What will the UK look like in 10-20 years time?

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

My DH has a PhD in energy. I can't say what he did as you would be able to google it and find out who we are, but he did invent a way of producing a fuel from a previously neglected (and plentiful) source. His sponsors (a commercial organisation) were horrified by his discovery and buried his PhD as it would have made their existing plants redundant. That was in the 1990s. Since then the plants have become uneconomic anyway and have shut.

If we want to sort out the problem, we should be reviewing the dusty bookshelves of our universities as there were a heck of a lot of good PhDs shelved because they offended the big corporates. Back then of course, we were much more blinkered regards energy opportunities than we are now.

Having been told that he was not allowed to continue working on his discovery my DH left the scientific community and has never gone back.

Viva, how I wish I knew you guys in person:o. Gagging reserach like this, IMO, is tantamoun to a crime. It would be interesting to see someone challange it. What does Dr Vivatifosi do now?

ad9898_3

lostinrates wrote: »

Viva, how I wish I knew you guys in person:o. Gagging reserach like this, IMO, is tantamoun to a crime. It would be interesting to see someone challange it. What does Dr Vivatifosi do now?

This sort of thing goes on all the time, crime ??, yes, but when it's the law makers doing the gagging, nothing can be done.

A_fiend_for_life

They certainly don't like the threat of alternative energy sources. A guy built a car to run on water. Whether it was feasible I don't know but one of the oil companies bought the rights.

lostinrates

ad9898 wrote: »

This sort of thing goes on all the time, crime ??, yes, but when it's the law makers doing the gagging, nothing can be done.

I know about companies 'owning research' because I was a researcher A product formed from my, and other peolples research is now very commonly sold despite the research showing there was a better, much cheaper solution. However, the research was published and people can, if they do their own investigatiuon, find it out. Its also a limited market.

Energy is dramatically important with not just human world wide impact, but the impact on the actual world. The problem is, any one with the abilty to deal with it on a pro bono basis couldn't, because they'd lose their clients, :mad:

Viva, why aren't the company resurectin this, I wonder, if the plants it was going to challenge are no longer a part of the problem? In efficiency of the company, or still market impact?

vivatifosi

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

They certainly don't like the threat of alternative energy sources. A guy built a car to run on water. Whether it was feasible I don't know but one of the oil companies bought the rights.

You've hit the nail on the head there. One of the biggest examples of this is General Motors EV1, one of the first electronic vehicles in the 1990s. Anyone interested in what happened should look up "who killed the electric car". I do wonder if GM would be in the state that they are in today if they had the bottle to go in that direction then.

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

Viva, why aren't the company resurectin this, I wonder, if the plants it was going to challenge are no longer a part of the problem? In efficiency of the company, or still market impact?

The company was sold, the plants shut... I doubt that anyone there now would even know that they had sponsored the research. My DH doesn't trust them as far as he can throw them so he has no wish to contact them.

ad9898_3

vivatifosi wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head there. One of the biggest examples of this is General Motors EV1, one of the first electronic vehicles in the 1990s. Anyone interested in what happened should look up "who killed the electric car". I do wonder if GM would be in the state that they are in today if they had the bottle to go in that direction then.

The problem is, and it's a problem that has caused the situation we are in, and will cause further catastrophies down the line, and it is this...

Short termism, no one, in business or certainly the government look hardly any further than 5 years, it's of little interest to them. That's why I see the coming 'energy tsunami' over the next decade and onwards will make the current economic downturn look like a 6 inch high wave breaking on the beach. By the time we are 'interested' it will be too late.

It may already be too late to be honest.

A_fiend_for_life

vivatifosi wrote: »

You've hit the nail on the head there. One of the biggest examples of this is General Motors EV1, one of the first electronic vehicles in the 1990s. Anyone interested in what happened should look up "who killed the electric car". I do wonder if GM would be in the state that they are in today if they had the bottle to go in that direction then.

Beat me to it!

That was the name of was trying to remember. It's a shocking film. The anger and frustration of the former researchers and workers, and the huge parking bays stick in my head. An excellent expose. I'll need to watch it again thanks.

I think we're bailing out the wrong companies. It's electric buses that will become important imho. It would really tidy up our cities.

harryhound

http://www.breathingearth.net/

Very soothing. like watching the tropical fish in the dentists' used to be.

Anyone recognise the soundtrack?
Could it be feeding locusts?

ninky_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

If we want to sort out the problem, we should be reviewing the dusty bookshelves of our universities as there were a heck of a lot of good PhDs shelved because they offended the big corporates.

thankyou for your post vivatifosi. for me this proves the point that free market economics do not necessarily drive forward technological advances or allow the talents and good ideas of individuals to prosper. in fact, they can stifle them.