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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (353193)	10/2/2007 1:28:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574854

About half may be for electricity generation, but the rest such as transportation is tricker as you mention. Also even the electricity production isn't something the can change over quickly without a lot of cost, or that can change over very quickly at any level of expenditure. Much shorter term goals, such as 10 years are more dangerous to the economy, because the economy is like a super-tanker. It can't turn on a dime, and if you try to make it so, it can result hasty radical measures, that will likely prove destabilizing. I agree, and that's largely my point. And even longer periods than that still represent a very large cost (esp. if their is opposition to nuclear power). If OTOH you replace a coal plant with a nuclear plant when it gets old and reaches the end of its normal life time or reaches a point where it would need an extensive overhaul and upgrade, than the additional costs would be reasonable.