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: Road Walker who wrote (6575)	3/26/2009 2:38:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Say they improved 100X in speed, so instead of a taking 10 seconds to update a spreadsheet they took 1/10 of a second. With PCs such measurements are complex. They improved more than 100 fold in raw speed, but the tasks (even a simple one like updating a spreadsheet) aren't identical. It takes more computing operations to update a spreadsheet on current computers than on old ones, even if the spreadsheet isn't any bigger, and is set up as simply as possible. Also PCs today can do things that where impossible on older computers. If the older computer simply couldn't do it, than you have not measurement of time it takes to perform the operation to compare with the time taken by modern computers. And before you argue think of what people who just bought those first $5K PCs would think if you told them that eventually a much better one could be bought for less than $500. They would have thought you were nuts. Maybe they would say your nuts, maybe not. By the time of the first IBM PC, computers have already gotten much cheaper. Also if we assume that they would have said "your nuts", thats not a very relevant assumption. Many times when people say "your nuts", they are right, at least to the extent that the claim their calling nuts is wrong (whether or not its actually crazy). The fact that some people would have been wrong in one case, doesn't mean people won't be wrong in another case later on. Still I wouldn't say its impossible or "your nuts" to the claim that the batteries (or fuel cells, or ultra-caps or any other storage method) for a full scale electric car might not eventually go down to $1600 (at least in real 2009 dollars, if not in nominal dollars after future inflation). I would just say its not something you can count on. And not just because people might put effort and money in other directions, but even if we get a very extensive and expensive effort to improve in this specific area. "It happened with something else", is at best a sign that its possible, not a sign that it certain or even likely. I'm not sure I'd say its unlikely, just that its something that may never happen, or may take a very long time to happen. And even with $1600 battery packs electric cars might still be more expensive than gasoline powered cars (just nor nearly as much more expensive), and would still be inferior in a number of important ways unless we also have serious breakthroughs on density and charge time. I'm not really a long term skeptic on electric cars. In the very long run I seem some form of them dominating. But I'm a major skeptic in the short run.