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.

Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11209)	1/8/2009 4:01:22 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

Certainly an opinion/perspective deserving of a recommendation. I concur. As for nuclear, I'm really finding the promise of pebble bed reactors as an attractive solution. Don't know why these light water reactors are still being pushed. Hawk

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11209)	1/8/2009 4:13:52 PM
From: stomper	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 33421

OT: Obama to San Francisco Chronicle youtube.com Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year. So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11209)	1/8/2009 5:42:47 PM
From: SmoothSail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 33421

Solar and wind a generally perceived to be the greenest sources of energy, which is a bit of a farce, but I don't see too many obstacles with them. fwiw: I had 2 solar panels on my boat when I was living on it over at Catalina. They were in constant use for 6 months out of the year. By the 3rd year, I had to boost the batteries with the help of a generator and the alternator about every 3rd day. By the 5th year, their effectiveness had reduced so much that I was considering buying new ones. I had easy access to them so I could keep them clean and maintained. I've seen claims that a typical $10,000 house installation will last 25 years. Based on my own experience, I don't believe it.

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (11209)	1/9/2009 12:33:22 AM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 33421

Yes there are numerous obstacles. But these are largely self imposed by the environmental lobby. 1. The technology to build nuclear exits. The argument about waste disposal is phony. 2. Coal to liquid technology has been around since WWII. The germans fueled their army with coal. The South Africans improved the technology when their country was embargoed. There are pollution issues but they are probably easier to solve than the technology problems relating to solar and wind. 3. We need to drill wherever we can and there is oil. 4. Actually I think the biggest problems are with Solar and Wind, because there are unsolved technical problems relating to transmission and storage. These can likely be solved eventually but not likely soon. I would suggest that the only real help the government can be is to get the hell out of the way and let the market solve this. If it cannot restrain itself, then why not fund some of the research for green technology. It won't be cheap but the government has had some successes i.e. the manhattan project, the space program. If it fails, there will probably be less harm from publically funded research then by forcing the price of oil higher. Little joe