The real danger of allowing GM and Ford to go bankrupt . . .

(as that is where both are headed)

If the U.S. economy is to remain intact into the 22nd century, we will have
to convert from a oil-based economy to a (most likely) hydrogen-based
economy. Oil is running out, period. We need to use what is left for
manufacturing and lubrication of vehicles that do not run on gasoline (or
any other oil-based product). The U.S. still has an ideal infrastructure to
support the real innovation that it will take to convert all gasoline
powered vehicles (don't forget airplanes) into something powered by a
resource that will last longer than a few decades. (not necessarily
limitless or renewable, but something that will last longer than the
remaining oil reserves)

We still need major automobile manufacturers who have their main corporate
offices located on U.S. soil. Why? Because no other country will be
motivated to solve the problem of (oil reserves disappearing FAST) before
the U.S. will. When oil starts disappearing, no new company will have the
infrastructure needed to tackle the problem (its scale will SQUASH any
would-be upstart). Our best hope is to convert huge domestic automobile
factories to produce vehicles of all types that do not run on gasoline. In
fact, this may be our ONLY hope.

But if GM and Ford both go bankrupt before this happens, well, I guess we'll
all starve to death. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. -Dave

In article ws.net>,
Ted B. > wrote:
>(as that is where both are headed)
>
>If the U.S. economy is to remain intact into the 22nd century, we will have
>to convert from a oil-based economy to a (most likely) hydrogen-based
>economy.

Thank you for discrediting yourself in the very first sentence.
Hydrogen? Where's it going to come from? It takes more useful energy to
produce it than burning it releases. Besides, it's a bitch to store
and transport.
--
Darth Tel: "You can defeat Emperor Gates. He has forseen it. Join me,
and together we will rule the Galaxy as father and son!"

Steve Chipwalker, hanging on by his fingernails: "Sure thing, Pop. Just pull
me up, give me a laptop, and we'll go axe your boss"

-- Megahertz Wars, Episode V, "Finale".

Ted B. wrote:

> We still need major automobile manufacturers who have their main corporate
> offices located on U.S. soil. Why? Because no other country will be
> motivated to solve the problem of (oil reserves disappearing FAST) before
> the U.S. will.

What do you mean 'no other country'?!

How about Japan and the European Union? They are far ahead of us in
hybrid cars already. Most likely, they are leading fuel cell research
as well. Meanwhile, our government is squandering our money in Iraq
and other dumb military adventures.

> Thank you for discrediting yourself in the very first sentence.
> Hydrogen? Where's it going to come from? It takes more useful energy to
> produce it than burning it releases. Besides, it's a bitch to store
> and transport.

Well it's impossible to produce oil, so we've got to switch to something.
If you know of a better alternative than hydrogen that is NOT a fossil fuel
(because we are running out of all of those, FAST), let's hear it. I'm
listening. I'm not just being sarcastic here. It's not beyond the realm of
possibility that someone on usenet might have a truly original idea that
would work.

As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid condensed
forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
hydrogen. It shouldn't be that hard to find. If you live in the U.S., just
head East or West. Eventually, you will be drowning in condensed
ydrogen. -Dave

"223rem" > wrote in message
m...
> Ted B. wrote:
>
>> We still need major automobile manufacturers who have their main
>> corporate offices located on U.S. soil. Why? Because no other country
>> will be motivated to solve the problem of (oil reserves disappearing
>> FAST) before the U.S. will.
>
> What do you mean 'no other country'?!
>
> How about Japan and the European Union? They are far ahead of us in
> hybrid cars already. Most likely, they are leading fuel cell research
> as well. Meanwhile, our government is squandering our money in Iraq
> and other dumb military adventures.

I'm not saying no other country COULD do it. Of course other countries
could. None will be motivated to do it as quickly as the U.S. will, though.
The loss of oil is going to hit the U.S. the hardest. Thus, even if the
U.S. is behind the learning curve of alternate technologies, it is still
likely that the U.S. will find the most viable solution first. -Dave

In article ws.net>,
Ted B. > wrote:
>> Thank you for discrediting yourself in the very first sentence.
>> Hydrogen? Where's it going to come from? It takes more useful energy to
>> produce it than burning it releases. Besides, it's a bitch to store
>> and transport.
>
>Well it's impossible to produce oil, so we've got to switch to something.

Doesn't change the fact that hydrogen isn't an alternative.
>
>As for hydrogen . . . well, it can be stored in solid or liquid condensed
>forms. Most of the planet is covered with the liquid form of condensed
>hydrogen.

No, it's covered with the liquid form of hydrogen ASH. Already-burned
hydrogen. Stuff's useless as an energy source.
--
Darth Tel: "You can defeat Emperor Gates. He has forseen it. Join me,
and together we will rule the Galaxy as father and son!"

Steve Chipwalker, hanging on by his fingernails: "Sure thing, Pop. Just pull
me up, give me a laptop, and we'll go axe your boss"

-- Megahertz Wars, Episode V, "Finale".

Ted B. wrote:
> (as that is where both are headed)
>
> If the U.S. economy is to remain intact into the 22nd century, we will have
> to convert from a oil-based economy to a (most likely) hydrogen-based
> economy.

Fork hydrogen. Going to bio-diesel is cheaper and can be done right
now. But the big thing is getting rid of the gas guzzlers.

In article ws.net>,
"Ted B." > wrote:

> "223rem" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Ted B. wrote:
> >
> >> We still need major automobile manufacturers who have their main
> >> corporate offices located on U.S. soil. Why? Because no other country
> >> will be motivated to solve the problem of (oil reserves disappearing
> >> FAST) before the U.S. will.
> >
> > What do you mean 'no other country'?!
> >
> > How about Japan and the European Union? They are far ahead of us in
> > hybrid cars already. Most likely, they are leading fuel cell research
> > as well. Meanwhile, our government is squandering our money in Iraq
> > and other dumb military adventures.
>
> I'm not saying no other country COULD do it. Of course other countries
> could. None will be motivated to do it as quickly as the U.S. will, though.
> The loss of oil is going to hit the U.S. the hardest. Thus, even if the
> U.S. is behind the learning curve of alternate technologies, it is still
> likely that the U.S. will find the most viable solution first. -Dave

Have you noticed the huge oil reserves Japan has? You haven't? Hmmmm...
I wonder why that is...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Ted B. wrote:
> > (as that is where both are headed)
> >
> > If the U.S. economy is to remain intact into the 22nd century, we will have
> > to convert from a oil-based economy to a (most likely) hydrogen-based
> > economy.
>
> Fork hydrogen. Going to bio-diesel is cheaper and can be done right
> now. But the big thing is getting rid of the gas guzzlers.

Is that what you're using to fuel that oil-burning beater of yours?

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:09:37 -0700, Scott en Aztl=E1n , said the following=
=20
in rec.autos.driving...=20

> Don't forget: this is America. If there's a market niche to be filled,
> you can bet your bottom Euro some entrepreneur(s) will step in to fill
> it, just as Ransom E. Olds did in 1987.

*1987*???? Was the gentlemanly Mr. Olds perchance a time traveller=20
also? ;-)