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 (12908)	9/8/2006 5:32:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19790

We could insist on starting with fusion powered cars. Maybe in another 3 centuries we might have the technology to make an engine small enough and light enough to be practical. But why bother? If we can do that, we can probably build starships to go find other planets to plunder. The greatly increased demand for rare metals needed for efficient batteries isn't going to drive the cost of those metals DOWN, it's going to drive it UP. The simple fact is you have to work with what's available. And let's talk the greenhouse effect, one of the liberals favorite subjects. Burning ethanol produces both CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases. Burning H2 produces H2O, a greenhouse gas. You REALLY want lots of these cars running around? It make a few centuries to develop a means of transportation that doesn't have that problem and the advocates of greenhouse argument claim YOU DON'T HAVE IT! And what of the 6 billion population, still growing? You're going to take a large part of their foodstuff and make fuel from it? Do you really think they will starve quietly? Or did you just order up a round of wars and revolutions? As Peter mentioned, you might get past part of this problem with nuclear energy, but that is anathema to you liberals.