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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (183206)	2/20/2004 8:02:29 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1576330

Ted, re: I didn't say this had to be done overnite but rather, we need to get serious asap. Actually, there are a lot of energy production and conservation methods that are ready or almost ready for prime time. One is solar. It's finally on the cusp of being economically efficient (cost less than benefit). You get a couple of million households not only using solar for their energy needs, but feeding the power back into the grid when it's not needed, and you have a real benefit. You have electric and hybrid autos that consume less than 1/2 the energy than the typical family car. Why not encourage usage with significant tax breaks, and social pressure? If you can get these into volume production, then you have a winning economic and energy benefit. Nuclear energy is a part of the solution. But we have to get past the "not in my backyard" syndrome. The solution to the energy situation is incremental. 100 million baby steps. There is no magic technology that's going to make us independent. That doesn't fit well with the US psyche, but unfortunately it's the way it will work. It will take a real leader, a JFK or a Reagan, to get us on the right track. Right now, folks will send their kids to war before they will give up their SUV's. There has to be a heartfelt change in values. It's obvious the oil guys in the White House are NOT going to be the guys to lead us to a solution. They think more, and more, and more oil is the future, regardless of the (economic and human) cost. My 2 cents, John

To: tejek who wrote (183206)	2/21/2004 9:32:21 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576330

Ted Re...Did I say the fears were rational? People are afraid of a Chernobyl meltdown in the US. Out here in the West, this is not an unreasonable fear given the fact we are prone to earthquakes. It is an unreasonable fear, given that the new Generation IV designs can't melt down, even with a total loss of coolant. You are describing something that already has been engineered out of the new designs. It is uncomprehensible to me that some people accept the premature death of, up to 10,000 deaths from pollution a yr, yet spread fear about a possible meltdown, which can't happen, with the new designs. I don't disagree but I think there is not the receptive audience for your proposal to overcome the threats presented by a terrorist attack. Actually they are debating on whether to end the moratorium on nuclear construction, in Wi. right now. We will see. My bet is that, seeing as only natural gas fired plants meet EPA standards, and there is a real concern of shortages of Nat. gas, for home heating; that nuclear will make a comeback. I didn't say this had to be done overnite but rather, we need to get serious asap. I didn't think you could offer an attractive alternative. Generation III designs are aleady approved by the NRC, and there are test generation IV plants being set up as we speak. And the cost should come in at around 1.7 to 2.3 cents per kilowatt, competitive with coal fired, and cheaper than nat gas plants, assuming nat gas prices keep going up. If you are serious about saying it is time to get serious, then you should recognize, that we have to go with what is ready for prime time now. 20 yrs from now is too late. don't think that's defeatist talk Unwinnable is the very definition of defeatist talk. Here is the definition in the dictionary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 entries found for defeatist. de·feat·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-ftzm) n. Acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- de·featist adj. & n. [Download or Buy Now] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. defeatist n : someone who is resigned to defeat [syn: negativist] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying a war is unwinnable is being resigned to defeat. What else would you call it? Winning them is not impossible but its not very likely. At best, a truce is called somewhere down the road. Hogwash. Most rebellions end up in failure. You only hear about the successful ones. Saddam put down a rebellion, right after the gulf war, when he was at his weakest. Yes, fighting insurgents require different tactics, and different weapons, and different types of intelligence. So. Technology has improved, and will continue to improve, especially in the intel arena, such that rebellions someday,will be just as easy to defeat as a regular army.

To: tejek who wrote (183206)	2/21/2004 10:56:54 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576330

tejek, re:People are afraid of a Chernobyl meltdown in the US. Out here in the West, this is not an unreasonable fear given the fact we are prone to earthquakes. Perhaps if we treat the core like an ICBM facility and harden it underground, terrorism from an airplance would be less of an issue. The entire room is then mounted on large springs to isolate from quakes - as they have been considering since Kobe and Northridge. Snippet from an article regarding lessons from past quakes, Oxford Engineering society. Two ways of meeting this rigorous challenge are currently being researched and adopted. In the first, base isolation, the main structure is positioned on rubber springs so that it remains static as the ground moves. This technique had been in occasional use for some years before the earthquakes but the events at Northridge and Kobe have given the idea new impetus, although it can only be incorporated economically for new buildings. We need to do something about the waste, I don't think earthquakes or terrorism pose much of a problem in comparison.