you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]muellermeierschulz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm pretty sure, the Engines-that-run-on-water-thing is a hoax. Because every manager who would be involved in the conspiracy could instead build THE BIGGEST COMPANY THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN instead of being just a rich but unknown manager.
The money system is the pressing force - for good and bad. Companies must compensate 100 % for every environment usage. Head the force into the right direction.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I don't have a lot of time to look right for the proof right now, but I know for a fact that Big Oil bought that water engine patent and shelved it. I'll look for it tonight. Meanwhile, here is another article along the same vein: Audi creates non-polluting diesel in 2015. Why isn't it in use yet????? https://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water. Why isn't this new awesome diesel on the market?

I don't understand what you mean about companies compensate 100% for every environment usage? Compensate in what way? Magically eliminate the landfills and all the toxic substances that are created under the current system?

[–]muellermeierschulz 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

E-Fuels are expensive. The costs would be around 4,50 € per liter. Existing landfills can of course not disappear. But one can regulate the process for new products. It must be recyclebar. If that is impossible, the company must pay for another form of compensation, planting trees or cleaning oceans.

[–]christine_grab 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here is the engine I was thinking of: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-created-a-fossil-fuel-free-jet-engine-prototype. It runs on air, not water, so I was mistaken.

Did you pull that 4.50 euro per liter number out of your butt? The article clearly says the fuel made from air will cost 1 - 1.50 euro per liter: "But Audi and Sunfire now want to build a bigger factory, and anticipate that once production is scaled up, the e-diesel will sell to the public for between 1 and 1.50 Euros per litre, dependent on the cost of renewable electricity. With traditional diesel currently on the market for upwards of 1.50 Euros per litre in Germany, this would make the fuel extremely competitive, and perfectly positioned to made sustainable travel accessible to everyone..."

Recyclable? Recycling plants are closing down because its not cost effective: https://www.wired.com/story/the-worlds-recycling-is-in-chaos-heres-what-has-to-happen/

Even "green" sources of energy are filling up landfills: https://www.activistpost.com/2020/02/green-energy-wind-turbines-are-piling-up-in-landfills-cant-be-recycled.html

How are you going to put the oil back into the ground and the minerals back into the earth once they have been mined? How are you going to fish the pollution back out of the air once its been expelled to ship raw materials to China, to produce these wasteful products, to ship them to US and Europe, to truck them around the continents to their end destination?

No, the more I think about it, the more clear it is to me that we need to stop producing things that don't need to be produced. Money should be paid to reward people for NOT exploiting the earth to start with. You just want to keep the same system in place of rewarding exploitation of the earth for profit, but somehow do something to offset that exploitation so its not as egregious as it could have been. What argument do you have for why we should be needlessly exploiting?

[–]muellermeierschulz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This new jet-engine technique is interesting.

The price for e-diesel is from this article. The ADAC is the biggest german car club. The german Wikipedia-Site listed a big possible price range.

Recycling: When recycling is possible (technical), then it should be mandatory and the customer should pay for it.

Is your system going to put the oil back into the ground (I didn't said that)?

You just want to keep the same system in place of rewarding exploitation of the earth for profit, but somehow do something to offset that exploitation so its not as egregious as it could have been. What argument do you have for why we should be needlessly exploiting?

Mindreading. Scott Adams would have blocked you for this.

[–]christine_grab 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read the article this morning. I grant that your article says as of today it costs 4.50 euros to produce e-fuel and they project it will go down to 2.29 euros. The article I provided said Audi anticipates it will cost 1 - 1.50 Euros once production is scaled up. So we were making a circular argument based on differing input info. And yes, with your comment about recycling being mandatory, you have essentially agreed with my point that the way money works nowadays is that we don't do the right thing for the earth if it is not financially profitable... we need to figure out another way to do the right thing for the earth. My guess by the word mandate is you mean pass laws requiring recycling?

My point was that if it is possible to create products that do not exploit the Earth, we should financially reward those non-exploitative products, even if they are not profitable under our current monetary system. Right now, pulling oil and minerals from the ground generates big money, and many people will fight tooth and nail to protect these exploitative practices because their own livelihood is on the line.

If it is possible to not make a product that needs to be recycled in the first place, we should be moving that direction. But we're not. Because people's livelihoods are on the line.

For example: I produce cheap toys that break instantly when played with. I buy paper and plastic for the packaging, plastic and metal for the toy. Those resources need to be exploited from the earth by people who do that for a living, and it is often done in ways that are damaging to Mother Earth. They get shipped to china in a ship that is a gross polluter by people who do that for a living. The factory is a gross polluter and is staffed by people who make cheap products for a living. The finished product is shipped to America, again on a freighter with people who do that for a living. Then it is trucked to a retail store by a trucker who does that for a living. And sold by a clerk who sells products for a living. And there is someone in the US whose job it is to coordinate the resources to get them to the factory and someone who coordinates getting end product from factory to store. And marketing people to generate interest in the product. All so that the product and its packaging can end up in the landfill. There are so many jobs on the line to stop the production of these products that really exist solely to pollute the earth, as they are not useful toys that last. And every one of those people will fight tooth and nail to protect their jobs, and thus their ability to make money.

That is why we need a new money system. Something where we are rewarded financially for doing the right thing for the earth, not the wrong thing. I don't think trying to keep the current system in place can work for much longer; it is just not really feasible to offset pollution/exploitation of the earth enough to protect our beautiful earth. The system as it stands now is simply too exploitative. We need to stop from happening in the first place.