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: RetiredNow who wrote (65816)	7/8/2004 7:53:49 AM
From: GVTucker	Respond to of 77400

Even if we all moved to electric vehicles, you've got to have the power capacity to generate that electricity. And that means more demand for natural gas. Once again, you're back at square one, if the desire is to move away from fossil fuels.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (65816)	7/8/2004 11:08:42 AM
From: greg s	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

mindmeld, re: So what about if we moved to all electric vehicles? I read GV's reply to this message. He mentioned generating the electricity and highlighted the need to consume natural gas to generate the power. To this, I might add nuclear power. This has become the international bug-a-boo since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I'm sure some on this board would raise concern if I was to advocate expanded use of nuclear power. But, after this discussion, we are left with only a few alternatives. One is to continue the use of fossil fuels in one form or another. Another is to use nuclear generation. Solar and wind are not yet ready for wide spread deployment (though technology of the future may make this possible - we should continue to fund R&D as a national priority, IMO). Same goes for new ways to generate hydrogen (without fossil fuels). But to discuss what we can do NOW, we must discount solar, wind, and hydrogen. SO ... my opinion on what we can do NOW until new technologies can offer a real solution: Conserve. Develop vehicles that consume less energy/mile and enact govt. sticks AND carrots for auto firms who do this. Develop decent, economical, easy-to-use mass transportation (both inter- and intra- city). Energy efficient trains that are reliable, clean, and ubiquitous would take a lot of trucks and cars off the highways and reduce energy consumption. As an example, if I needed to travel from Phoenix to Washington, DC on a trip which I would drive today, I could take public transportation from my home to the train terminal. Then I could catch a passenger train in Phoenix and book a sleeper car. When I arrive in Washington, I would have access to public transportation to take me where I want to go. If I was in more of a hurry, the same public transportation connects would be available to take me to and from the airports. I would no longer consider driving my car to an Arizona Diamondbacks game. I would take public transportation from my home to the ballpark ... no parking hassles or expenses. Parking lots could be used to house humans instead of cars. In fact, if the nationwide system were developed completely and seamlessly enough, I would probably start questioning my need to own a car at all. If we were to spend great sums of money TODAY to fight the oil crisis, this is what I would do ... along with funding R&D for technologies of the future which could also be applied to this public transportation infrastructure. Europe, parts of Asia, and Japan are doing this. Why can't we? But this would require national behavior modification. It would change the way we live our lives. It would require a divorce from our national love affair with the car. This would not be easy. ... Anyway, that's how I heard it! Greg.