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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127926)	3/31/2004 2:16:33 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"And likewise with windpower (never mind the likely impact on wildlife migration routes, or despoiling some very scenic mountain and valley areas with huge windmills)." My wife and I bought a part of 2 windmills. We compete with each other with respect to who earns most on their mill. so far I'm slightly ahead, earned 15.9% per year after taxes. When I go and look at "my" mill I see a working model of a part of the future of energy and I hear the sound of the wings as they rotate. They say, for each rotation, 3 kr., 3 kr., 3 kr. and as I walk away in the beautiful Danish country side where the mill is located, I smile.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (127926)	3/31/2004 9:56:10 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am arguing the long term and you are arguing the short term. Maybe because I have to live in the here and now, not some amorphous future utopia that defies basic economic logic. Short term and long term planning are both important. If we had planned for the long term 30 years ago the short term problems may not exist. And every economically viable alternative energy proposal seems to find some special interest group that manages to block it... Their answer is always to "conserve, conserve, and preserve (caribou, wilderness, coastlines.. etc). Or it's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude.. Conservation should be included in an overall energy strategy. You can still drive your SUV and I my pickup. Same result...just more efficiency. Our leaders must rise above the special interests and do what is best for the nation. This is particularly important with energy usage as it effects our national security and our global competitiveness.. We have a viable alternative energy program underway, and I'm all for it.. Hydrogen. However, until someone tells me where we're going derive the cheap and available electricity, as well as the expanded transmission capacity, needed to produce hydrogen in volume, it will remain a mere fantasy. Everyone wants the benefit, but no one wants to face any inconvenience. The cheap energy will come from solar cells..you heard it here first:) We need good leadership to make it happen. As for solar, have you ever contemplated the amount of material required to produce a comparable electricity production facility to a nuclear plant? Have you thought about the geographic "footprint" required to array all of those structures? Have you thought about the fact that, at its best, solar has a 12 hour energy production cycle (related to available sunlight)? The increased geographic footprint would be nil if the cells were placed on existing roof tops. The impact on the transmission system would be less than that of nuclear as solar is decentralized. The biggest demand for juice generally coincides with the times of day the sun is available...air conditioning demand. Any excess power is returned to the grid and used by others. In the off hours energy is taken from the grid which is supplied with fossil fuels. We will not replace fossil fuels. The goal is to make them last longer. If we replace 10 percent of the energy produced from fossil fuels...then we use 10 percent less fossil fuel...lower demand for oil equals lower cost...the supply and demand thing. Passive solar, or solar designed to augment individual power usage is a great idea. But it will never be sufficient to supplant our need for fossil fuels. Agreed. Is that a reason to not aggressively develop solar technology? But in the meantime, the reality of our short term situation will continue to slap us around until we pay attention. Agreed. But is that a reason to not deal with the long term? The short term problem has been with us a looong time. As for risking our 18 year olds, I guess you (and many others) are going to have to ask yourselves whether you are more willing to risk them now, as they attempt to create some initial step towards regional change in the mid-east, or wait until this world is involved in a far greater conflagration (and likely world depression) after the Islamic Militants have managed to successfully dominate and control the nations of the region. We have to risk our eighteen year olds as we failed to address our long term problems decades ago. We should chose our battles wisely. Aggressively targeting terror is a worthy cause. We need to keep our eye on the ball. We are deep into our reserves just fighting one mean dictator. We need to chose battles we can win decisively. Our failure to win a swift victory in Iraq is not a sign of strength. And the children of the eighteen year olds? The long term planning is for them. We need to deal with both.