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: J.B.C. who wrote (191502)	10/12/2001 4:03:50 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769669

1) No, that figure was for SUVs + light trucks (seen how many pickup trucks are on the roads?) The efficiency standards for trucks are more permissive than for cars. 2) No, I wasn't assuming that 'all energy use is for gasoline'. 3) Even the Bush EPA is considering tougher standards for diesels as a result of these new studies... and so are the Europeans. 4) No, our energy grids are only LOOSELY interconnected. That is why during the recent Calif. 'energy crisis' they couldn't bring in meaningful amounts of electricity to alleviate the problem of under-generation in Calif. After all, there is a SURPLUS of electricity in many markets (like here in the South East) If we could have just schlepped it to CA they wouldn't have had brownouts. One of the problems is that we use aluminum cores in the high tension power lines... and these have huge line losses. (Super-conducting grids such as those sold by American Super Conductor could eliminate these line losses... which in some cases are upwards of 60%. Even the Bush/Cheney energy plan proposes a crash program of building up our long-distance energy transmission capabilities (using eminent domain powers to over-ride local opposition to the siting of towers). (Decentralizing the power generation - such as many of the fuel cell companies, or Capstone Turbine, propose would also return great efficiencies... easily on the order of 40% or greater, because it would greatly reduce line losses. Unfortunately this is not in the Bush/Cheney plan. Fuel Cell electric generation stations also would operate in at least the 60% energy-input efficiency range... double the 30% of our best current generating plants.) The REASON the grids are only lightly inter-connected is because it is NOT IN THE POWER GENERATORS OWN ECONOMIC INTEREST to allow competing power producers to come into to their backyards and maybe under-price their electricity sales. That's why they haven't built robust inter-connection facilities on their own dime. 5) Actually the most recent 'Tomak' nuclear fusion test results announced that they were right at break-even on power input / output. Obviously still a ways to go, but a mighty good candidate for government funds if I ever saw one... considering the immense payoff. 6) Do you think oil will STAY cheap, as world populations & economies grow, and proven reserves dwindle? What about when (as the CIA predicts) by 2020 China's economy matches ours in size? Will oil still be a bargain? It takes a long time to transition an entire economy... perhaps it's time to start planning. Personally, I'd rather that we LEAD our competitors, rather than FOLLOW in this effort. 7) 'Lose a year of potential lifespan'... I didn't make it up, I was quoting the Academy of Sciences study. Obviously, improvements in nutrition, healthcare, etc., serve to increase our lifespans... while opposing those beneficial effects are environmental toxins, lung cancer (nearly unknown at the turn of the 20th. century), etc., etc. Why is it so hard to understand that there can be countervailing forces? 8) Believe what you will Jim, although there are a few views I hold dearly (and many more I hold only lightly) I will modify any opinion I have in the face of convincing facts and arguments. To do any less would be scientifically fraudulent, logically untenable.