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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (17416)	8/16/2002 1:12:40 PM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

uh maybe tom isn't digging deep enough on nuclear. i don't know what other problems british energy has, but it could very well be the problem is the british part and not the nuclear part of the company.

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (17416)	8/16/2002 3:09:55 PM
From: Louis V. Lambrecht	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Nuclear metldown - not so easy to apprehend. Situation in UK is essentially different from France (58 nuke power plants, French process, not the Westinghouse process). Further, UK has missed about every "privatization" plan. Seen a piece on TV yesterday and am starting a deeper DD on the number. Arguments were: Solar energy is fine, if it could provide energy for the lamp you switch at night. There is no sun, that's why you've turned the lamp on. Natural energy is fine, if you accept to reserve some acres (and a 15 feet wide trail between the turbines for maintenance). So, let's use hydrogen. With the problem that you most likely will produce hudrogen from natural gas, hence producing CO2 as by-product. So, back to renewable energy. You can use 24/24 365/365. Now, we must talk numbers: renewable energy -bio-mass- needs almost 10% of available land surface to produce 10 TeraWatts. Those 10% land actually are those use for the crops and agriculture. But the world needs 30 TeraWatts of energy. So, cropping land should increase fourfold to cover the needs. Then, nuke energy would not seem so silly anymore, but two problems again: uranium ore could suffice for 10-30 years and then would be gone. Fusion could be an answer, but progress is very slow (due to inacceptance) and could take more than 30 years to become economically viable. Or, you should switch to plutonium, but then with the major problem of having bonb-abilities made available to any country. Not simple.