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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (24776)	1/4/2008 5:07:15 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Frank, your response touched on several areas of interest. First, re: '... a bit too monolithic and "divine"... for me.' Agreed. Also, your comment about d.c. transmission was interesting. Would you care to say more on the subject? I don't know a lot about it, except that it was once preferred, and (as stated in the article) offered lower transmission losses. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Megaprojects can be scary, not only for the reasons you noted. (Aside: This brings to mind many discussions here about emergency radio systems. My question is: given the growth of parallel radio infrastructures (WiFi, Wimax), themselves parallel to fibreoptic and copper networks, won't it soon be possible to put together ad hoc networks for emergency purposes? Wouldn't such networks, by virtue of parallelism and redundancy be easier to create, to adapt and to "heal" than dedicated networks?) For power, wouldn't it be better (so far as practical) to locate various means of generation closer to their destinations? If we assume that more and more generation will be "green" what's stopping us from dispersing such generation, and again, lowering transmission losses, as well as demand on the existing grid? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan." Maybe the greatest obstacle is lack of coherent planning. We already have fairly reliable predictions of an impending power generation shortfall. No matter what mix of technologies constitute future power generation, there's lead time required. Rising fossil fuel costs dictate rising capex for new infrastructure, getting more expensive every year. Not encouraging. Jim

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (24776)	2/20/2008 7:07:48 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Forget biofuel, try a car that runs on air "The three-seat fibreglass OneCAT weighs only 350kg (770lb) and is expected to be priced at about £2,500. The engine technology is backed by Tata, the Indian conglomerate that last month unveiled the world’s cheapest car, the £1,250 Nano. Refuelling involves topping up on compressed air, which is used to power the OneCAT’s piston engine. In a couple of minutes - and at a cost of as little as £1 - the vehicle is ready to travel another 200 to 300 kilometres (125 to 185 miles), its inventors said. The vehicle, which burns small amounts of conventional fuels at higher speeds, has been developed by Moteur Development International (MDI), a French-based, family owned group that has been working on an “air car” for the past decade. “The engine is efficient, cost-effective, scalable and capable of other applications, like power generation,” a spokesman said." More: business.timesonline.co.uk Jim