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: Road Walker who wrote (183515)	2/24/2004 3:57:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574040

JF, I'm just stating the way it is right now, according to the link you provided. I don't have data on trends, so I'll take your word that solar panels will soon become economically viable on a cost/benefit basis. But that web site mentioned costs that are mitigated by rebates and tax breaks, and even then, it takes many years before the solar panels pay for themselves. I don't know where the rebates come from, but if they are also the product of tax breaks, then it seems like the government is doing one hell of a support job for solar technology. Granted, I'd rather spend the money on that than on, say, farm subsidies, but thus far it doesn't really seem like a self-sustaining alternative from a purely economic perspective. What about the decrease in pollution and subsequent health costs? I'm sure the decrease in pollution is measurable and worth going for, but the subsequent savings in health costs isn't very measurable to me. What if, as was reported earlier, Saudi Arabia can't increase their oil output, and oil goes to $60 a barrel over the next 17.5 years (or $100 a barrel)? What if there is true tunrmoil in the ME, and the oil supply to the rest of the world decreases by 60%? Well then that will pretty much answer the question of economic viability, no? Of course, the change and adaptation will be painful, but hey, we live in a fast-moving world, do we not? Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (183515)	2/24/2004 5:56:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574040

What if, as was reported earlier, Saudi Arabia can't increase their oil output, and oil goes to $60 a barrel over the next 17.5 years (or $100 a barrel)? What if there is true turmoil in the ME, and the oil supply to the rest of the world decreases by 60%? As things start to move in that direction solar (and even more so conservation) will make more sense. People respond to changing prices that's how a market system works. It's hell trying to be positive with solutions on this thread I don't think that there needs to be government directed (even if the direction is only tax incentives) solutions. Right now importing oil just makes sense. Any other alternative will result in much higher costs and do a lot of damage to the economy. And yes $60+ oil would do damage to the economy as well but it might not happen, at least not for a long time. There isn't much point in putting the hit on the economy now. If $1000 tax credit on solar powered homes would greatly reduce the hit from disruptions in the oil supply then maybe it might make some sense but it will do very little to reduce the hit of such a price increase. It won't hurt too much either but actually trying to not import oil would. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (183515)	2/24/2004 6:24:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574040

It's hell trying to be positive with solutions on this thread ("For God's sake you have to CLEAN the solar panels!!!"). As long as you stay negative it's much harder for these folks to take their cheap shots. John, its rather remarkable how some people see alternative fuels and conservation as some ugly conspiracy that must be resisted at all costs. It plays right into the attitudes of those corporate leaders who have an investment in maintaining the status quo. Originally, I said that we need to get focused and develop alternative fuels that are economical. One of the reasons that focus is not happening is because people would rather resist vs push for the change. That leads to our dependence and subsequent involvement in the affairs of countries whose internal affairs are pretty much in disarray. We end up spending billions fighting a war in Iraq when we could be spending billions on research to develop alternative fuels. Where is the logic? In many cases, those very same people don't seem to see the connection between tax cuts and budget deficits and a weak economy. ted