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: cosmicforce who wrote (135514)	6/4/2004 10:52:48 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You'd see Exxon-Mobil running for them if they got a 5 year profit window with no taxation. Let's give it a try. Sounds reasonable. Win, however, would rather live in Saddam's spider hole for a decade than let the Satanic Major Oil Companies have anything to do with such an idea.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (135514)	6/4/2004 11:23:59 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Ok, I looked up the geothermal thing. It's not clear that this account is the total picture, but California does indeed have a lot of geothermal production. But: 1. In terms of heat (BTU) energy, production from BLM-California leases constitutes about 87% of the Nation's federal geothermal production, followed by Nevada (9%), Utah (3%), and New Mexico (<1%). But: 2. Production of steam and hot water from BLM geothermal leases supports the generation of up to 951 megawatts of electrical energy, enough energy for the needs of almost 1 million people. During the year, this thermal energy produced over 4.3 billion kiloWatt-hours of electricity which was utilized by industry and the public in California. ( both from ca.blm.gov Which is nice and everything, but also fairly insignificant when you're talking about generating enough electricity to make hydrogen to replace liquid hydrocarbons for vehicular energy. I'm all for alternative energy, but I can't see anything but conservation being particularly relevant in the near/ medium term. And I think it's been made pretty clear what W and Cheney think of conservation on the energy front. Government used to seed a lot of investments in alternative energy sources, but my recollection is that most of that was shut down by Reagan.