SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (398452)7/13/2008 7:59:22 PM
From: Joe NYC  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575193
 
cj,

I can't disagree. But it won't sell. Multi-faceted plans just don't. The last time we went through this, that is what was being pushed. Which is why Reagan bailed out of it as soon as he could.

But there is no single approach that can satisfy all the needs quickly enough. Nuclear can supply 100% or 150% of all of the power generation needs, but it would take some 30 years to get there. The same with solar and wind, which, in addition to time and money have have another problem of lack of storage, pretty much eliminating them from being the "sole" source of all energy needs.

Joe



To: combjelly who wrote (398452)7/13/2008 11:08:24 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 1575193
 
Reagan bailed out of it as soon as he could.

Reagan bailed out of energy independence because people with lots of money paid him to bail. He probably believed them when they said it would be a good idea because he wasn't known for thinking too hard about issues when there was money to tell him the answer.

TP



To: combjelly who wrote (398452)7/14/2008 11:34:58 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575193
 
I think any national push to get us off oil should be multi faceted..."

I can't disagree. But it won't sell. Multi-faceted plans just don't. The last time we went through this, that is what was being pushed. Which is why Reagan bailed out of it as soon as he could.


I hate to say this but this time may be different. It seems to me Reagan was able to pull his stunts because the price of oil came back down in the 1980s. And the reason the price of oil went up in the first place was because of artificial action on the part of OPEC. This time the issue is more of one relating to actual supply and demand.....which suggests the price of oil will not come down as easily.

I also think people are little bit more sophisticated about the issue than they were in the 1980s and will recognize that it will take more than one alternative to get us off oil.



To: combjelly who wrote (398452)7/14/2008 11:36:45 AM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1575193
 
The word is the gains picked up in NO last year and the city's population is back over 300K.

The Big Easy picks up the pace

Census Bureau says New Orleans is the fastest-growing large city in the nation, recovering from being wiped out by Hurricane Katrina.

By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: July 10, 2008: 4:02 AM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- After being pummeled by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, New Orleans is showing signs of recovery - ranking as the fastest-growing large city in the nation, according to a government report released Thursday.

The Census Bureau said New Orleans' population rose 13.8%, to 239,124, in the year ended July 1, 2007. That was a faster growth rate than any other city with a population of 100,000 or more.

The figures can be taken with a grain of salt. Over the first seven years of this decade, "The Big Easy" experienced both the largest rate of loss and largest numerical decline, due primarily to the storm that devastated the city nearly three years ago.

The government said the city's population fell 50.7% since 2000, when it stood at 484,674.

The Census Bureau said the second fastest growing city in the nation was Victorville, Calif., whose population climbed 9.5% to 107,221. Located in Southern California, Victorville's population passed the 100,000 mark for the first time in 2007.

Big states dominate. California and Texas dominate the fastest growing cities, both in the recent annual data and in the data from 2000 through 2007.

California and Texas each placed five cities on the list of the 25 fastest-growing cities between 2006 and 2007, as well as on the list of the 25 biggest numerical gainers for the period.


Three cities in the Lone Star State made the fastest-growing top 10 list for the most recent year: McKinney, which was 3rd; Killeen, which was 6th; and Denton, which ranked 10th.

Other cities on the most recent list of the fastest growing cities were North Las Vegas, Nev., ranked 4th; Cary, N.C., ranked 5th; Port St. Lucie, Fla., ranked 7th; Gilbert, Ariz., ranked 8th; and Clarksville, Tenn., ranked 9th.

For the period from 2000 through 2007, McKinney, Texas, was the nation's fastest-growing city, its population more than doubling to 115,620.

Eight of the top 25 fastest-growing cities for the period from 2000 through 2007 were in California: Victorville, Elk Grove, Irvine, Roseville, Rancho Cucamonga, Moreno Valley, Bakersfield and Fontana.

By the numbers. While smaller Sun Belt cities top the fastest-growing list, the Census Bureau's top 10 list of numerical gainers was populated by larger cities.

In terms of sheer numbers, Houston led the nation's cities in numerical increase during the period. Houston added 38,932 residents in the year ended July 1, 2007 to reach 2.2 million.

Four of the top ten cities that showed the greatest numerical increases for the year were in Texas. In addition to Houston, San Antonio came in 3rd, Fort Worth was 4th and Austin was 8th.

Other cities in the top 10 of greatest numerical increases were Phoenix, which ranked 2nd, New Orleans, which was 5th, New York, which was 6th, Atlanta, 7th on the list, and two North Carolina cities, Charlotte in 9th place and Raleigh in 10th.

New York City was the largest numerical gainer between 2000 and 2007, adding 265,873 residents over the period. Houston added 233,876 people since the start of the millennium, in second place behind New York City.

Big Apple is still the biggest. The Big Apple continues to be the most populous city in the nation, with 8.3 million residents, according to the Census Bureau.

Los Angeles ranked second with 3.8 million residents. With 2.8 million, Chicago was third, followed by Houston and Phoenix, which each had 1.6 million.