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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (186281)	5/7/2006 2:18:11 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>> The question is who are we going to entrust with that money? Certainly not the OIL WHORES that currently are in power. DOWN WITH BUSH!!! DOWN WITH CORPORATE & BIG OIL WHORES!!! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (186281)	5/8/2006 1:24:36 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawk, alternative fuels research isn't something needing governments to plan. I was looking after alternative fuels research for BP Oil back in the 1980s and it was when governments got involved that things went awry [pointless, expensive and wasteful]: <With that being said, there are areas in which government can create investment reseach when private market failure occurs. An example of this is alternative fuels research and creating incentives for the private market to create the infrastucture necessary to facilitate alternative energy replacing dependence upon fossil fuels. However, that investment must follow the rules of supply and demand and the result must be commercially competitive to existing energy technologies.> There is plenty of money to be made in alternative fuels and the best thing Big Brother could do is get out of the way. The Prius wasn't a government department project. Another thing governments should do is control pollution carefully. By setting emission limits too low, without reference to the costs of doing so, they can be counterproductive. For example, lean burn engines are low polluters, but catalytic converters don't run on them. I suspect that lean burn engines for city use, without catalytic converters, especially in cold climates, would be better than the current systems. Catalytic converters don't work while cold, so there is some time before they are warm enough to clean the exhaust. That's why engines can be quite stinky when first started. I'm a bit out of date now, as engine technologies have moved on, but it's surprising how much engine technology from the 1920s is still valid today. There was a LOT of creativity brought to bear in the early decades. Governments also get into fuel quality control, while it's only what enters the atmosphere which matters. They choose to control the fuel because it's easier than controlling millions of voter-owned cars. Governments get enough wrong in their own job, which is to minimize air, ground and water pollution without dabbling in what some bureaucrat has as a hobby horse for alternative fuels. Governments should also price public assets used for transport more sensibly. And allow vehicles to use public assets without putting absurdly expensive bureaucratic obstacles in their way. You socialists are always wanting governments to do it all. Even though they have shown everywhere and always that they are worse than useless. They are counterproductive. You, Sylvester and Geode should think of freedom rather than your usual socialist ways. Mqurice