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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jmhollen who wrote (2337)	10/30/2005 11:47:14 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

I agree, I've been alive long enough, 37 years now, to know that these sorts of extrodinary energy claims come along every decade and rarely pan out as expected. Some are just plain invetstment scams, simple as that. Alternative energy is a rather easy investment scame to run, because there is so much uncertainty about the validity of the claims and potentially enormous profits to be made if the claims are real (energy is a multi-Trillion $$$ industry). Some are well intentioned ideas that either are too costly or impractical to work in the real world. I have no idea where this pressure difference idea falls, simple scam or half-baked idea?!? I do think that alternative energy is starting to get a more serious look nowadays, and for good reason, because fossil fuels have more than doubled in price and look to be on a long term uptrend as demand pressures permanent increases in prices. One aspect of energy that is conviently ignored by the mainstream media in their coverage of energy issues is the fact that fossil fuels and nuclear power both have received and continue to receive tremendous public subsidies. Perhaps these subsidies were justified to develop technologies. For example, nuclear power would not exist today if the federal government didn't step in and guarantee the insurance policies necessary to run nuclear power plants. Nuclear power would simply be too expensive to be practical if the cost of insurance had to be factored in. How about 50 cents per kWH for nuclear, instead of the subzidized 10 cents per kWH? Would anyone actually build a nuclear plant with those economic considerations? No, it would never be profitable. The reason I bring this up is because subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear have retarded the growth of clean/green alternative energy technologies. The alternative energy technologies aren't playing on a level playing field. Solar that costs 25 cents per kWH can't compete with subsidized nuclear power, but would be much less expensive than unsubsidized nuclear power at 50 cents per kWH (which would not exist). Solar is going to take off over the next few years. Wal Mart just announced that they plan on going 100% solar over the next three years for ALL their stores! That tells you how competitive solar is getting. Advancements in solar technology over the next few years are likely to bring solar down to the magic 10 cents per kWH level. Solar isn't that far off from that level right now, about 2.5X. Mass production and innovation will bring solar down over the next few years and fossil fuel derived electricity isn't getting any cheaper. Steep increases in natural gas prices have caused wholesale electricity costs to rise about 2 cents over the past few months. Renewable energy's time has arrived. Now companies have to deliver.