Reply #14: Who said it was in the black? [View All]

The thread was a dismissal of such technology as silly, when it actually utilizes otherwise wasted energy. It's more efficient than simple internal combustion power alone, and I haven't said anything other than that.

Why do competing technologies have to be fantasmagorically better to even warrant a look?

This is like arguments against secondary smoke focusing on dispelling assumptions about deaths at its hand; does something have to kill to be bad? Does something have to be a fanciful perpetual motion machine to be worthy of superseding clunky technology?

This is like Junior's dismissal of treaties as being flawed. Everthing's flawed. Life is by degrees. Fear and dismissal of advancements based on their lack of perfection is silly.

Hybrid technology is a better utilization of resources, but I've never heard anyone reputable claim that it made more energy than it used. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics, yet I'd bet Newton would approve of this technology as a sensible stopgap at this point.

Only a GOP accountant would attempt to show that this was a worse system of gasoline propulsion than an engine that continually runs with no ability to utilize kinetic energy. What the hell are you talking about?