st century represents an unimaginable opportunity for nations to once again invest in their people. In the years after World War II, the United States made a massive commitment to education, science and technology, and that fueled the unprecedented global economic growth that made the US the wealthiest and most influential nation in the world. |
| diverden wrote: |
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/discussion/pdiscussion.aspx
If we could produce reliable alternative fueled vehicles with the infrastructure to support them, then the Middle East, the environment and dozens of other issues would be significantly impacted in positive ways. I am certain that we have the technology to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or some other mean of alternative fuels. Is it a matter of will, corporate profits, oil companies and their political allies working against it or ? Below is just one of hundreds of opinions on an energy policy that seems to address some of the questions.
Jonathan Lash is currently the President of the World Resources Institute. Previously, Mr. Lash served for five years as co-chair of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Jonathan has also served on a broad range of national and international environmental committees, and is an accomplished attorney.
| Quote: | In the next 25 years, it is estimated that the world will spend some $16 trillion on energy production. That investment and the economic leverage it represents will flow to those whose technologies and innovations will meet the enormous future demand for energy while minimizing the damage to our atmosphere and our natural environment. The broad outlines of where that money should be spent are clear.
We need very quickly to reach a point at which carbon capture and storage and renewable technologies are driven into the market by simple economics, and that will take government action.
We need a 25 year phased program that starts with technology investments and incentives, and then phases in a cap and trade system that becomes more stringent in 5 year increments. We will have to make significant investments in a transition for the transportation sector. Hybrids, advanced clean diesels, biofuels, and at some point hydrogen will drive future mobility. Even though some companies are starting to realize this, and are taking some important steps the staggering scale of the problem means that governments will have to act decisively.
The challenge of a fundamentally new energy system for the 21st century represents an unimaginable opportunity for nations to once again invest in their people. In the years after World War II, the United States made a massive commitment to education, science and technology, and that fueled the unprecedented global economic growth that made the US the wealthiest and most influential nation in the world. |
|
I watched the MythBusters try to build a Hydrogen Fuel Cell engine with instructions from the internet. Technically it did make burnable hydrogen, unfortunately it did not generate enough to get the engine started. It was quite oversized and ugly too. I think Hydrogen Fuel Cells still need to be perfected before being used in the market, but I do agree we need to do something about our oil problems. A lot of big corporations with links to the government are obviously against these ideas so it's quite hard to make alternative fuel a priority and even if it gets through the government there is a matter of time/money/people to back it up.There are already viable alternatives. The problem is that something that is easily harnessed or cheaply produced is not in the best interests of big business.
Oil has to be drilled for, refined and delivered. It costs more to produce which then justifies a high price of sale, and bigger profits. If we could produce fuel from water or air or plant matter, then in theory it wouldn't cost a lot. Business can not make a profit off something that is too readily available.
Fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel are already being used in some places. I believe that Brazil is a big user of such fuels. For poorer economies especially, it is a good way to go.
Just heard that GM is pimping for hydrogen cars big time, after killing off their well-received electric car program. Also just heard that the hydrogen is to be obtained from . . . you guessd it: fossil fuels. Further heard that retard Junior Bush is pimping for hydrogen cars.
Exxon rules, sanity drools.
Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance. I think that the lives and American ideals are slightly more important than alternative fuel, although I don't mean to say we should put finding alternate fuels off.
| Quote: |
| I am certain that we have the technology to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or some other mean of alternative fuels. |
Hydrogen won't work, it's wasted research. It uses more energy to create the usable hydrogen than the hydrogen will give back, it's a lost cause. The oil companies hold patents on viable alternatives allready.
But they won't use them while they still have oil, be daft until they squeaze every last drop from the ground.
Actually I m running a test since 6 months, filling Soja Oil into my
Telcoline Diesel engine. I put it in @ a ratio of 60%, 40% Diesel.
You know what? It's running well! And I even get a higher mileage out of it. I am also lucky to be located in an area, which never gets temperatures under 18°C. People in Europe running food-oil have to have their engines adapted with heaters, due to the low degrees in winter or even in summer.
I think, people should think and demand more in this direction, also to get the price of food-oil down. Canada is sitting on 3 millions tons of "Can-Oil" and can't sell it off! And you can get it for 280 Can$ per ton.
In other countries it is way too expensive, like here in Mauritius I am paying 2.35US$ per gallon!
fribee
| soulfire wrote: |
| Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance |
If we reduce our reliance on foreign oil, it would do a lot to reduce terrorism too. | joshumu wrote: |
| soulfire wrote: | | Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance |
If we reduce our reliance on foreign oil, it would do a lot to reduce terrorism too. |
Could be, very much could be. I suppose only time will tell, and for the moment, we are addicted to oil. | Tiger wrote: |
There are already viable alternatives. The problem is that something that is easily harnessed or cheaply produced is not in the best interests of big business.
Oil has to be drilled for, refined and delivered. It costs more to produce which then justifies a high price of sale, and bigger profits. If we could produce fuel from water or air or plant matter, then in theory it wouldn't cost a lot. Business can not make a profit off something that is too readily available.
Fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel are already being used in some places. I believe that Brazil is a big user of such fuels. For poorer economies especially, it is a good way to go. |
I was about to make the same basic comments.
You hit the nail on the head. Diesel engines were designed to run on vegtable oil.
But the government and the big money bankers in business don't want it that way. If it is easy and liberates you from their grip it is simply bad for them.cost is the primary issue regarding hydrogen vehicles.. or rather, developing one that will appeal to mainstream drivers.. sure, everyone wants to free us from the chokehold that OPEC has on our country.. but nobody (ok, not many) is willing to give up 150+ horsepower engines to do so.. there is also the stigma associated with economy cars.. "tin cans" and poor safety features in the past
but car manufacturers are working on a solution.. for example, BMW just unveiled their 750HL, a 12 cylinder hydrogen car that has very impressive performance.. I know it would totally spank my Audi A4.. but as BMW fully admit, the car is way too expensive to mass produce for everyone.. it will only be available as a lease option for elite customers.. meaning, it probably goes for $300,000 or more.. I believe the monthly lease payments are near 5 figures
the car is also able to switch back and forth between gasoline and hydrogen, since there are basically no hydrogen stations you can drive up to.. BMW is banking that this will change in the near future.. a bit of a gamble
still, we have to start somewhere.. and I'm glad to see BMW sticking their neck out on such a niche vehicle.. eventually the technology can trickle down to consumer models
one thing to keep in mind, however.. even if we eliminated all gas-driven cars, we'd only be reducing our oil requirements by about 15% at most.. cars aren't the only thing in the world that run on oil
not to mention all the plastic products that are produced from petroleum
| Soulfire wrote: |
Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance. I think that the lives and American ideals are slightly more important than alternative fuel, although I don't mean to say we should put finding alternate fuels off.
|
What!?!? how is terrorism a pressing issue for americans? Oh yes that's right, because your government told you so. It's been 5 years since a terrorist attack (if you believe that it was terrorists in the first place) in america. Not to mention that if the oil market crashes, it is going to effect the whole planet, not just your one country.
You think that american lives are more important than our entire civilization being drop kicked back into the stone age? That blows my mindGas is fine. We don't need alternative.
I think that the international oil companies are sitting on the technology advance in this area. They simply want to sell all the drops of oil they have and then will come the time to move on some new fuel and this companies will be there, because they are rich like nobody else on this planet. They are simply very cruel and idiotic parazites on this planet and the only thing they are thinking about is profit. Shame on them!!!
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | I am certain that we have the technology to produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or some other mean of alternative fuels. |
Hydrogen won't work, it's wasted research. It uses more energy to create the usable hydrogen than the hydrogen will give back, it's a lost cause. |
You are totaly missing the point.
Hydrogen fuel does indeed cost more energy to produce than they produce.
But that's not the point of hydrogen engines.
The main idea in renewable energy, is to find a energy source, that is, of course, is renewable, and with which you can create electricity (for example: solar power, wind mill thingies, and, in the future, nuclear fusion).
Hydrogen engines are just a way to replace fossil fuels (which will run out) with hydrogen (which you can infinitely produce if you can create enough electricity, with the use of renewable energy sources).
Now you'll probably ask: "Why not just use electric cars?".
Well, the answer to that is quite simple: they don't work.
The batteries to contain the energy would be much heavier and less efficient than first using electricity to create hydrogen gas, an then use the gas to drive your car.
So hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, but a way to transform the energy created with renewable energy sources to a more practical, more portable form (at least, in the case of cars).
I hope you get the point now =D
| eastmeetswestgift wrote: |
| Gas is fine. We don't need alternative. |
Gas will run out in the next 50 years 
[/quote] | joshumu wrote: |
| soulfire wrote: | | Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance |
If we reduce our reliance on foreign oil, it would do a lot to reduce terrorism too. |
Would you mind expounding on this please? | Bones wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | Because there are other pressing issues - terrorism, for instance. I think that the lives and American ideals are slightly more important than alternative fuel, although I don't mean to say we should put finding alternate fuels off.
|
What!?!? how is terrorism a pressing issue for americans? Oh yes that's right, because your government told you so. It's been 5 years since a terrorist attack (if you believe that it was terrorists in the first place) in america. Not to mention that if the oil market crashes, it is going to effect the whole planet, not just your one country.
You think that american lives are more important than our entire civilization being drop kicked back into the stone age? That blows my mind |
It seems to me that you assumed a lot from the posters statement, which makes one think you already had some pre concieved notions. | redace wrote: |
| I think that the international oil companies are sitting on the technology advance in this area. They simply want to sell all the drops of oil they have and then will come the time to move on some new fuel and this companies will be there, because they are rich like nobody else on this planet. They are simply very cruel and idiotic parazites on this planet and the only thing they are thinking about is profit. Shame on them!!! |
| otiscom wrote: |
The oil companies hold patents on viable alternatives allready.
But they won't use them while they still have oil, be daft until they squeaze every last drop from the ground. |
You guys are kidding right? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up these claims? If one of the big bad evil oil companies had a patent on a technology that could change the world, then that one oil company would be able to produce unprecedented profits. Do you really think one of the oil companies would pass up the chance to basically hold a monopoly on the entire world's energy production? Quick thinking!Conspiracy theories will always stick around. I don't care about them. I just know that I wouldn't let companies stop me if I found some alternative.
McMuffin basically closed the topic up as far as I'm concerned. I don't think hydrogen or any other alternative fuel should be researched until we get a good energy source for the future. Without that, hydrogen will just be a fake environmentally friendly source because they're just burning the carbon at a power station instead of in your engine. Less efficient, too.
So first new ways of generating electricity must be researched. Then alternative fuels.
The documentry 'Who killed the electric car?' goes into this pretty well. One example is how GM bought the lab that was working on a better battery and then killed the project. Which of course, is their capitalistic right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F#From_General_Motors
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
Last edited by joshumu on Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total I would say mainly because whenever the small companies start to develop and work on alternative cars, the big oil and gas companies realize theyll be out, and then buy out the small companies, overtake 'em, and make em forget about whatever bright ideas for the future that they may have.
the bush family is into the oil business.
(one sentance covers it all)
Because oil companies like exxon mobil make $US 30 billion a year. They can influence anything they want. They obviously do not want alternative fuel sources, so it will not happen.
I agree it the Oil companies that are blocking movement to this aim. They are very powerfull world wide. Unless they get into recycled waste as a fuel I think it will be a long time coming.
It is good to see that some motor manufacturers are providing BiFuel options for their cars. Take a look at http://www.volvocars.com/corporation/environment/Alternativefuels/VolvoBi-Fuel.htm
Its just a pity that hardly anyone can take advantage of it. I've never seen a garage where I live selling the methane stuff. Maybe I need to pay a visit to the local farmer. control over resource equals control over revenue profits. This is the basic premise that is driving our current energy crisis. In the early years of vehicle motor production ethanol and other biofuels where the standard. Ford's Model T was designed to run off of biofuel. particularily hemp oil.
| Quote: |
| He (Ford) found that 30% hemp seed oil is usable as a high-grade diesel fuel and that it could also be used as a machine lubricant and an engine oil. |
http://www.ybiofuels.org/bio_fuels/history_biofuels.html
Simply put at one time engines where produced that where designed to be run off of a highly distilled bio-based fuel. this fuel can easily be produced at home from common materials found on the farm. to combat this dupont and others developed patents around oil-based fuel productions and effectivly cornered the market of fuel production and delivery. it was a resource that could be controlled through technological patents and cost inhibitations. the same conditions occur for hydrogen fuel. the companies that hold the patents for hydrogen fuel production will recieve the profits.....
I wonder why president Bush is such a proponent for hydrogen fuel as vs. biofuels? I agree that change will not come until oil companies and the government are on board. However, there are some oil companies are looking into biofuels. Chevron is investing in renewables (http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2006/2006-09-19.asp)
and BP has lauched an alternative energy business arm (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9007614&contentId=7014990) for example.
They are also still investing and making plenty of money on petroleum sources but there is change occuring.
I also agree that hydrogen is very inefficient- it takes more energy to make and store than is actually released when it is 'burned'. However, I also think that it will play a role, maybe just a small one, in the global energy crisis solution.
I agree with most of what I have read above, but being from the midwest, wonder why all the talk is about the oil companies. Farming is a big industry in its self, why not have a farming cartel like they have a oil one and see which one would win out here in the states. my money would be on the farmers.
| Bones wrote: |
(if you believe that it was terrorists in the first place) |
Your post just lost all credibility. Right there. With that single statement. To beleive that the attacs on American land was done by the government, aliens, or monkeys is almost as stupid as me saying "Well clearly your brother shot himself because he wanted you to act better!" (Your head should kind of tilt at your computerscreen now, and think "god dang that's stupid," because they carry the same message. Why would America nearly obliterate it's own econemy, and cause mass panic and destruction in one of it's hiest concentradted cities? Really. Give me a VIABLE reason, and then give me a sngle post to debunk it. It's almost as stupid as saying America never went to the moon.
I Like crackpots, they're points of view are so horribly flawed that what they say is almost funny. I'd ask you to watch this tv short by Penn and Teller, two Libertarians who as so against the governemnt its enough to make most men puke... point out that not even they can see probably cause for the government to do sometihng so stupid.
Before you watch this, let me just post a comment from this video, that should kind of ensure the integrity...
[quote=idiot]
P&T LIARS FOR THE NATIONAL PROPAGANDA MACHINE,AKA ''THE GREAT WURLITZER'',ATTEMPTING TO HIDE THE FACT THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB-NO DOUBT!!![/quote]
Pen and Teller, are LIBERTARIANS. They HATE this government. Why would they attempt to HELP a government story, if they hate them? To think such things is foolish.
Check out the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn+Teller+Bullshit
-----
NOW: Onto the topic of fuel. The US is indeed 'addicted to fuel' but so is most of the world. However, they are BY FAR the worst. Europe is designing smaller, more fuel efficeient cars. America is just waiting for the next freakin' huge Hummer model tocome out, so they can gas the thing up and get 7 miles to the next gas station. No ones complaining enough to get the fat cats who burn money instead of cigars to care.
I LOL'd so HARD when Bush explained how he wants the states to get out of the addiction of oil... the guy INVESTS insane amounts of money in OIL. There is MONEY in OIL, NOW, which means thy'd rather MAKE MONEY, and be happy, than they would SPEND MONEY and then have to deal with all that advancement of the human world... god forbid.
Money is THE driving force behind all including oil, and untill theres absolutly NO oil left, and the only way that they're going to move, is when they realize their bank accounts are going to stop going up, and start going down. Ain't money great?Biofuels are looking like the fuel of the future, but the problem with them is that they reduce our emissions problems at the expense of increasing our agricultural problems. Soil erosion and issues with chemical fertilizers need to be addressed if we're going to produce grain for fuel. Cellulosic ethanol sounds promising...
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/jun/tech/pp_cellulose.html | Soulfire wrote: |
Hydrogen won't work, it's wasted research. It uses more energy to create the usable hydrogen than the hydrogen will give back, it's a lost cause. |
ya, think on use of hydrogen is simply wastage of time .. rather than we should think about solar or some other natural energy ....Its not economically sensible yet.
We can make drinking water from the ocean by desalinazation. But the problem is the cost to actually do it, the demand isn't there.
It's the same with everything else new. Once there is a TRUE market for it, then we will see that sort of thing produced. Until then, it is only research.
All you conspiracy theorists need to explain this one thing: why would oil companies stop development of hydrogen cars? As it is right now, oil and coal would still have to be burnt at some power station to get the hydrogen. It wouldn't make a difference! You'd expect them to be more concerned about stopping alternative energy sources.
Many years ago, I watched a TV documentary-style show where a guy had an older car, like a '66 Plymouth that got 200 mpg. He had an electric motor mounted to the transmission, batteries in the trunk, and a lawn mower engine under the hood. An electric car that could do 55+ and get 200 mpg.
I never saw anything anywhere about it again.
I just skimmed through the posts. Basically I disagree with everyone who believes in some "big oil, big government" conspiracy and/or site the EV1 documentary as evidence of cover-up.
I agree with everyone who stated that it all boils down to economics. Low oil prices means no alternatives, because alternatives are not economically feasible with low oil prices. I'm conservative, so I don't believe in government intervention to force change. Just sit back and let the invisible hand of economics do its job.
BTW, the electric car is far from dead. Speaking of dead, the EV1 was a technological dead-end anyway. Here are some real electric car companies with some very innovative and potentially disruptive technology. ("Disruptive" being a good thing.) There is also a European company with a high-end sports car running on the same technology with similar performance to the Tesla Roadster. However, it sells for about three times as much.
Before any of you cry that these are too expensive and therefore impractical, remember that all new technologies are expensive when they first hit the market. Anyone recall the Apple Lisa that debuted in 1983, the first personal computer with a GUI interface? (Price: $10,000 And yes, that is in 1983 dollars.)
Tesla Motors
Wrightspeed In order to research alternative fuels, and be a pioneer in that field, we'd have to be spending even more of the money that we don't have.
Money has to be made. Priorities have to be made. Time has to be made.
Some things are more important than economics - like not misusing our resources. People will look back on us, and wonder how we could possibly be so wasteful. Oil is not renewable. Once it's gone, it's gone. In my view, it is long overdue move that the world move away from such massive waste.
The price of oil does not reflect it's real value. When we burn oil we are borrowing from the future. It's a debt that future generations will pay. They will have more difficulty producing plastics, in travel, in heating. They too will need these things, but they are not around now to compete with us for the precious resources which we have.
Some people seem to think that it's okay to simply use all the oil and then expect scientists to step in and magically solve the problem. It doesn't work that way. You have to put resources into the science, design and infastructure first before you can expect the results. That means money for research into renewable sources of energy, into fusion, into wind and solar power, into tidal power, into mre efficient batteries. We have to design cities and houses in more efficient ways which mean the people living in them can enjoy a higher quality of life while using fewer resources. You can't simply change your city's design overnight.
I'm reminded of a frog in hot water. If you put a frog in hot water it will immediately jump out. If you put it in cold water, and gradually turn up the heat then it will stay in and be boiled alive. We often see the same phenomena in economic markets. People just want to continue doing what they have always done, until suddenly there is a big "correction" when reality hits home. We don't want to see that. The time to act is now.
One idea that comes to mind in reading this post is this: In places like Alberta crude oil isn't directly extracted from drilling, in fact its actually boiled apart from a material known as bitumen (I believe they use that in making road asphalt) anyways in order to do all of this at a profit oil prices need to remain high. All this is fairly sad though because the whole process to actually extract crude oil from the oilsands produces far more pollutants than most cars in a major city do in a year, not to mention the fact that all of this stuff is hauled away in mega buldozers where a tire can be as big as a person! In the end its all in the money, and I believe the key is to shift the demand for one class of vehicles to another (like ones that run on alternate fuels like Bio-Diesel and Ethanol) The first model-T ford was designed to run on Ethanol and Brazil has somehow managed to run their cars on mostly Ethanol so why can't the rest of us do it?
Hydrogen cell fuel technology is out there now, and if the hydrogen cells are produced with wind/solar/hydro energy, then the energy balance is positive with a very small carbon footprint in the world, and little need for fossil fuel input, apart from the steel production etc.
The main problem is that the changes needed are so big that they can only happen if governments make them. The problem there is that governments are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry, and they wont do anything until the multi-nationals allow it.
How can anyone really doubt that oil/gas companies are against new technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells? The money is there to be made from fossil fuel now, every last drop of it, and we'll know when it really is running out (or starting to get uneconomical to extract), because only then will the big players invest in the research & development of the sensible alternatives. But then again, silly me for being naive, what will probably happen is they'll just buy out the leading players in the emerging fuel technology market, thus retaining their monopolies?
Call me a cynic yes, but the real corporate world is a meaner place than the natural one 
What do we live in, a communist country (for those of you from the United States and every other country operating in a free market system)?
Did the United States (or any) government create the personal computer? Invent the steam engine? The GUI interface? The airplane? The automobile? The percussion cap firearm? The repeating rifle? Rocket propulsion? Etc. Etc...
Did IBM and the money in typewriters kill the PC? Did all of those carriage companies and horse dealers bury the fledgling automobile market?
I know I am being a little facetious, but my point is simply that this is not and should not be a government thing. Change will be brought by market factors, such as high oil prices (I personally wish they were ten times what they are now. This would create a valuable need to drive change.) Or an untapped need fulfilled by a disruptive technology (like the PC in the 1970s and 80s).
Tesla Motors OK yep all thats true I know - business has always been the developer, designer/inventor etc - but can our Governments not help increase the rate of development, with major tax breaks for alternative technology for example?
Tax higher rates for fossil fuels, and lower/nil rates for clean alternatives (which are already out there but unable to build the national infrastructures needed due to costs.
The US should be able to go ahead alone with this if it wanted to, you have the money, engineers & scientists already to make this happen. The UK has trouble with it though, needing cross-europe support to avoid being accused of restricting trade etc.
On the point about Government influence, I can only comment about UK, but it is a fact that if the Parliament of the day (years ago) hadn't invested in the National Electricity Grid, we'd all still be using candles and home generators here. The Channel Tunnel linking us to France would never have happened without State money, and come to think of it, who is the major investor in all the space missions of the world, business or government?
Businesses chase opportunities, and government contracts are the juiciest of fruits for motivating any business to develop new technologies.
I too wish that the price of gas was a LOT higher. It should be soaring right about now, to drive the market to commit to alternative fuels.
But at least in the US we wouldn't be nearly so dependent on cars if there were a better public transportation system, which is something that we're owed by the government. The government is responsible for promoting communal modes of cheap, clean, reliable, practical transportation. Where did we get this idea we all had to have our own cars and drive there alone?
| Quote: |
| Did the United States (or any) government create the personal computer? |
Yes. Computers (for the allies) were developed by the British to crack Enigma (Collossus). In the US, the first was built by the University of Pensylvania ENIAC. It was this work that led to the first personal computer (a computer named Simon) a few years later. It was not made by corporations (like IBM for example) but by students at a university. The fact we can even discuss this on a message board is also the result of government research. The world wide web was invented at CERN, in Switzerland. The Internet itself is the result of DARPA research. All government funded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_hardware#Early_digital_computers
| Quote: |
| Invent the steam engine? |
Many of the early researches of steam power were government funded, yes. The first ideas for steam engines come from Papin and Leibnitz (who designed the first devices you could call steam engines) were both employed by universities, backed by their respective governments. Perhaps though, you would prefer Watt, built one of the first effective engines. He was employed at Glasgow University (again, backed by the government).
| Quote: |
| The GUI interface? |
The first GUI interface was Sketchpad, and was developed not by a corporation but by Ivan Sutherland a PhD student at Harvard. The other early example is SAGE, a defence (government) project for tracking bombers. These ideas were then developed at Stanford in the 1960's where they invented the mouse, and multiple windows which was funded by ARPA, NASA and the US air-force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface
Cayley (who invented the first gliders) was, himself, a member of the British government. The first powered flight was by Frenchman, Le Bris, who was supported by the navy (again, government money). Where would aircraft be without the (government funded) invention of jets... most of the world's most advanced aircraft, from rockets through to military jets are government funded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-wing_aircraft#History
The automobile was invented by Cugnot, for the French military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas-Joseph_Cugnot
| Quote: |
| The percussion cap firearm? The repeating rifle? |
All the most advanced weapons are (sadly) government funded. Thankfully we don't have private nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
| Rocket propulsion? |
Rocket propulsion was invented in the Han Dynasty in China. The first modern rockets, were built by Gushkow in Russia (ironically for this post in a well funded and staffed lab under the communists) and Werner Von Braun in Nazi Germany. The subsequent space race following WW2 was funded by massive government programs on both sides of the Iron curtain.
http://www.spaceline.org/rockethistory.html
Governments should fund research. Research pays off many times over, although ironically it is often private individuals who benefit, not the people who invented the ideas. Where would we be without electricity? Can you put a price on it? The tiny amount of funding for the early pioneers is long since forgotten, but the benefits live on into the future. Research is one thing that governments certainly should fund because the benefits to society are enourmous.Apparently I stand corrected, Nopaniers. I do not dispute that government funded research is always useful, just that breakthroughs are often made by private people. As an historian by education and one previous career I'll concede those points. 
For the PC I was thinking of Apple. For the GUI interface I was thinking of Xerox (and Apple who bought it from them). For the airplane I was thinking of the Wright brothers. For the rocket I was thinking of Goddard (who, yes. received money from the government, even if his first grant was from the Smithsonian, as I recall.)
However, I can honestly say that the government had nothing to do with inventing the percussion cap firearm! (The one thing I added for the sake of humor.) That distinction belongs to a Reverend Forsyth. (A humorous story in and of itself.)
Ironically, militaries were slow to adopt percussion cap systems and instead relied upon flint-locks long after civilians had adopted percussion weapons.
As for alternative-powered vehicles though, I may be wrong but aside from fuel cells I doubt there is little pure science research that can be funded by the government. The only other role the government may play is in tax incentives for developers and consumers. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has been doing lithium-ion battery research at Sandia. (http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN09-08-00/hybrid_story.html)
Lithium-Ion battery cars are already making inroads and selling well in a niche market (Teslamotors. There's a European company as well, but I can't remember the name.)
