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: Joe NYC who wrote (353334)	10/3/2007 2:25:00 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

"BTW, I am hoping that GM does not screw up this time. I also hope that GM concept of all electric prevails over parallel hybrids like Prius." GM has some of the best engineers this country can produce. Sadly, the bean counters rule the roost. The Volt is a nice concept, but the AUTOnomy concept has some real promise. As a result, I suspect that GM will never produce it. Simply because it would change the game.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (353334)	10/3/2007 8:00:36 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573927

Yes, I agree with your post. I do think the folks against nuclear technology are mostly morons or fear-mongers. Hell, we could ultimately get rid of nuclear fuel by flying it into the sun or on a one way ticket to a different galaxy. That would be a permanent solution! Anyway, one thing to consider in your thought process about the cost benefit analysis of electric cars is the following. Oil is highly subsidized in this country, which is why is costs so little. Even at $3 per gallon, it's still less than half of what it should cost, if free market forces reigned. The staggering cost of our military is an example of a cost that mostly is used to keep oil flowing. The wars alone in Iraq and Afghanistan cost us $200B per year. Think about it. We use 7B barrels of oil a year. If we were to allocate that $200B a year in Middle East wars to the cost of oil, then that would act as a tax on US oil imports to the tune of an additional $27 per barrel of oil, which would increase the US price of gas by at least $1-2. Also, if we were to take the public opportunity cost of giving low cost leases on public land for drilling and the cost of tax breaks for offshore drilling, etc etc, to oil companies, all of that might tack on another $1-2 to the price of gas. If gas cost $5-7, that would certainly change the cost/benefit analysis. With a driver that drives 12K miles per year at 30 mpg, That would translate into an incremental savings $1200-1600 per year, if they were to drive a hybrid getting 60 mpg. Over the avg # of years (5-7) a person owns a car, that would translate into a total savings of $6K-11.2K, ignoring the time value of money. So when we start weighing alternatives against oil, let's at least try to do it from a level playing field. None of the analysis I've seen from liberals and conservatives both attempt to compare apples to apples.