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.

Technology Stocks : Energy Conversion Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4057)	9/23/1999 10:52:00 AM
From: fred whitridge	Respond to of 8393

NYTimes circuit section today contains an excellent piece explaining CD-RW. It is on line at: nytimes.com

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4057)	9/23/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: jacq	Respond to of 8393

I just read that Budget is putting in another EV rental station somewhere in California. check the following URL for quite a number of good ideas and locations where ECD's technology could be put to good use but isn't at present because the batteries are still too expensive and no one is biting the bullet to ramp up yet. members.aol.com

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4057)	9/23/1999 4:41:00 PM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8393

Fred, Was that ponytail wisecrack directed at me? I would definitely pass up the Jaguar to drive the Ev1, if I had the chance. One would think that the Budget at the DFW airport would be an ideal place to place them. My son lives in Dallas now, so I would have an excuse to go there to try one out. Del

To: fred whitridge who wrote (4057)	9/29/1999 10:57:00 AM
From: Futurist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 8393

From the Global Futures Bulletin: One of many reminders of why the work of companies such as ECD is important: FOCUS ON MATERIALS, ENERGY, WASTE AND LAND If the question of whether it is possible to have economic growth without an increase in throughput of materials and energy remains contentious and irresolvable, the whole question could be left aside in favor of focusing on consumption levels per se - ie whether or not the per capita levels are increasing in terms of - consumption of materials - consumption of energy - production of wastes - area of land co-opted and whether all these levels can be - stabilised - reduced and re-stabilised at sustainable levels Per capita consumption of energy continues to rise on average in the OECD. Energy consumption per capita/an, kg oil equivalent. Source: World Bank [1] 1973 1983 1993 Australia 4320 4668 5316 Austria 2894 2865 3277 Belgium 4766 4120 4989 Canada 6827 7122 7821 Denmark 3938 3271 3861 Finland 4572 4893 5635 France 3406 3397 4031 Germany 4319 4304 4170 Iceland 4291 4289 5025 Italy 2382 2333 2697 Japan 2884 2809 3642 Luxembourg 12776 7764 9879 Netherlands 4660 3978 4533 New Zealand 2711 3035 4299 Norway 3839 4536 5096 Spain 1504 1818 2373 Sweden 4838 4983 5385 Switzerland 3139 3284 3491 UK 3946 3417 3718 US 8146 7175 7918 up up Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland down up (higher) Austria, Belgium, France, Iceland, Italy, Japan, down up (lower) Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK, US down down Germany Land use Of the 13 billion hectares of the Earth's land surface area, at least 8.8 billion have been expropriated by humans [2]. Between 70%-95% of the Earth's species are contained in the world's disappearing tropical forests [3]. The area of tropical forest remaining is 1.4b ha [4] (another estimate suggests 2.0b ha compared to 2.9b in 1800 [5] ) and disappearing at ~10m ha/an. An extra 18.8m ha/an of cropland is required each year to feed the extra 94m/an population increase plus the increasing per capita food consumption [6]. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) endorsed the goal that all countries protect at least 12% of their land area for natural habitat. The percentage of total land area which is currently protected is estimated at around 2.6% [7]. In one dismal example of human co-option of land, in the period 1978-1987 Paraguay converted 97.2% of its remaining natural habitat to cropland and pastureland [8]. Even if we measure consumption rates of energy and materials, some analysts will argue that it is possible to increase per capita consumption of energy and materials without increasing the impact on the environment or diminishing the natural capital base, by switching to new processes and technologies; for example: - if recycling triples the useful life of a material, one might expect that people could consume three times the amount of that material without increasing environmental impact (or almost, after making allowances for energy etc used in recycling). - if an industry, which discharges nutrients into waterways degrading the aquatic ecosystems, begins to redirect the nutrient discharge to cropland (industrial ecology), production may be increased somewhat with no new net impact on the environment. - switching to renewable energy sources might allow greater per capita consumption of energy compared to energy use based on fossil fuels for a given level of environmental impact. - if the longevity and toxicity of wastes are reduced, this may allow for an increase in waste production (to match a given level of net environmental impact). - improved environmental planning and management of co-opted land may allow for reductions in habitat reserves (eg we may need to reduce co-opted land area by only 25% rather than say a hypothetical 50% reduction now needed to maintain current levels of biodiversity). While these arguments may have some merit and need to be explored more fully, indicators of per capita materials and energy consumption, as well as per capita land use and waste production, can provide a good picture of which direction we are heading. (Ascertaining sustainable levels is also a necessary but far more complex task).