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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (102506)	5/15/2001 10:42:12 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

>>Seriously, I can't see that far ahead ... not sure anybody can.<< I can.:) My crystal ball is cloudy, but clear enough to read the writing on the wall. "Cost-effective" doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Frequently it's cheaper to spend more money now rather than down the road. The years of use you suggest are left don't take into account the fact that the rest of the world will increase its use of fossil fuel in the future. We're going to run out sooner than you expect, and then what? Your lovely grids won't run on hydro - there isn't enough - without fossil fuel it's nuclear or nothing for the huge grids that empower half a continent, but I suspect you knew that already. It will be presented as a fait accompli. Personally, if it is inevitable, because there is not an unlimited amount of fossil fuel, I think we should consider saving fossil fuel for other purposes - like lubricants. Natural gas is far better suited for heat than generation of electricty. Further - history teaches us that redundancy is important, too, and so is decentralization. Dependence on one source for anything is risky. The laws of economics have not been repealed for your industry or any other. They aren't as immutable as the laws of physics over the short run, but over the long run, they are. They really are.