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: RetiredNow who wrote (3863)	1/4/2009 12:41:19 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

One of the other scientific facts that Gore also ignored is that the oceanic phytoplankton ecosystem has been dramatically altered by an apparent lack of nutrients for oceanic flora to feed upon. Some scientists have theorized that this is because of man's advancements in soil management and reduced amount of dust and minerals being blown into the oceans. The end result is that there is a dramatic reduction in the oceanic flora available to soak up atmospheric CO2. Thus, increased CO2 levels might be actually due to the a decrease in "sponges" more than actual increases in released CO2 by fossil emissions and animal (and human) respiration. Plants of all types should thrive in an environment of excess CO2, but if the nutrients, sunlight, or water are not available, they will no grow. Both sunlight and water are obviously not the issue with phytoplanktonic growth, so it has to be lack of nutrients. Why is this important? Because the oceans are responsible for the largest majority of CO2 sequestration. Yet, this does not even factor into Gore's analysis, let alone any of the prevailing scientific expertise on the subject. It's like ignoring the elephant in the living room, with regard to causes of GG accumulations. Hawk

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3863)	1/4/2009 12:48:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in how this country can benefit from not being dependent on oil for economic and national security reasons. No you're not. You're clearly bent upon eradicating all use of fossil fuels, whether domestic or imported. I, and T. Boone Pickens, have ALREADY presented you a reasonable and economically feasible scenario where Natural Gas replaces imported oil and leads us to creating an infrastructure where Fuel Cells may, one day, be economically viable enough to completely replace fossil fuels (with hydrogen created via competitive solar, nuclear, wave, and wind power). This is something that could be DONE NOW, and not have to wait for available supplies of Lithium, or commercial production of a non-lithium battery/ultracapacitor technology to fully mature. Hawk