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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (307545)	10/24/2006 7:56:50 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571204

Tim, we've already spent $500B in Iraq. Every month, we spend another $8-9B. We're in the middle east with our troops because we need a stable middle east to supply the world's oil. We're also there because terrorists funded with oil money attacked us and we're trying to fight them in their own lands, etc etc, according to Bush. NONE OF THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY if the Middle East went back to being an impoverished desert with no oil money. Saving this country another $500B through getting off the oil would be plenty of economic justification. Focusing on alternatives and making sure the US got the lion's share of the patents would pay for itself many times over. That would be another economic justification. It was estimated that the direct and indirect costs to our economy of 9/11 approached $1 trillion. Denying terrorists their oil money funding would be a way to avoid another 9/11. That is another economic justification. Do I need to go on? Or are you beginning to believe oil independence is worth what we'd have to spend to get there?

To: TimF who wrote (307545)	10/24/2006 8:03:16 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571204

"Getting rid of most of them in the US could perhaps be done, but only at a cost that exceeds any reasonably imaginable benefit." I think that is the unspoken case. I doubt if mindmeld, in particular, cares if they use them in China or not. AS, I don't know. You know this, how? You know the cost would be, how? You know the benefits would be, how? And what? The median age of US automobiles is about 9 years. By the time they are 15 years old, most are off the road anyway. If we assume that something like the EEStor caps can be built with the performance and cost characteristics claimed, then that would enable cutting the owning and operating costs of a vehicle from an average of about $0.45 a mile to under $0.30 due to lower costs of fuel, maintenance and financing costs. For someone who drives about 1000 miles a month, that would be a savings of about $1800 a year. That, combined with all the desirable characteristics of an electric vehicle, would mean a much quicker than normal switch over to the new vehicles, thus lowering the median age pretty quickly. It is very conceivable that virtually all automobiles and many of the commercial vehicles would be pure electrics within a 15 year period.