About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, December 10, 2015 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I chose "Other" because this administration might want to send aid to those countries that no longer had oil revenues, and accept more refugees, but wouldn't do anything else.  Long term there would be a massive reduction in international terrorism, given the lack of funds to support it, and that would reduce our need to do anything with the military in that part of the world.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, December 10, 2015 - 3:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I continue to follow the BlackLight Power saga which motivated me to pose this poll to RoR.

 

I should have clarified I meant "long-term" effect in the question.

 

I voted for "Withdrawal" for the reason cited.

 

I am not holding my breath for the fruition of the proposed energy source.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/10, 3:35pm)



Post 2

Monday, December 14, 2015 - 4:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I agree with "Withdrawal" but stated "Other" for some of the complexities. As long as they have money, the Saudis and othes will remain players on the world stage. Granted that oil is the source of their income, they nonetheless hold a huge stock of cash in reserve, and little to spend it on. (You don't see them lavishing it on Palestine to make it an Eden.)  Once the money run out, so will their friends.

 

Some historical necessity also comes in to account. Living off Earth, oil is not important at all. The gas giants have all the methane we need, apparently. Some years back, I saw a bumper sticker: EARTH FIRST - we can drill the other planets later.  

 

A book I have on numismatics points out that each shipload of silver and gold looted from the Americas made Spain that much poorer. Wealth is not stuff.  We do not need to run out of oil to it to be surpassed for cost-effectivness by several existing alternatives, but especially by something that has not been invented yet.

 

As to the question, yes, absent oil (or money), the Middle East has not much to commend itself. They are not a manufacturing center. They are not a data center. Or a healthcare center. Or a sports center...



Post 3

Saturday, December 19, 2015 - 2:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Cheap Energy Is Not Enough



Post 4

Saturday, December 19, 2015 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good post Luke!



Post 5

Sunday, January 17 - 12:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The US has a presence in the Middle East due to only one factor: oil. Got another reason? If the ME had no oil, why would the US be involved there?

 

You have disaffected interests in the ME turning their wrath upon the external factor: the West. Remove the West from the equation and you have civil wars, which we now have anyway. Sans oil, you end up with what most of Africa enjoys, tribal warfare, of which we are mostly oblivious.

 

But that argument is not too subtle. If Western companies choose to export oil from the ME to the West, the West still has an obligation to protect the ships of its citizens. Barbary pirates come to mind. Sans a completely hands-off attitude, you have some kind of involvement. So protection of trade morphs into political involvement for purely pragmatic reasons. The oil-producing dictatorships like the involvement for obvious reasons, but their suppressed populations see it as an exacerbating factor in their struggle. Not that their struggle is for freedom, but it's a struggle nevertheless. And their disaffection is turned upon the easy factor. The fact that their oppression would be as easily accomplished without the US is not an issue, all they seek is a cause to pin their anger upon.



Post 6

Sunday, January 17 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Ross,

 

I agree with the substance of your argument regarding the long historical drive of the Middle Eastern populations towards civil wars.  My brother sees the Middle East as a bucket of crabs.  If you stick your hand in the bucket, every crab in there tries to get you in its claws.  If you leave them to themselves, they kill each other.

 

The warfar in the Middle East has been going on thousands of years - against anyone from the outside that goes there and against each other, but there is something new.  We now live in a small, global community due to the modern technologies of entertainment media, news media and rapid transportation.  This will keep the modern Western culture in the face of the fundamentalists even if our military were totally removed.  The fundamentalist will continue to pursue their dream of a Caliphate that circles the globe.  They will continue to insist on imposing Sharia on the West because we are such an outrage to them.  I think we are now in this for the long haul.  Technology has shrunk the world so much that we are no longer far enough away to not be seen by them, and we are close enough (technologically) to be hit - we will remain the Great Satan.



Post 7

Monday, January 18 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Developing Thorium Salt reactors would be a HUGE step in the right direction.



Post 8

Tuesday, February 9 - 6:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

What’s New

1/28/16

Brilliant Light Power’s January 28, 2016 Fourth Public Demonstration
On Thursday January 28th, Brilliant Light Power hosted an invitational public demonstration of its SunCell® technology. During the live demonstration Dr. Mills and his team of engineers successfully presented a working prototype SunCell® producing continuous high light power. During the event Dr. Mills shared historical and current details about the design of the SunCell® and its operation. The SunCell® is expected to be available for commercial use in 2017. Dr. Mills expects commercial units at volume to have a capital cost around $100 per kilowatt capacity. The units will use water as hydrogen fuel, resulting in an on-site, total generation cost of electricity of less than a cent per kilowatt-hour. The BrLP business plan promotes a leasing model for units under power purchase agreements. BrLP anticipates that SunCells® can be used to replace all power sources, such as stationary and motive sources.
The demonstration day’s video recording is publicly available at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PYe-4090g



Post 9

Tuesday, February 9 - 11:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Here is what I found in Wikipedia:

 

Brilliant Light Power (BLP) goes back to 1991.  It was previously called "BlackLight Power" and before that it was "HydroCatalysis, inc.", but all under the same founder who published a claim to have discovered that an electron in the hydrogen atom can drop below the lowest energy state - he calls these hydrogen atoms "Hydrinos" and his book was titled, "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics."  

 

In 1999 he raised more than 25 million dollars from investors.  By January, 2006, funding exceeded 60 million dollars.  In this video he says that he will have models in production in early 2017, but he has made claims of being within a year of production several times before.

 

He has a number of critics in the field of physics who say it is nonsense and the 1999 winner of the Nobel prize in physics, Philip Warren Anderson said that he was sure it is a fraud.



Post 10

Tuesday, February 9 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Blacklight Power Sues Wiki Trolls

 

Let's see the trolls make their case for fraud in court.

 

I doubt the excuse "but it's impossible because the standard model!" will fly. BLP has never been sued for fraud and they have multiple third party tests from numerous university labs that support their claims.

 

For a more supportive Wiki site, see this link instead.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 2/09, 2:04pm)



Post 11

Monday, March 7 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is way beyond my education level, but I find the argument compelling and grounded in some of what I believe to be true. Unlike peat, lignite, and coals, petroleum is constantly being produced. The non-biogenic theory has old roots and new shoots.

 

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.