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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (50435)	5/25/2004 12:49:54 PM
From: Toby Zidle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Maurice, I don't think my arguments sway minds here. Nor do I think that clean-coal burning is a bad idea. But I do believe that those posting here have trivialized some very significant obstacles, particularly environmental impact issues for mining projects sited in the U.S. The record speaks for itself. There hasn't been a major coal-mining project that has cleared regulatory hurdles in decades. For these clean-coal plants, we need appropriate raw materials and we're not developing them. Technical solutions are wonderful, but they remain as lab projects until they can be implemented on a large, commercial scale. It's fine, too, to point to progress in France or Venezuela, but until you solve the coal pollution problem in the U.S., you haven't made a dent in the world-wide problem. You can talk academically about what research has achieved, but you have to look at it practically. What is being built in the U.S.? Solutions are not being implemented, nor are they going to be. In the name of 'environmental protection' (ironically), those coals that underlie your solutions can not be mined. The rest of my comments only relate to specific statements that have been made, generally to show bad assumptions. For instance, you write, "There's heaps of coal and heavy crude oil [such as Orinoco]." That's 100% correct. However, the heavy crude and most of the coal are not clean-burning and are not suitable feedstocks for the type of power plants that you want to build. Further, Venezuela (i.e., the Orinoco) is very protective of its oil industry. It's the basis for their entire economy. They won't allow more than research-scale projects on coal deposits there. "There's a cost to disposing of waste products, but at $40 a barrel of oil, the coal people don't have a problem doing so and still making money." $40 is not a stable, long-range price, and coal people are not using it in their construction economics. $40 oil is a 'bubble' price. Remember how the high price of natural gas nearly broke the California economy? A bubble price. When QCOM stock hit $300 four years ago, analysts projected a $1000 target. Where is QCOM now? Between $30 and $70 over the past 52 weeks. $300 was a bubble price. Oil won't stay at the $40 that new coal plants will need for disposal and other costs. Long-term, more likely to be $25 - $30. "Once a coal power station is built, and an old oil-fired station is closed, oil has to go down a long way to get the business back." No, not such a long way. My analog to this is the alternative-fuel car. There are more cars on the street powered by CNG, electricity, or hydrogen cell battery than ever before. But there are also more cars on the road powered by gasoline engine than ever before. Gasoline is losing market share, but not numbers. For every new coal-powered plant built, look for at least one new conventional power station. "Acid rain? Ah that was a good scare for the 1980s. We don't hear about it lately." It hasn't gone away. "Acid Rain Revisited", a new update (2001) co-authored by US Geological Survey researchers concludes that "acid rain is still a problem and has had a greater environmental impact than previously projected." "Many people believe that the problem of acid rain was solved (with 1990 legislation) ... but nitrogen emissions ... have actually increased ...." hbrook.sr.unh.edu The proponents of clean-coal-burning utility plants aren't wrong in their direction. They do, however, underestimate the future work that needs to be done economically, technologically, and bureaucratically.