--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Motie, > > I meant more to describe what we have against us and how it works, not to > go into serious technical details. But since you are bringing it up, it > might be a both fruitful and interesting discussion. Maybe your initiative > to bring this to a serious discussion can lead to some good suggestions on > how it could be designed, changed and influenced.
I am open to suggestions. Personal efforts have so far proven unfruitful. > > > > > > >I think I can foresee a problem with multi-fueled engines. They > >would, by necesity, be a 'compromise'. Not as efficient when running > >on Diesel as an engine designed specifically for Diesel, and not as > >efficient on gasoline as one built for gasoline only. Manufacturers > >are already hard pressed to meet fuel-economy/emmissions standards. > > I foresee also several classes of multi fuel engines. At least two as > today, high and low compression engines. If we do that, we can at least see > to it that fuel systems etc. can support the fuels in the classes. Is there a way this can be done in a timely fashion? How many years of mandated testing will be needed to meet the objections of all the various environmental agencies and groups? > > > > > > > > > >It isn't tax incentives or subsidies that are needed. It is the > >burdensome regulations that prevent any meaningful development. I > >don't mean to imply that the regulations should be ignored, but that > >bureaucrats should be much more timely in the processing of them. 18 > >months for an air-quality permit is excessive! The permitting process > >is also in a consecutive order. You can't apply for all the needed > >Permits concurrently. By the time one gets half way through the > >permit process, either the initial permits have expired, or the > >qualifying standards have changed. Investors are very difficult to > >find/keep in this scenario. > > This must be done better. Roadblocks and corruption. I don't have an answer as to how it can be done 'better'. I made a suggestion that Permit applications should have a timelimit to be denied/disapproved with cause/reason for disproval, otherwise one can proceed with the assumption that it has not been denied so therefore must be approved. I have never received a response to the idea. > > > Politically connected entities routinely proceed without permits, > >and get away with it. It's cheaper to pay fines and penalties than it > >is to wait for the permits. Non-politically connected entities go to > >jail for it. > > Systematic protection by corruption Is there a viable solution to this? > > > > > > > The above seems to be the route in Europe and if not it should be. > > > > > > I would achieve the following, > > > > > > 1. My party had to stop talking to me, in order to get the > >important funding. > > > > > > 2. I would not have enough money to be reelected. > > > > > > 3. It would not be a job opening, when I left politics. > > > > >I believe you have an accurate grasp of the current situation! > > Thank you, but how to get a change? That seems to the question of the day/week/year/decade! > > > > > > > Hakan Motie ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
