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 (62054)	4/28/2008 9:56:26 AM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541784

Allen, <<Cost parity has not been achieved for solar energy, but it's very close. >> This is my impression as well. I have yet to see, though, someone that takes all the costs with an energy source and pit them against each other. Like for solar, there probably is a cost in pollution from the initial manufacture of the components. But after the thing is built, as long as this plant isn't 100 miles away from the big city and you have hundreds of people driving to work and operate the plant, it shouldn't produce much pollution. For a coal plant, there would be the typical construction costs and pollution. But what about the continued work to get the coal out of the ground for a coal burning plant? What about the extra pollution that is caused by such a plant? What about the health care costs associated with the extra pollution from the plant? What about the environmental impact of all of this? Until all these things are taken into account, as well as other things on both sides of this debate that I have left out, I don't think we know what the true costs of our energy really is. Neal