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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (103896)	6/27/2008 12:20:15 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206176

>>The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.<< Sounds like another power-crazed bureaucrat, showing those filthy solar companies who's boss! Incredible, simply incredible.....Linda needs to be replaced ASAP and try earning a real living in the private sector for awhile. DISCLOSURE: NO positions in any solar energy companies.

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (103896)	6/28/2008 1:43:21 AM
From: t4texas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206176

commander cricket, the solar industry made its faustian bargain with the government to have fossil fuel recovery very slow and bureaucratic as well has having its solar businesses subsidized by taxpayers. after assuming solar is so clean that its deployment would never be held up by the devil, solar companies are discovering the government's payment side of the faustian bargain. after this government "study" slows things down for solar and the american consumers, i imagine when the environmental impact study is published, some set of lawyers will challenge whatever the conclusions are in court and slow things down even more. i am for solar, wind, nuclear, drilling for oil and ng offshore, onshore, and in alaska, coal, and non-corn based ethanol. did i leave anything out? we need it all, and we need to get busy with all of it now. some may recall a post i did on this very bdbbr about two or three years ago (maybe longer?) in which i wrote the best thing we could have done back then was to take about half of nasa scientists and engineers and redirect their work to accelerating research in other forms of energy, e.g., solar, wind, other alternative energy forms. if this were treated the way we do defense contracts, the chosen "prime" contractor gets all the private companies, universities, and government scientists and agencies involved to address and solve the particular problem that is contracted for.