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: Cogito who wrote (61877)	4/26/2008 2:51:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541816

What I disagree with is the implication that we should not expend our efforts on building solar and wind plants now, because the output won't be great enough. I think you're reading something into that. Saying that wind and solar will provide only a fraction of our needs for decades doesn't seem to me to imply what you infer. It seems to say just what you said, "Sure, wind and solar will most likely only provide a fraction of our energy over the next couple of decades." There's enough disagreement around without adding to it through inference.

To: Cogito who wrote (61877)	4/26/2008 4:41:10 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541816

The US imports approximately 15 mmboe per day of oil. Very little oil is used to generate electricity. Generation of electricity from wind and solar will not displace transportation fuels. The authors argument was to point out the damage done by sending so much money overseas. You need to address the cost and cost of the importation of oil to fully respond to the author. As always in these debates there is no objection to building all of the wind and solar facilities you want - none. There is opposition to traditional fuels. One position is balanced the other is not. I do think the article provided a way to make the case without personal passion deciding the words.