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 (305618)	10/8/2002 10:36:14 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "You totally missed my point ('s)." >>> Er, that must be because you didn't spell them out. I'm not a mind reader. Re: "- As long as there are fossil fuels cheaply accessible, it will be the choice fuel for energy" >>> Maybe, maybe not. >>> As I pointed out, all the big auto makers say the internal combustion engine is 'dead' by 2016 to 2022... at which point they will be manufacturing fuel cell powered vehicles. These are their predictions, not mine. >>> I assume they know what they are talking about. >>> And, as I pointed out in my first reply, many people believe that fuel cells which produce their hydrogen fuel by using 'reformers' to strip it from fossil fuels like gasoline or kerosene or methane/propane will be the first ones rolled out in a big way... because they use the existing distribution system for fossil fuels... which is likely to be with us for a long time. >>> The one point you perhaps have over-looked is that fuel cells are a minimum of TWICE as efficient at extracting energy from these same fossil fuels as the internal combustion engine is. So - ceuterus paribus (all other things remaining the same)- the same fossil fuel stores will last longer. >>> And, of course, there is also the not-so-insignificant healthcare benefit of eliminating pollution from our ground transportation system... certainly worth a few tens of billions of dollars a year, or more (in reduced disease and disfunction, higher productivity, etc.) Re: "- People making statements that maybe they'll figure out a way to reduce the amount of energy to split the water molecule don't know what they're talking about, it's a given value." >>> Yes, it is. But in the presence of a suitable catalyst it is much easier. As the link I provided about the newly discovered titantium dioxide / carbon catalyst points out, conversion efficiencies using sunlight to hydrolize hydrogen from water are already at 8.5%... and the D.O.E. says it will be commercially viable at 10%, which should be quickly reached. This has the potential to take fossil fuels out of the loop in a rather big way. >>> Sunlight is a relatively 'free' input you will note. Sunlight (in the presence of the catalyst) hydrolizes water to produce hydrogen for fuel. Re: "...CA's <green> energy program is a total flop." >>> I agree with you: inefficient energy technologies will (and should not) gain market share. But the main problem with photo-electric market penetration is because of: >>> 1). the SUBSIDIES given to OTHER energy technologies. Fission nuclear power is nowhere NEAR comercially viable without MASSIVE subsidies and forcing consumers to pay higher than free market prices (as Bush's Department of Energy just quantified in their report last year). Oil has NUMEROUS subsidies built into the tax code (ever hear of the oil depletion allowance?) Uranium production is subsidized, coal is subsidized. On a level playing field newer energy technologies will do fine as long as one other bureaucratic impediment is removed: >>> 2). Most states have not legalized "Net Metering". Only some 20 states have... and most of those restrict photo-electric power generation to below .5% of the market, or give ridiculously low prices for production. >>> Net Metering is a legal change that allows a consumer to put in a two-way electric meter that runs forward and backward... and requires the electric utility (or the deregulated electric distribution system) to BUY POWER FROM THE 'CONSUMER' AT THE SAME PRICE THEY CHARGE HIM (some states say at a 'wholesale' price). >>> Without this legal change there is little reason to put in photoelectric because you can't sell the electricity, and you realistically can't store it. Yet, it is in the public's clear interest to do this. >>> Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) are stonewalling on this needed change... largely because they are in the pockets of the big utilities. >>> But a more distributed power system, with more power producers, would be a more stable system, a more robust system, and likely offer lower costs for consumers. >>> No, the main problems are not technology (which is coming along quite nicely, thank you) but rather special interest loophole-ridden tax codes, bureaucracies in the pockets of the big producers, massive taxpayer-supplied subsidies to the 'sunset' energy industries, and FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) supplied in abundance by those receiving the subsidies. Re: "I'm just trying to bring a touch of reality to the dreamers. No where did I support corporate welfare, just as I don't support long term people welfare. You'll have to show me where I said such a thing as I am a huge supporter of free markets." >>> Good. Then you are with me on this. Eliminate all the energy subsidies and special interest favors... and let energy technologies compete on their own merits. >>> Down with Corporate Welfare and "National Industrial Policy". >>> As a first start, I would suggest VOTING DOWN BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE ENERGY BILLS... they are MASSIVE pork fests, extending taxpayer-paid subsidies to ALL the old-line energy interests (coal, oil, nuclear), for YEARS into the future, and do little or nothing to help us with energy security. >>> Let Free Markets prevail... end the subsidies.