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 (183590)	3/3/2004 4:38:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574004

The whole point is to "gradually" reduce the use (and subsequent price) of oil starting NOW. For both economic and political reasons. There is no leadership pushing that agenda, and currently we are consuming ~25% of the worlds oil production. If the "leadership pushing that agenda", is only a matter of asking people to consider alternative energy sources or reducing energy use then I have no problem with the idea. If instead it is a scheme of taxes and subsidies to push the idea I would be against it. Solar production from all sources in the US has increased 10 fold since 1993 to about 300 megawatts, enough to power about 300,000 homes. A drop in the bucket. But if you increased that another 10 fold, you are starting to have an significant impact. Another ten fold on top and you have a major part of the solution. I don't think another 100 fold is at all likely. Solar power has moved in to and continues to move in to the areas where it makes most sense. Also you will get some adopters who think its a good idea or just cool and will go for it even when it doesn't make economic sense, but a 10 fold increase is not going to happen soon and a hundred fold increase probably isn't going to happen at all. Tim