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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (10147)	3/3/2007 2:04:03 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

With exhaust gas scrubbing and even CO2 liquefaction, coal isn't necessarily a dirty fuel. It's, as you say, all just a matter of dollars and sense. I dare say the wave generation effort was never going to be profitable and was more in the nature of an experimental project which might get close to breaking even. Maybe it reduces wave action on a sensitive and valuable shoreline and forms a harbour for mooring boats. Possibly it's a good fish feeding platform - floating things grow a lot of stuff on them, which perhaps helps CO2 absorption. Especially if it's a good iron source, which is one of the nutrients often in short supply in oceans. Being an energy bull above $40 a barrel seems hazardous to financial health [if by "bull" you mean prices will rise]. Oil can't stay above $40 a barrel for long because competing ideas will take over. Cars with batteries run from nuclear power stations won't need a lot of petrol or lubricant. Especially if made from carbon fibre made from from coal. Mqurice