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 (63083)	5/3/2008 2:44:22 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541965

I'd say that an energy source that doesn't run out at some point is sustainable, and one that will isn't. Than no known energy source is sustainable. I can see the argument that 50 to a few hundred years isn't long enough. (I could also see the argument that it is, I wouldn't object to defining the term either way). But every energy source runs out sometimes. For example solar, after the sun uses up the hydrogen at its core it will fuse helium but that will only last millions of years, not billions, than it will collapse to a white dwarf, I suppose (if we were around) we could get some minor amount of solar power even from the white dwarf if we are close enough, but even that will cool down over many billions of years. Still I have no problem considering solar sustainable, or accepting a definition that makes solar sustainable while coal isn't. After all 50 to a few hundred years, is a far cry from 5 billion to 20 billion or so years. I was just looking for some cut off date. I suppose "sustainable on the scale of human history", or on the scale of human existence. Or you could define solar as sustainable because we don't use it up by using it, the sun will burn out some day, but using solar power doesn't make that day come any sooner.