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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (27682)	8/6/2008 12:28:38 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Great discussion, Guys. Let's hear from Paris Hilton concerning how she would achieve energy independence: funnyordie.com ------

To: TimF who wrote (27682)	8/6/2008 2:23:57 PM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi Tim - Your POV is understood; I've been playing Devil's Advocate. No nation - none - will be free of fossil fuel demand in the foreseeable future: for motive power, generation, heating, lubrication. Plastics, fertilizers, paints and a gazillion other uses are not energy-related, but still constitute demand. To take this back to the beginning, "energy independence" (in the abstract) may have been what some people meant: "Also many people using that term really mean full independence." Message 24811821 Was that goal realistic, or even achievable? I don't think so, and stated that most people sensibly viewed it as a relative goal: decreased reliance. "Most people quite properly concluded that "energy independence" didn't truly mean total independence, but decreased (and decreasing) reliance on foreign sources of energy - remembering that at some point, ALL fossil fuel sources would cease to exist (viz. Huppert's "peak oil, etc)." Message 24756308 In fact, the term was never explicitly defined. No date was set for achieving the goal. --- In the overview, there isn't one clear, identifiable "right" energy strategy. Instead, there's an array of alternatives, each with different costs and benefits. In that context, France isn't right, or wrong - and neither is the US. Ditto my comments and yours. But this much is true: [1] If a nation wants to obtain relative freedom from the demands of suppliers, then it must supply itself; the degree of freedom will reflect the degree of self-supply. [2] The energy cost portion of capex for power generation and distribution continues to climb. Every year it becomes more expensive to construct alternatives. At some point, oil will cost $500/bbl - and then, the cost of hauling fill for new dams, steel for transmission towers, concrete for new reactors and so on, begins to strain the capital resources of those who need new capacity. In that respect, there's an economic argument for acting sooner, rather than later. None of the above means you're wrong. Everything we've discussed matters, and must be evaluated when alternatives are chosen. Jim