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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (103171)	6/18/2008 2:43:04 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206088

I think the big change is going to be adding a 40 mile rechargeable capacity as the fleet of U.S. automobiles gets converted to hybrids (which is what auto makers will be rolling out). The 50% cost saving per mile over gasoline, ethanol, or hydrogen is going to resonate with consumers. The savings is in the energy conversion efficiency, not the fuel itself. In terms of ethanol, adding 5.6% as a blending additive for octane as is currently used, has transportation costs (primarily trucking) but for just 5.6% of the total. Moving to higher levels would impose a big bump because the trucking cost would be a very high percentage of the total - meaning capital costs for new pipelines. This higher ethanol percentage product is now sold close to a pipeline to an ethanol distiller, excluding certain boutique outlets. Ethanol also require a different pipeline construction / management due to the higher level of corrosion. As for hydrogen, this entails building an even more expensive change-over in infrastructure. This is Schwarzenegger's personal hallucination for California due to emissions, but I bet it falls off the radar the moment he leaves office. .