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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3787)	1/1/2009 4:43:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Putting money into expanding a new industry is an investment. Just as putting money into EXPANDING, or TRANSITIONING an EXISTING industry is an investment, especially when the economic and productive returns are easily measurable. The is ALREADY an existing infrastructure investment that has been paid to support fossil fueled vehicles, an infrastructure when you would choose to write off as a complete loss in favor of fully electric vehicles. Furthermore, an all electric vehicle economy will require even more expensive investments in power generation AND DISTRIBUTION. This will need to be done in a "NIMBY" environment where it's okay to build that infrastructure so long as it's not in "my back yard". But in contrast, a Natural Gas transition will utilize existing infrastructure/real estate, with gasoline storage replaced by pressurized gas bottles, which can then be utilized for hydrogen, if necessary. There will be no NIMBY factor because existing gas stations will be converted into multi-fuel facilities. In the meantime, further R&D on alternative energy generation (electrical) and production (agri/algae based petroleum) based upon sound economic and market based fundamentals will provide the foundation for when fossil fuels actually reach peak production. YOU are trying to FORCE a change to a, as yet, unproven technology with a lot of hidden costs you conveniently choose to ignore. Policing the world when the world is more capable of providing for its own security is a wastefully arrogant expense with no return. Actually, via our series of treaties and alliances, we've made the world safer and more stable. It was costly, but the alternative (another world war) would have been far costlier, and possibly democidal had a nuclear exchange occurred. Under that umbrella of mutual treaties/alliances, former enemies have been come democratic allies and strong economic partners (and sometimes competitors). Btw, I don't disagree that we should expect our allies to spend more on their own defense, but we also have to acknowledge that we have vital economic interests involved (especially in Europe and Asia) and those interests represent more than merely strategic resources, financial, or manufacturing issues. en.wikipedia.org As I stated previously, for your "electric world" to exist, you're going to require vast amounts of strategic materials from relatively unstable/undeveloped countries. So it's in our vital interests to preserve regional stability because we receive both tangible and intangible rewards from a global and integrated economic and political structure. We created the UN, we have provided the majority of it's financial support. Likewise, we created NATO, SEATO, and have been the primary force for advancing global free trade agreements. And the world has prospered under this "Pax Americana". Yet, people like you would have that economic order unraveled and fragmented into economic blocs. Oh.. and btw, I don't think opposing violent aggression between nations is "obsolete". But I guess maybe you think we can give them all a big hug and a "time out" and that will solve the problem. Hawk