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: Slagle who wrote (68191)	8/27/2005 10:45:03 PM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

What surprised me was how convinced she was that hydrogen was an "energy source". But something I notice of course is that my students don't neccessarily realize that I am an expert on some things :) But much research by supposed experts in energy and resource economics is nonsensical in physical terms. On the other hand a lot of natural scientists and engineers tend to underestimate the adaptability and resourcefulness of the economic system.... I am trying to cut a middle path but we tend to get assailed from both sides... The most promising approach to carbon sequestration (apart from growing trees) seems to be pumping CO2 into old oil reservoirs. Of course that takes energy, but the oil forced out might help reduce costs. But most existing power stations are not in the right location, or getting coal to those locations would need a lot of new infrastructure. So probably would be a fairly limited application in the end? The other technologies involve biological approaches to capturing carbon. One I saw written up recently sounded very expensive though for the amount of carbon being sequestered. For the moment conservation, increased efficiency, substitution of nat gas for coal, and alternative energies as well as tree planting are all much more cost effective.

To: Slagle who wrote (68191)	8/28/2005 1:25:43 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 74559

Here I agree with you. I have heard people talk about lunatic carbon sequestration schemes as if this would be inexpensive or efficient. The most compelling evidence I have seen, which suggests we are releasing too much carbon, is a decrease in the ocean's pH as additional carbon is absorbed by the oceans. This change appears to be occurring faster than the organisms living in the ocean can adapt to. If the massive carbon sequestration processes of the ocean are overwhelmed by the amount of carbon release, then some air compression scheme is laughable. .