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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (73420)	7/17/2006 7:14:25 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 361075

It's most relevant. It's taking CO2 the earth stored for us, and puts it back into circulation. That's how we have changed the atmospheric CO2 levels. If we could, magically, right this moment, be in a zero emission world, that sequestered CO2 would stay there, and we would level out where we are now (if positive feedback loops haven't already started). Then we could have a nice fight about whether we should try and reduce the existing level back to the start of the industrial age, or something like that. Wouldn't that be fun? :>) BTW, you will see a lot of hype about hydrogen, too. Again, meant for the corps, not for a solution. H carries energy, it's not a source. There are no hydrogen mines or wells. It takes more energy to make H than you get out of it; EROEI is somewhere between 0.5-0.7; I've seen both. Maybe in a world with peak excesses of electricity (solar, wind, and wave all peaking during the day, and you can't store electricity), you could use the xs to store as H, but beyond that, ... Doesn't even make sense to build nukes to make H; why not just use the nukes to make juice, and save the extra energy? No Sioux, I'm not endorsing nukes.