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 (184673)	3/14/2004 9:32:22 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573947

Ted Re..It takes huge quantities of tar sands and shale to make any type of dent in our oil consumption........ Ridiculous, it is said, there are over 200 yrs worth of energy supplies in the tar sands, and shale oil deposits in the US and Canada. With nuclear, we are running out of U-235 and breeder reactors are too unstable. Who says we need breeder reactors? There is enough nuclear materials to last us over 200 yrs. Fusion is likely to be developed within 50. Conservation is our best hope at the present time but we don't have a gov't committed to that approach. Conservation is one approach, but hardly the only viable one. Nuclear, short term, is my bet for electricity, with the long term odds on fusion. Fuel cells, with a new energy source, such as hydrocarbons converted by bacteria, from waste, and algae, and seaweed, would be my oil replacement bet. Heat pumps, with a new lower temp. refrigrant, would be my bet for home heating, however fuel cells could have an impact there also.