Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DOUG H who wrote (4096)	4/12/2004 10:38:32 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (3) of 116555

>>past "the hump"<< What is implied by this phrase is a myth. There is no such thing -- a hurdle that capitalism can't overcome to give us an more economic way of doing things. To be sure, Fed policy has destroyed the proper links between savings and investment -- so now many prefer various forms of confiscation to attain what they think are better ends -- but that doesn't make it right. You fail to see the link to star wars?? Let me be explicit: Here was something that some elitists (such as yourself -- in the case of energy) thought was terribly important to the public welfare. Huge amounts of money have been spent on "research." But the whole idea was preposterous in the first place ... If you give a ton more of (confiscate from the public) money to study energy efficiency or fuel cells or renewables the funds will be just as misdirected as were/are the funds for star wars. Governments simply don't and can't pick winning technologies -- rather the funding is most often a drag on productive economic developments. Case in point: Fuel cells. Look at the hype, subsidies and baloney surrounding fuel cells -- as though they were some "new source" of energy. Fuel cells (vehicle type PEM) are very efficient at converting hydrogen into electrical energy. Whoop-tee-doo!! 1) FCs still require fossil fuels as inputs. 2) FCs have a very high capital cost per device -- much of which cannot come down with mass production. 3) Given the central generation infrastructure and the abundant supply of coal -- it will never be economic for energy to be supplied on an individual or even neighborhood basis. It would be a nightmare based on maintenance alone. But look at the money expended on dwelling applications. Nevermind the fact that someone would be giving up the economic advantage of "fuel diversity." 4) Some have undertaken research to use renewables to generate electricity -- then split water to obtain hydrogen -- then deliver hydrogen to a fuel cell -- that is sooo stupid it hardly bears comment. It's throwing energy away. I have been involved in government research and I can tell you firsthand -- for the most part -- researchers are more than willing to work on any fad or hype, whether it is a good idea or not -- solely to line their own pockets. To be sure thare are some who won't -- but that is not true of most. So if someone in congress is unlearned and thinks ethanol powered fuel cells is a good idea -- it'll get a ton of money and researchers will focus in on jsut making the reformers better or improving the efficiency of some piece of the gizmo, while completely ingnoring the overall economics of the method for meeting our energy needs. No, let folks take risks who believe in a good idea. Let them labor and sweat and risk their own or others' capital who have provided it willingly -- this process is a fantastic filter, IMO.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next