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 (10383)	7/3/2009 2:57:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

I agree with you. And I also believe that our prosperity today is in part due to a long history of cheap available energy. That's always been the attraction of fossil fuels. They are energy dense. What's going to be required for any alternative energy transition is baseload electrical capacity and LOT'S OF IT. We're going to need electricity to be so cheap and plentiful that it can handle millions of vehicles drawing power from it. That will NOT be cheap, nor quick. We can't build enough transmission lines for the wind projects that are being proposed currently, let alone 24 hour per day base load generation. And what we CAN build CURRENTLY costs $1 million per mile (with the price likely to go up dramatically): dailyyonder.com I still say that Nukes are the only way to go for the majority of the power, but I'm open to ANYTHING that provides a comparable or better ROI and availability. Hawk