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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51225)	3/1/2008 7:22:49 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542940

the engineering component of the analysis would show up in understanding the feasibility of changing the structure of our energy infrastructure. Yes, I agree that that would be valuable in assessing some of the proposals for mitigating AGW. I was thinking about the up front part--evaluating the nature and degree of the threat.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (51225)	3/1/2008 7:25:57 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542940

Lane - the engineering component of the analysis would show up in understanding the feasibility of changing the structure of our energy infrastructure. What I find is that many people refuse to do very simple calculations looking at existing solar and the cost of the wars we fight in the ME. With estimates of $2-3T for the total cost of those wars, we could easily replace 100% of imported oil energy consumption. The problem is that a large fraction of American people voted for an $80B war in Iraq, and continued to vote in leaders who continue to pore money down said rat holes ($800B now and counting), but those same voters would have had fits if their elected leader had proposed to spend $2T to replace 100% of imported oil with solar, USING EXISTING TECHNOLOGY.