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: slacker711 who wrote (61413)	4/24/2008 1:11:30 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 542154

Slacker - Yes, I see that happening, too. I'll add my two cents. Bob's stated position, as I read it, is that we have an imbalance between supply and demand with respect to both electricity and oil. No reasonable person could argue against that view. Bob believes that the best way to deal with that imbalance is to produce more oil domestically, and to build coal and nuclear plants, while the technology for alternative energy sources is developed to the point of being economically viable. While I see his point, I disagree with him. I believe it will take just as long to develop the new oil fields and to build the coal plants as it will take to convert a large part of our vehicle fleet to electricity, and to increase our electrical generating capacity using solar thermal, solar voltaic, and wind power, among others. It's going to take time, effort, and money in either case. I believe that it would be better to spend the money and effort on a solution that is viable for the long term, instead of diverting some of it to a plan that works only in the short term. Will there be some pain for businesses and consumers if we turn toward the technologies of the future and try to make them viable sooner? Most likely, yes. But there is going to be pain either way. - Allen