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: Hank Scorpio who wrote (486810)	5/12/2012 7:00:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793928

Big Oil isn't solving the "fuel economy problem" in Europe. Big Oil can only tinker around the fringes of fuel economy, which comes nearly entirely from vehicle design, which in Europe is forced by heavy taxation on vehicle fuel. Making a really great diesel fuel does not add much to fuel economy, especially when the fuel economy is measured in cents per kilometre rather than kilometres per litre. As Lindy pointed out, tiny vehicles need less fuel than dirty great SUVs which are so popular in the USA. "Compact" cars are about twice the size of what Europeans would call "compact". The Fiat Bambina would fit in the boot, aka trunk, of "compact" cars in the USA. [That is an exaggeration - I don't really think they would fit in the boot]. BP Oil [and other Big Oils] spent a lot of effort [aka money] trying to come up with hot-stuff fuels in my day, including all sorts of alternative fuels including sheep fat mixed with methanol. Simply plonking some heavy ends into the fuel does make it cheaper and get more kilometres per litre, though not necessarily kilometres per kilogram. But there is no magic in thermodynamics and fuels have been scrutinized for efficiency improvement for a century. There is no problem to solve: < In essence, big oil is solving the fuel economy problem for us. > The cost of fuel and vehicles is simply another technological limitation which some people find economic to do something about. There is no need for governments or "the public" to treat fuel economy as a public issue. The economics of toasters, inductive cooking, walking, bicycles, buses, airliners, are similar problems to "the fuel economy problem" in cars. But we don't need government departments and public hand-wringing about those "problems". People just buy things that most suit them and that's all that's needed. Other people see what people buy and have a go at inventing something better if they think there's a dollar in it. Governments got on the light-bulb bandwagon to save us from CO2. The hot air generated from discussing light bulbs exceeds the value of the savings in electricity and creates more global warming than the CO2 saved. It seems I wasn't "projecting" or disambiguating in schizoid supra-affective paranoid association. You in fact think that "Big Oil solves the fuel economy problem" for us. Thanks for the free psychoanalysis [but I think the value of your psychoanalysis is not quite as valuable as your understanding of Big Oil]. It's not just "green nuts" who get wound up about oil. It's a popular delusion with many people wanting the government to do something about $4 a gallon oil and the evil-doing speculators who are forcing everyone to pay money for the American birthright. Look at the ignorant drooling mania [including here in Lindy's stream] about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Everyone gets to show how upset they are as a badge of honour. Barack's sidekick said they had their boot on the neck of BP and Barack did not express concern about such an expression. You had better watch your own necks. When politicians start putting their boots on necks, remember the old expression, "First Obama came for Tony Hayward and Big Oil, but those bastards deserved it. Then they came for ..." Mqurice