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 for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sea Otter who wrote (473250)	2/21/2012 3:19:40 PM
From: Maurice Winn	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

SO, you are a commie anti-CO2ist. You are NOT a free market "gal". A subsidy or special favours tax credit is not "free market". Solyndra is one of your "let's get the next big thing going with opm" failure stories, along with swarms of wind turbines cluttering the landscape and ethanol subsidies costing $billions. < Encourage and fund alternatives (much like we've encouraged and funded oil exploration, through tax credits, subsidies etc), encourage R&D, and gradually encourage marketable alternatives. I'm about as hard core market-based as a gal can get ... > What's that little "etc" for? More $billions? Surely "tax credits, subsidies" is enough opm without etc money too. I will fund alternatives when I see an economic advantage in doing so. I will not need you getting in the way. With oil at $100 a barrel, it's getting tempting. In fact, somebody who actually knows how to do those things has proposed that he and I get on with doing a battery-swap/electric-car business. This crowd is already off and running on just that: betterplace.com But vehicle design is crucial too. I think though that there is so much oil that the Otto and Diesel cycles will head us off at the pass. Engine makers have done an amazing job of technological development for 100 years and remain competitive. With megatons of methane now gushing at low cost, it can be made into methanol and gasoline. Heavy gunk from Athabasca or Venezuela could be brewed up with methane to make nice transport fuels [the hydrogen from the methane shared among the carbons in the gunk]. Since there's no problem with CO2, there's no need to find alternatives to avoid CO2 emissions. Peak People will be here long before there's any CO2 problem. Technological revolution will continue to reduce CO2 emissions per economic output. Nobody buys fuel for the fun of it. Everyone tries to get more bang for their buck, miles for their gallon, less mess in their motor and filth out the exhaust pipe. You are hoping for some pork barrel shovel-ready money to come your way to fund "alt-energy" alternatives: <Either way, the lack of governmental action points out the level of dysfunction in our system. > No, the lack of governmental action in giving you money points out that they are not totally hopeless, though they have already poured umpty$billions down the alt-energy drain. Not only is CO2 not a problem, it's a good thing. It feeds plants, accelerating growth and crop production, it reduces irrigation requirements [you have probably heard of the supposed water shortage world wide], it feeds algae in the oceans [food chain] and if we are really lucky [which we obviously aren't since the temperature increase over a century is small despite fantastically huge efforts on producing CO2 ] then the 2020 reglaciation/Little Ice Age will be stopped. Maybe without the CO2 we'd already be in the big chill. Mqurice