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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (3703)	12/31/2008 9:34:34 AM
From: Eric	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Bob, actually if we sat down and discussed the various merits of a plan to utilize renewables vs oil and coal in the long run you would probably agree. Yes we do have an extensive installed base that utilizes each of those fuels and Natural gas to run our world but in the long run our balance of payments as is currently happening will virtually bankrupt us. We have the energy here for the taking and it is all free. Of course it costs money to "tap" those sources and it cannot happen overnight or in twenty years but it can happen in fifty years. Since we export less and less over time how are we going to afford ever increasing energy costs? That is my main concern along with some of the environmental factors. When I see people talk about wind generation and they say the wind stops at night I chuckle quite a bit. Those folks obviously do not understand the physics of wind generation around the world. In many places it actually is much stronger at night! In our location up here in the NW we get so much wind in the winter that one little generator more than compensates for the loss of solar radation in the wintertime on our PVs. Storage is the holy grail and we are making headway very quickly now. As I posted a year ago, a article in Scientific American addressed the storage question beautifully, an engineering problem simply solved.

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (3703)	12/31/2008 11:26:55 AM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 86356

Bob, did the Internet wreck the economy? It may have wrecked older companies that refused to move with the times, but the new companies or smarter companies that adapted, did very well and saw their productivity and cost structures improve. New tech always costs money, but in the long run, it is worth it. You are having a classical argument right now with folks like Eric and I who see where this is headed. You are on the side that says the Internet is a waste of money and the government should have never invested that money in inventing it. We are on the side of how to continue investing in it to ensure we get the greatest possible Internet penetration so that Americans can get the most possible prosperity out of it. Alternative energy is in exactly the same category the Internet was in the early 90's. Many many disbelievers, but those who see where this is headed will make a lot of money. And yet, you keep talking about it wrecking our economy. Very strange how some Americans see problems as an incredible opportunity for creating an enormous amount of wealth, while others see it only as an expense. However, I might point out to you that an expense has no future returns. An investment is different than an expense in that it has a future return. Alternative energy research and subsidies are an investment, not an expense. And as such, it won't wreck out economy. On the contrary, it will usher in a new era of wealth creation that will dwarf what we saw with the Internet. It's amazing to me that many people like yourself can't see that. But then again, if you live in Silicon Valley for decades, you become used to seeing and recognizing these trends when they take place. When you are in slower moving industries, I guess you don't notice trends, because nothing every changes.