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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (17852)	11/17/2006 10:17:13 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

"A companion question would have to be, "how much 'transportation energy' from prior modes (cars, planes, trains, trucks, etc) is saved?" Good point, ftth. The relative efficiencies are important. But then, we know that a large amount of internet usage could be termed "trivial" (for want of a better term). Gaming, gambling and porn come to mind. I don't have the figures at hand, but they're big numbers, and the logic here is that X per cent of national power usage is being devoted to "free" distribution of this content. (Just so you understand, these are easy and obvious targets. But this isn't disguised morality speaking). Jim

To: ftth who wrote (17852)	11/17/2006 10:19:21 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

"The tree of cost/benefit probably goes deeper and broader than first meets the eye." Along the same line of thought: How much additional residential sprawl or other dislocation-driven construction of new homes is driven by the ability of new homeowners to work at home, thus allowing for a comfortable degree of separation between home and urban centers? When this occurs, what is the energy penalty in terms of manufacturing and processing the materials needed to build those new homes and the civil construction projects needed to support them? To drive to and from them during non-working hours? The foregoing may seem a bit off the wall; it did to me. But, I recall seeing a compelling economic impact assessment after Katrina that cited these and other energy concerns, if not for identical, then for similar reasons, each coming from a scenario with similar dynamics. Of course, FEMA elected to acquire thousands of trailer homes costing $34,500 each that were never used, but that's another story, entirely. Except, of course, for the energy that it took to produce and transport the 10,000 units (of the $860 million total) that now appear to have found their final place of vegetation on an airfield in Arkansas. Not to conflate threads, but I'm sure that someone made his or her "numbers" in the making of that deal, too ;)