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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (2699)	6/26/2003 8:05:07 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4907

We'll just have to fork over the dough for higher cost high efficiency coal fired plants. There is lots of coal left. Isn't better than 50% of US power generation still coal anyway ? that sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately as you know we just spent $100 billion to build 200,000MW of gas-fired plants around the country. i don't know anything about how clean these "higher cost high efficiency" coal fired plants are. do you know? if you could get coal to burn clean, it seems the US would be in much better shape. i have read we have a 300-year supply of coal. i feel much more comfortable having a 300-year supply of something and let the people of 2300 figure out some new energy supply, than stuck here with a petroleum-dependent supply that is already in the process of peaking and having the people of 2013 figure out what to do. there was an article in the WSJ recently which stated that various areas of Pennsylvania are now uninhabitable thanks to collapsed coal mines. every now and then some apparently stable land just sinks 50 or 100 feet into the earth. bummer... still, it would be rather difficult to run cars on coal. i guess we can all drive those cute EVs made by Honda and fuel up every 75 miles...