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: Eric who wrote (5406)	2/26/2009 10:00:44 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

It strikes me that either 2.5% or 19% is an awful lot. More than enough for environemnalists to object to .... just like they object to Yucca MTn.

To: Eric who wrote (5406)	2/27/2009 12:11:35 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

The compressed air storage has been used for almost 20 years in Europe. But has it been profitable? Would love to see the data on it and what PSI compression they use. I guess you consider Scientific American to be total fantasy. Hardly.. but that was just an article regarding proposals and theoretical policy initiatives. Did you think it was very scientific when they stated that no pollution would occur on those lands? It sure wasn't very realistic, given our history of construction projects of such scale. Furthermore, no where did they incorporate the actual energy cost that would be expended to cover 49,000 square miles of "suitable land" for their solar farms. Hawk

To: Eric who wrote (5406)	2/27/2009 9:52:11 AM
From: miraje	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I guess you consider Scientific American to be total fantasy. Having an active layman's interest in science, I was a subscriber to Scientific American (among other publications in the field of science). I soon became aware that SciAm was little more than a political rag in drag. It seemed like every issue contained ever more strident yowling about a pending "global warming" catastrophe and the need to suck ever more taxpayer money to throw down the rat hole of "unbiased" research. I am now an "ex" subscriber..