Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (6721)	2/27/2001 1:28:13 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

To technology buffs, the internal combustion engine was an inferior technology compared to steam (external combustion). Ford's accomplishment with the oil companies was to provide a complete and scalable solution to the transportation industry. This was not without considerable collusion. This change saddled us with internal combustion for the next 90 years or so. The thermodynamics of steam are superior to that of the gasoline and diesel engines. But it is largely like Beta vs. VHS. The environmental harm of that poor selection route didn't really amount to much, except inferior image quality. We need to choose technologies that aren't just short term profitable yet produce another class of complications. The Kyoto Treaty would have provided a mechanism for rich nations to help poor nations bypass and thereby not repeat our mistakes. Too bad we are so weak willed as a country.

To: Greg or e who wrote (6721)	2/27/2001 2:45:41 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Respond to of 82486

Greg Here in CA zero-emission cars are mandated. 5100 by 2003, 20,000 by 2010. A GM EV leases for $450 if you can lease one. There are 11 Air Resource Board Members. None own or lease an EV, saying there aren't enough made. GM understandably doesn't get too excited about making them because they lose a ton of money on each one. I don't believe the Air Resource Board members couldn't find an EV. They've been around for 10 years and not one official could manage to find one to lease? Even advocates who drive them as primary vehicles own gas-powered backups. Maybe the next 11 EV's to hit CA should be reserved for the Board and then they could set that all important example they want us to follow. edit: it looks like it would make a good "neighborhood" (tribal) vehicle, implying shared ownership. Doesn't seem to be marketed that way, interestingly enough.