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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Axxel who wrote (15442)	11/20/1998 7:34:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I feel I did my part for this energy conservation thing. My car of choice is a 1970 Buick Lesabre 455. But hey, I did my part by putting 8 to 1 pistons in it, replacing the 10 to 1's, so I could run this cruddy gas we get with out detonating too bad. How good you say?? 13 MPG . Speed? Not so's you would really know it if you lived in Montana. We do what we can. d

To: Axxel who wrote (15442)	11/20/1998 7:38:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

>Nuke energy is OK with me....we have to develop the tech to simply send the junk to the moon and use that as our dump...who needs the damn moon anyway? < :-) You musta watched the same bad sci-fi series i did twenty years ago... hey, isn't that next year?? (Seriously, sending nuke junk into orbit would be too pricey and dangerous. I forget how many dollars per kilo orbit costs, but it's worse than a thousand.) I think nuke energy would be a real option - if we can figure out a way to quench the heavy transuranic waste left over. But I realize my opinion in that regard is unpopular. I respect your thoughts regarding a gas tax. It is probably the most elegant way of trying to reduce carbon fuel use while letting the market dictate allocation. It ain't perfect, but... Personally, cheap or expensive gas would make no difference in how I drive. We recently had a speed limit increase in CA from 55 to 65. I hardly noticed. Folks were already speeding, and I was a right-laner to begin with. I've always enjoyed seeing how many miles I could tease out of a tankful. Spouse hated it - I would drive too slow for her liking, then get on some jerk's bumper cuz he was forcing me to shed precious forward momentum... then again didn't Jesus say "The jerks will always be with you." Or something. I would probably own a Diesel, but there are three barriers. 1) The Diesels available to us are heavy and/or expensive. Pickups and Mercedeseses. 2) Diesel fuel costs more per gallon than Super Unleaded. Go figure. 3) and most important to me: Diesels are inherently dirty currently. The pollution is the kind which doesn't seem to respond to catalytic remediation. I speak of particulates. I will wait for the technology to develop which cleans up Diesel motors without robbing them of their inherent thermodynamic efficiency. Imho the way to do this is to bind commercial and municipal operators (like the city buses!!!) to gasoline-style clean air standards. That'll drive clean diesel technology as briskly as USEPA and European laws did for gas motors in the Seventies/Eighties. A cheap Benz E-class Diesel station wagon (with leather and AC and lotsa chrome) would be nice too. While I'm dreaming, let's toss in world peace too <big grin> Cheers, LRR