I was wondering if anyone could help me clear this up, as I am wanting to assume someone here has looked into this before.
A friend of mine was going on today about how we had developed an efficient hydrogen run car in the 1990’s and how one never gets off the ground because the oil companies keep buying up the patents. Also that they use their resources in other malicious ways to prevent the development of efficient vehicles that do not require oil. I have heard this kind of thing many times before, and I think the Tesla Motors CEO brought it up in some interview one time. I am not sure about the validity of this, and of course, I am skeptical.
Does anyone know any of the specifics of this whole “conflict” between the projects/innovators/companies/designs and what have you for vehicles that would be against the oil companies interests that the oil companies may have played a shady part in?
I was wondering if anyone could help me clear this up, as I am wanting to assume someone here has looked into this before.
A friend of mine was going on today about how we had developed an efficient hydrogen run car in the 1990’s and how one never gets off the ground because the oil companies keep buying up the patents. Also that they use their resources in other malicious ways to prevent the development of efficient vehicles that do not require oil. I have heard this kind of thing many times before, and I think the Tesla Motors CEO brought it up in some interview one time. I am not sure about the validity of this, and of course, I am skeptical.
Does anyone know any of the specifics of this whole “conflict” between the projects/innovators/companies/designs and what have you for vehicles that would be against the oil companies interests that the oil companies may have played a shady part in?
I can’t say I know anything about the issue, but let me ask this:
If the oil companies buy up these patents for hydrogen cars, that assumes the cars would actually be more efficient than the current oil-using cars, and therefore harm the oil industry. Now, if this is true, 2 issues present themselves:
Why don’t the inventors of such amazing cars go into business making them? Surely something so great would easily be funded by banks or another company who could recognize what it would do to the auto industry.
If the oil companies still get ahold of the patents, then why don’t they go into business supplying power to these cars? After all, they could make more money with this amazing new car than the current ones.
I can’t say I know anything about the issue, but let me ask this:
If the oil companies buy up these patents for hydrogen cars, that assumes the cars would actually be more efficient than the current oil-using cars, and therefore harm the oil industry. Now, if this is true, 2 issues present themselves:
Why don’t the inventors of such amazing cars go into business making them? Surely something so great would easily be funded by banks or another company who could recognize what it would do to the auto industry.
If the oil companies still get ahold of the patents, then why don’t they go into business supplying power to these cars? After all, they could make more money with this amazing new car than the current ones.
Those are the two questions that occurred to me as well. If it is a better car why would they not take advantage of it. There really is no reason for them to stick to oil based cards. That might be a different matter for the oil companies…Actually I may have heard her wrong. She might have said the Oil companies were doing this, not the car companies. This is why I want to find out the specifics on this to separate fact from rumor.
Why don’t the inventors of such amazing cars go into business making them? Surely something so great would easily be funded by banks or another company who could recognize what it would do to the auto industry.
I don’t know the details of this situation but…
There could be many reasons why an inventor would not want to. Most small biotechnological companies, after discovering something new, make this choice more often than not. Such decision says nothing about the validity of the invention. In fact, one could argue that the potential of the discovery is confirmed by someone being interested in buying it for a considerable amount of money.
If the oil companies still get ahold of the patents, then why don’t they go into business supplying power to these cars? After all, they could make more money with this amazing new car than the current ones.
Again, there could be many good business reasons for that. For example, they invested a lot into the current system and are under long term contracts thus switching, at this time, does not make sense financially.
I have not seen the film, but my main question would be: did anyone make a viable electric car.
We have had electric locomotives and subways and trams for many decades. So, the problem of traction is a non-issue. The problem is how to work it when there are no wires. That’s when you have to switch to batteries. With batteries, one can definitely make a electric car, but at what cost? and what range will it have on a single charge? Car companies are still struggling to solve the problem of cost and range, so it is pretty implausible to believe that someone already solved this many years ago.
A friend of mine was going on today about how we had developed an efficient hydrogen run car in the 1990’s and how one never gets off the ground because the oil companies keep buying up the patents.
It is part of the deal for getting a patent approved that the invention is adequately disclosed in the patent description, and the patents themselves are official public documents. Patents themselves only last for 20 years.
Anytime some conspiracy theorist starts bullshitting about patents being suppressed, demand patent numbers and inventor names so you can go searching yourself to see if the alleged patents actually exist and if the patents are useless or not.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Hydrogen. Hmm…its the smallest element is atomic weight and size…hmmm… Hydrogen is well known to leak though any physical container eventually. Guess what also? It explodes with O2 at nearly any concentration from 1% H2 to 98%H2. A wrecked hydrogen powered car is not safe to be around. Perhaps the entire car could be coated in brass to prevent sparks? Hey I have a great idea! Lets put the hydrogen in a compound of some sort that would make it much safer! Like a long chain of carbon! Hey! Lets call this substance Oil! YAY!
What killed the electric car? The lack of energy density in batteries. They have too little energy per pound (or per liter if you wish) to have enough range to be useful. Other drawbacks are not as significant, but they don’t help. They take over night to charge. They discharge quickly in hot weather. The elements required to make a higher density battery become more unstable (read: explode-able with contact with water) and extremely rare due to extreme reactivity with anything not itself. (the whole column will combine with ANYTHING to fill their empty electron orbit) If these batteries catch fire (like the laptop exploding into flame video on youtube) GET BACK.
I’m sure none of these facts occurred to your “friend.” You know whats just above gasoline in energy density? Uranium 238! There is no other alternative fuel better than gasoline in terms of energy density. Although nuclear powered cars could be made safe I suppose…they don’t spontaneously explode.
One other thing: to understand how oil companies view alternative energies, view them more as energy companies not specifically oil companies. Can you imagine them caring how you buy energy from them if a way that is not oil is popular? You really don’t think they would adapt when there is money to be made? What do you think (or your friend) they worship oil as a god at the oil companies’ offices? They don’t just spontaneously switch to hydrogen because there is no safe way to use it. (As safe as gas is anyway)