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: hmaly who wrote (184695)	3/14/2004 10:40:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573954

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. Yes, the oil shale stretches from CO to Alberta. The tar sands from central Alberta to the Artic Circle. Three oil shale plants were built in the US and abandoned by the 90s. It took huge amounts of shale to make just a little oil. The process is hardly cost competitive. In addition, it left big gaps in the landscape and large mounds of crushed rock after the kerogen had been squeezed out. 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. Fission uses pure U-235......best estimates are there is a 35-40 year supply. Breeders would lengthen that usage period considerably but they are unstable and no one wants to fool with them. Fusion is likely to be developed within 50. If that happens, and its a big 'if', that would be good news. 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. The facts don't support your position re nukes. 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. Yes, all of those are doable but we need to really focus on them now. Japan and other countries continue to be way ahead of us on alternative fuels. They know what its like to be short. Ford should not have to buy its hybrid engines from Toyota.