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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2990)	3/5/2004 5:58:09 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

" Geothermal is on such a small scale its not worth mentioning." Right now it is. Eventually it has the potential to be a major energy source The problem with geothermal is getting the energy to where it needs to be. Also, the fact that most geothermal sites are sites that the environmentalists would scream at having touched. Glacier National Park, for example, has plenty of geothermal energy to tap, but just listen to the cries if one ever tried to build a plant and transmission lines there.

To: TimF who wrote (2990)	3/6/2004 2:10:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7936

At an increase of demand of 2% per year, we have enough coal to last for another 149 years. I imagine 149 years from now we will have fusion power. If we don't we will have major advances in fission, geothermal and other sources, and possibly solar power satelites. That 2% increase is a little light......you might want to start figuring out the alternatives asap. Nuclear fission is pretty much out because we are running out of uranium and plutonium and there is no safe way to dispose of the radioactive waste. We are not running out of uranium. My sources tell me 30 years. What do your sources tell you? And the useable uranium we do have could be extended (if it was nessiary) by building breeder reactors. The radioactive waste issue is real but not a show stopper. The main problem is that current designs for nuclear power plants cost to much but cheaper designs (including ones that are passivly safe) are on the horizon. So what else is new? That argument [and trouble] exists with all alternative energy resources at the present time. Some one better do a push on the research. Geothermal is on such a small scale its not worth mentioning. Right now it is. Eventually it has the potential to be a major energy source What are you talking about........tapping the earth's core? As far as I know, the only close-to-the-surface geothermal is in the West and its no Iceland. The dislocation was caused by a lack of gov't regulation. " Many economists argue that the Great Depression was both caused and prolonged by government action. Richard Rahn wrote, "After the stock market crash in 1929, government revenues fell because of the drop in economic activity. The Hoover administration and the Congress increased taxes in a futile attempt to balance the budget. The tax increase only caused a further drop in economic activity, which enlarged the deficit even more. [1] Yeah, that was a conservative's approach to solving the problem. Although the initial trigger event may not have been the result of government action, many have argued that incorrect economic policies turned the stock market crash from a momentary crisis into a decade long depression. In particular two policies have been singled out by economists. May be so but that does not change the fact that it was a lack of gov't regulation which caused the problem initially. It was one of many examples where gov't intervention is needed to keep unbridled and unrepentant capitalists from running wild. Its one of the inherent problems with free market capitalism and why its not the best econ. system just one of the best right now. ted