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 : Microsoft Corp. - Moderated (MSFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12906)	9/8/2006 4:51:59 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19790

The vehicles cost about $35,000 or about double what buyers would pay for a gas-powered model. local6.com That extra price is the battery. Lithium isn't cheap.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12906)	9/8/2006 4:57:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 19790

Lead runs $0.32 to $0.66/kg. Lithium runs about $1.72/kg. evworld.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12906)	9/8/2006 5:01:56 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19790

Click "When Will The Cars Be Available?" teslamotors.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12906)	9/8/2006 5:09:46 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19790

Your entire post is straight out of 1975. My post was a snapshot of reality and you haven't refuted a single point that I made. I know that you're not stupid, Lizzie, but it's really frustrating to hear you, and others like you, spout off on a subject that you know little or nothing about. spewing their -its all hopeless- BS. I spew nothing of the sort. Petroleum and its derivatives not only fuel up your BMW, but are an integral part of just about every aspect of your life, from the food you eat to the production of the computer you're posting from. There's enough of it left in the US alone to last for many decades to come, if the regulatory NIMBYs and nitwits would get out of the way and let it be developed. What's hopeless seems to be getting the loony, anti life eco freaks and their political allies to acknowledge this fact. There are 6 electric car startups in my area alone. One is not stealth (the Tesla). Fine and dandy, but once again, who and what is going to provide the electricity to charge them up? And where is the energy coming from to power the factories that produce them and the batteries that power them (which, BTW, are toxic as hell)? Yes hydrogen and other energy sources TAKE energy to create. But what do you get on the other side is the question. Think, for a minute. The question is... how are you going to create the energy that's needed to create these alternative energies? What's on the other side don't matter for squat if you can't answer that question... Another thing that really pisses me off are all these chicken little global warming "end of the world as we know it" types who have nothing to suggest other than killing the world economy and sending what's left of humanity back to living in caves. Kyoto, schme-oto, total bullshit. There are creative and doable technologies available today to remove excess CO2 from the air, if doing so is even warranted. Your governator and screwball legislature should be studying solutions like this... discover.com ...The answer? “We need to work out a way to take CO2 out of the air and bury it,” Broecker says. He points to Klaus Lackner, a Columbia University geophysicist, and Alan Wright, an engineer formerly with the Biosphere 2 project, who are designing and building the first atmospheric CO2 extraction machine. Gary Comer, founder of the Lands’ End clothing company, is funding the project. Although he won’t divulge exact figures, Broecker says “the cost of development is peanuts. If it turns out that the models that predict warming are not right, we can leave the technology on the shelf. But if we need it, it will be there.” SOAKING UP CO2 Klaus Lackner is a geophysicist at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and codeveloper of the synthetic tree, a device designed to remove carbon dioxide from the air. By Lackner’s calculations, one synthetic tree could absorb 1,000 times more CO2 than a living tree. How would the synthetic tree remove carbon dioxide from the air? L: The device itself would look something like goalposts with venetian blinds. It would be equipped to use liquid sodium hydroxide, which converts to sodium carbonate as it pulls CO2 from the wind stream. How much could one tree remove? L: The unit, which has a collection area of 50 meters by 60 meters, could gather 90,000 tons of CO2 a year. That means one synthetic tree could handle an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 15,000 cars. How many of these synthetic trees worldwide would be needed to soak up the 22 billion tons of CO2 produced annually from fossil fuels? L: About 250,000. To make this process efficient, you need to recycle the sodium hydroxide, which means you need to take the absorbed carbon back out. How do you do that? L: You percolate the liquid sodium carbonate over solid calcium hydroxide, and the calcium catches the carbon. So you have taken the carbon out of your sodium hydroxide, and you can use it again. But then you have to get the carbon out of the calcium so that you can repeat the process. You do this by heating the calcium carbonate to 900 degrees Celsius, and it lets loose the CO2. So now we have the CO2 back in hand as a concentrated stream, with which we can do whatever we want. What do you suggest? L: It can be sequestered underground. The question is, is there enough capacity? Short term, it will work, but for the long term we need to develop other alternatives. I have proposed mineral sequestration. There are entire mountain ranges made of magnesium silicates that over millions of years would naturally turn into magnesium carbonate. We could speed up that process in an industrial fashion. We could make a stable, harmless solid...

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12906)	9/8/2006 5:13:17 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19790

Since the density of ethanol is 0.789 grams per cubic centimeter, the energy density of ethanol is 26.8 megajoules per kilogram. This compares rather unfavorably with gasoline at 45 MJ per kilogram, but is rather appalingly low, when it takes the energy of a gallon of gasoline to produce the gallon of ethanol from corn! energyadvocate.com You rang? Or are you STILL incapable of logic?