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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (138350)	7/30/2001 1:20:26 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583713

That oil has to last for an indefinite period of time to provide sufficient fuel for future generations until a viable alternative has been found. This is pure and utter nonsense. Viable alternatives will be found ONLY when the markets make it attractive for someone to do so. Conservation, while an interesting sidebar, has no material effect on the amount of time existing resources will last. When supply gets short, and prices go up, then alternative sources will be developed. Not one minute before. What is wrong with the liberal mind that makes it unable to understand this trivial, yet fundamental, concept?

To: tejek who wrote (138350)	7/30/2001 5:28:15 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583713

Ted Re..Harry, just because its there doesn't mean we have to use it. <<<<<<< Why not? Its there for the using. That oil has to last for an indefinite period of time to provide sufficient fuel for future generations until a viable alternative has been found.<<<<< Do you really think 50 yrs from now, the majority of new cars sold will still run on gas. I doubt it because if gas prices keep going up, new alternatives will be viable. The sooner we run short of gas, the sooner we will change over, which just may save gas for the future generations in the long run. Conservation is the main way to accomplish that goal. <<<<< I doubt it. The sooner a new alternative comes in, and becomes financially viable, the more gas there will be left for future generations, as the demand for oil will drop off when cheaper alternatives come on line. Eventually, if the alternative is good enough, the remaining oil will be left for non energy purposes, such as plastics. Politicians haven't got the spine to raise taxes on gas now and certainly don't have the spine to keep at it once there is a surplus to give alternatives a chance. Al Gore wrote books about alternatives. His chance to give alternatives came last summer, when the shortage hit. All he had to do was pass a major tax hike on gas, and give incentives to alternatives. He didn't do it. Instead he sold out his principles for votes and emptied the reserve. And I told you then, it was the wrong thing to do, didn't I? I favor the big bang theory. The likely way I see, is if the demand keeps on rising, and reserves keep on falling, until production can't keep up with demand. That plus, say a war in the middle east, will shoot the price through the roof, which will keep the price up long enough, and people will get disgusted enough, to give alternatives a fighting chance. We need capitulation; a realization that alternatives will be better at any price than the illusion of cheap gas. Cheap oil has been able to fight off all of the alternatives so far. Now it certainly is possible that there is a cheaper alternative than cheap oil; but I haven't heard of it. Fuel cells, if they can get the volume, have a chance, but its a slim one. I would liken it to rubber. Before WWII, rubber was used exclusively. But because supplies were sporadic, the Gov. paid Goodyear to come up with a non rubber alternative for their military vehicles; which resulted in vulcanized rubber. Now rubber is a small percentage of tires as a cheaper better alternative was found. Necessity often is the means of invention. There is no other philosophy that's appropriate. I just gave you one. There are many philosophies. Want to bet my scenario is the more likely than yours. Yours depends upon politicians with vision and a spine. How likely is that? Mine depends upon naturally occurring processes, which have happened quite often before. The Reps. are out of step with the country and the world.<<< Or just maybe the dems have their nose so far up the interns ass , they can't see the sun anymore. There are options. Just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

To: tejek who wrote (138350)	7/30/2001 5:41:41 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1583713

Ted Re..Harry, just because its there doesn't mean we have to use it. <<<<<<< Why not? Its there for the using. That oil has to last for an indefinite period of time to provide sufficient fuel for future generations until a viable alternative has been found.<<<<< Do you really think 50 yrs from now, the majority of new cars sold will still run on gas. I doubt it because if gas prices keep going up, new alternatives will be viable. The sooner we run short of gas, the sooner we will change over, which just may save gas for the future generations in the long run. Conservation is the main way to accomplish that goal. <<<<< I doubt it. The sooner a new alternative comes in, and becomes financially viable, the more gas there will be left for future generations, as the demand for oil will drop off when cheaper alternatives come on line. Eventually, if the alternative is good enough, the remaining oil will be left for non energy purposes, such as plastics. Politicians haven't got the spine to raise taxes on gas now and certainly don't have the spine to keep at it once there is a surplus to give alternatives a chance. Al Gore wrote books about alternatives. His chance to give alternatives came last summer, when the shortage hit. All he had to do was pass a major tax hike on gas, and give incentives to alternatives. He didn't do it. Instead he sold out his principles for votes and emptied the reserve. And I told you then, it was the wrong thing to do, didn't I? I favor the big bang theory. The likely way I see, is if the demand keeps on rising, and reserves keep on falling, until production can't keep up with demand. That plus, say a war in the middle east, will shoot the price through the roof, which will keep the price up long enough, and people will get digusted enough, to give alternatives a fighting chance. We need capitulation; a realization that alternatives will be better at any price than the illusion of cheap gas. Cheap oil has been able to fight off all of the alternatives so far. Now it certainly is possible that there is a cheaper alternative than cheap oil; but I haven't heard of it. Fuel cells, if they can get the volume, have a chance, but its a slim one. I would liken it to rubber. Before WWII, rubber was used exclusively. But because supplies were sparodic, the Gov. paid Goodyear to come up with a non rubber alternative for their military vehicles; which resulted in vulcanized rubber. Now rubber is a small percentage of tires as a cheaper better alternative was found. Necessity often is the means of invention. There is no other philosophy that's appropriate. I just gave you one. There are many philosophies. Want to bet my scenario is the more likely than yours. Yours depends upon politicians with vision and a spine. How likely is that? Mine depends upon naturally occuring processes, which have happened quite often before. The Reps. are out of step with the country and the world.<<< Or just maybe the dems have their nose so far up the interns ass , they can't see the sun anymore. There are options. Just because you haven't thought of them doesn't mean they don't exist.