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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (140456)	9/26/2005 2:37:49 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794410

when there are vast deserts just begging to be covered with photovoltaics at much lower cost. We are still up in the stratosphere on cost for photovoltaics, Mq. And even if the cost ever is competitive, they won't work for base load. We still need a 24/7/365 source for that. lindybill@nukesareus.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (140456)	9/26/2005 10:53:19 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794410

It seems like there is silica on the moon. Nickel is available in the asteroid belt. The cost of lifting material from the moon is relatively low. Then the side benefits of having energy not dependent on cloud cover and when enough stations are in orbit of eliminating a portion of the warming sunshine. This could provide the basis for space industry. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the least expensive. Witness the Shuttle launch system. The initial proposal was to have two reusable vehicles. the boost vehicle would have been manned and reusable. the cost per launch would have been greatly reduced, but the initial cost to build would have been much higher. If you want to impose costs on mankind for preventing global warming, would it be better to impose tham as a productivity sapping "tax" or as in investment with long term benefits?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (140456)	9/26/2005 11:34:39 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 794410

Yes but think of all the free microwave cooked birds that will be lying around for the taking. Have you ever put metal in a microwave. Think of the beautiful sparks show when a plane flies through the microwaves. And then in that the earth biosphere has never been exposed to continuous microwave radiation of watts and watts of power, think of all the genetic variations and adaption of bacteria and viruses. And with air polution think of all the new chemical compounds that will be formed when it is bombarded with massive amounts of microwave radiation.