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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greg s who wrote (65800)	7/7/2004 9:05:51 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Hmm. I read this website (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/basics.html#produced) and it seems to say the same thing you do. But I've also read elsewhere that if gas costs $2 per gallon, hydrogen may cost more, but hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can be as much as twice to three times more efficient in their conversion of fuel to energy, which would even out the cost. Of course I am out of my depth here, so I'll defer to you. However, even if our government had to subsidize hydrogen to make it equivalent in costs to gas, I think it would be worth it to get us off oil dependence. Instead of $250B and counting on Iraq, we could have spent that money on a hydrogen economy and we would have already had enough money to build out the infrastructure through outfitting all existing gas stations with hydrogen fuel cell refueling stations and with creating the transportation mechanisms. I read somewhere that the estimate to get the infrastructure in place throughout the U.S. would be $100B. So take your pick. Do we spend hundreds of billions on conquering and pacifying a bunch of lunatic Arabs or do we spend money on a long term solution which will dry up all sources of funding for Islamic crazies, so they won't be able to carry out their demented fantasies?