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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191474)	10/12/2001 2:33:40 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

Your position is impossible to argue with - it's too confusing. It's a mixture of big government regulatory attitudes, with libertarian platitudes.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (191474)	10/12/2001 3:14:44 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

1. I don't believe that SUV sales account for 40% of all sales, you might be right but I seem to remember a figure closer to 20% 2. You assume that all energy usage is for gasoline. Not even close. So your math of 25 % is based on poor assumptions to begin with. >>Those particulates are of exactly the proper size to lodge in the lungs smallest air sacs. According to a recent US Academy of Sciences study, and a corresponding one out of Europe, this likely accounts for an average reduction of life in the population of about one year. There is obviously also a COST that can be affixed to this reduction in life span... and associated medical costs.... But, as they say, you lose that year at the end of your life, and those are the 'lousey years' anyway :-)<< Where did this come from!? There are copious amounts of sources that create dust that's just the right size to lodge in your lungs, that report is nothing more than a campaign against internal combustion engines. >> As to "the rest of <my> arguments are full of holes.", since you didn't bother to think of any actual EXAMPLES...<< It wasn't worth it but if you insist on it here goes: >>By decentralizing our energy grids, and increasing interconnections between them, we can get at least a 40% boost in electrical-use efficiency.<< Energy grids are already interconnected, there is no 40% savings lurking out there. Don't even know where you imagined this from. >>Or how about some serious government R & D funding for fuel cells? They can run (even with reformers, using petro-stock) at two or three times the efficiency of our internal combustion engines... and without the life-shortening side effects the good old 'internal' brings us.<< Private companies are already doing this don't know if there is a federal need here, but nothing wrong with fuel cells. >>Or extending efficiency standards to SUVs and light trucks? That could knock off 2 or 3 months of annual oil imports.<< Nothing prevents me from driving twice as much in a more efficient vehicle there fore zero energy savings, this is a total smoke screen statement. >>I bet with 1/10th. of the tab for 'missile defense' diverted to fusion power research we could bring fusion power production over-the-top. The top research labs are at energy break-even right now with the most advanced designs....<< You bet incorrectly. Fusion work has been taking place for 30+ years. They are no closer now than they were then. Saying they are near break-even now is like saying a major league pitcher's fast ball is about the same speed over the plate as when it left his hand. Lawrence Livimore is losing funding every year because fusion just plain does not look feasible. >>Truth is, it's going to take a lot of work, and a lot of money... but sending all our dough to the middle east and being forced to prop up tinpot dictators is not a rational strategy.<< We're sending all our money to the middle east? News to me. The middle east has been a cheap source of energy for 5 + decades. It just plain make financial sense. The Middle East WILL suffer the same fate either now or later. We will move on to alternatives and the M.E. will be left in financial ruin. We'll then be forced by our generous nature to subsidize them. >>There is obviously also a COST that can be affixed to this reduction in life span... and associated medical costs.... But, as they say, you lose that year at the end of your life, and those are the 'lousey years' anyway :-)<< I love it when you dunderheads make these statements. Every year, every decade since the beginning of our nation life spans have increased and you guys throw out this unsubstantiated tripe. It's just plain untrue. How is it life spans increase as auto usage increases? >>Of course, I'm willing to change ANY VIEW I HAVE if someone just comes up with a more persuasive argument, << I just don't believe it, your arguments already are of a narrow minded scare tactic vein, it just doesn't seem possible that that will change. GOOD DAY. Jim