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: dumbmoney who wrote (135518)	6/3/2004 7:52:22 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Opposition will materialise anywhere you might try to build a plant, it doesn't have to be local. Plus you can't put a plant just anywhere - at a minimum it needs a source of water to make steam. You didn't tackle France and Japan - are you saying they're losing money on every plant but making it up in big volume? If the alternative is continued use of fossil fuels, I don't think we have a choice. Here's another statistic I unearthed in my research, sure to shock most people. I'll derive it for you because if I just stated it you wouldn't believe me. The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day. A barrel is 42 US gallons. There are 290 million Americans. Therefore we each use an average of 20 x 42 / 290 = 2.9 gallons of crude per day, or about 20 gallons a week. A gallon of crude weighs 850-950 kg / cubic metre, so using 900 that works out to .9 kg/liter = 2 pounds/liter = 7.5 pounds per gallon. Therefore the average American is using 20 x 7.5 = 150 pounds of crude per week. When I first read this, I was sure the author had slipped a digit somewhere. Someone please tell me I've miscalculated? Do you think it's remotely possible to collect enough solar power on your rooftop to equal 150 pounds of crude? Like, eek!