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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bux who wrote (24112)	9/1/2001 8:37:03 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29986

Bux, philanthropic investing is a subtle activity which does NOT involve altruism or waste. Noble endeavour should NOT be suicidal. The ideal noble endeavour leads to glorious success. So, while I'm in favour of using carbon as a fuel, it is only provided it is the most economic option. I'm merely pointing out that other things being equal, one should add the 'bringing back to life' variable to the purchasing decision. It is better to use regenerative braking, not to reduce CO2 emissions but to conserve $$ which would be better spent on something else, such as a Capstone turbine to burn natural gas to warm a greenhouse, supply the plants in it with CO2 and to supply electricity to houses and nearby equipment. That way, people would get maximum transport which would be very efficient and ALSO get excellent greenhouse produce, also very economically, while releasing CO2 into the atmosphere [assuming not all of it is consumed by the plants]. Even if it is consumed by the plants, they will be converted to CO2 in due course. Entropy remains bad. I am not in favour of increasing entropy until we figure out how to reduce it. Though right now, I wouldn't worry too much about entropy as our contribution in the universe remains indescribably small. We should most concentrate on conserving $$ which are the true value of humans. Some things are not yet valued in dollars [such as getting CO2 back into life] but the sophisticated can add it into their decisions anyway. The oil saved by regenerative braking could be used to pave China and India with asphalt and concrete which would release a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere and also used to power vehicles there. The efficiency of $$$ will help increase the total CO2 emissions in this way. So, to clarify, we should burn as little as we need to. The aim being to conserve $$, not CO2 or oil or gas. Those jack-rabbit drivers are going to run out of money and won't be able to fund increased CO2 production via more fuel-intensive and economically productive activities. I'm sure that's clear now! As a simple rule of thumb, save money, but if in doubt about the details, burn more oil, coal and gas. As an actual example I came across in 1991, a guy I met wanted to buy an electric car. I pointed out to him that if he bought two new petrol [gasoline] cars, he could go for a drive and swap it for some dirty, polluting dunger which he could take to a scrap metal merchant. He could keep the other. The total air pollution would be much reduced [CO2 not being considered a pollutant although SOX, NOX, CO and smoke emissions are], the total cost would be about the same, he would almost increase the CO2 emissions a bit [because petrol is less efficient than grid electricity in energy consumption], and two people would have really flash new cars instead of one having a silly, low range, weak, battery-powered car and the other a crusty old smelly wreck. I'm not sure what he decided to do in the end, but he understood the point. I didn't mention the CO2 part to him [that wasn't considered a big deal in those days]. Mq