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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (252638)	12/30/2007 1:07:24 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I happened to catch a bit of a science show on TV about photovoltaic power, and they had a light powered by some of the first commercial photovoltaic cells produced, by Bell labs in 1954. They still worked fine, 53 years later. No moving parts, really nothing to wear out or ever need any maintenance, there's no reason to think that they can't keep working forever. en.wikipedia.org When you think about them this way, that every solar power unit will continue to contribute far into the future, we should be producing them like mad, and funding a Manhattan Project efort into producing better, more efficient ones.

To: Katelew who wrote (252638)	12/30/2007 1:17:15 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Katelew, "For ex. large buildings....business or apartment.....that can cover their rooftops with solar panels. Many have such excess power capacity that can be sold back into the grid that their ROI is actually quite high." The above is one of the statements from alternate advocates that I would love to see data to support. Frankly, I believe the statement is simply wrong - especially the part about a high ROI. If a high ROI was avaiable it would be done. Also, large buildings have large power requirements. To think there is a surplus to return to the grid - well - I would love to see the data. I suspect it does not exist. Bob

To: Katelew who wrote (252638)	12/30/2007 2:21:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In this country we lack the political will and we are in a weaker position financially to subsidize the transition to alternative energy technologies. Why should it have to be subsidized? I can see subsidizing early research, but we've been doing that for 30 years and more. Nobody should have to subsidize the transition, because if it needs to be subsidized then it's not economical and shouldn't be done in the first place. Let somebody only come out with an economical alternative (and a high price of oil is very helpful to the numbers) and entrepreneurs will find all the capital they need from the usual sources. The EU member countries as a group are financially stronger, i.e. lower debt to GDP ratios, and they are in better shape financially to 'digest' the coming retirement costs of their aging populations Kate, what are you smoking? The EU countries are in worse financial shape than the US however you look at it. Their average debt is higher, measured as % of GDP, their demographics are terrible, they are reproducing well below replacement levels, their pensions which are more generous than Social Security are bankrupting their governments, esp. as Europe is having terrible problems assimilating immigrants compared to the US. Furthermore, the US consistently grows its GDP faster than Europe, and growth makes any debt far more manageable. 2005 real GDP growth adj. for inflation (from infoplease.com US 3.5% Germany 0.9% France 1.4% Italy 0.1% Spain 3.4% Belgium 1.5% Austria 1.9% Debt as % of GDP (from en.wikipedia.org US 65% Germany 67% France 65% Italy 108% Spain 40% Belgium 90% Austria 60%