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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (544601)	1/17/2010 10:35:49 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

"They are more a efficient use of energy than burning fossil fuels " The problem, though, is storage. Now, there are some intriguing technologies out there that could change that, but so far, nada. Which is why I watch Eestor with so much interest. Their claims seems to be beyond what is possible, but they have gotten some important backing. And they aren't looking for money. If they can really make the things they are talking about, the energy storage thing becomes easy to solve.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (544601)	1/17/2010 11:32:37 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

>Common sense tells you that technological breakthroughs will continue to happen, because they have happened continually for all of humanity's history. For you to think otherwise is really the fantastical thinking. Actually, your thinking's fallacious. Not that I disagree that it's going to happen in this particular case, but just because something's happened in the past doesn't mean it's definitely going to keep happening, particularly if there aren't enough efforts to continue it. -Z

To: RetiredNow who wrote (544601)	1/18/2010 12:10:40 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574001

>> Common sense tells you that technological breakthroughs will continue to happen, because they have happened continually for all of humanity's history. Technological breakthroughs happen when private enterprise is sufficiently motivated by market considerations. For example, YOUR example of computers. The integrated circuit, which made today's computers practical, was a result of private enterprise trying to develop something useful. It was not a result of government throwing piles of money out there saying, "We know it isn't financially feasible to undertake these projects unless WE, the GOVERNMENT, gives you sufficient kickbacks to make it happen". Private enterprise doesn't develop projects for which there is no market, and government doesn't develop projects that are intended for the kinds of markets which foster this kind of technology. Notable exceptions are the military and a few other agencies, most of which the Left wants to do away with. If you want to develop new technologies private enterprise needs to see a market that does not rely on government kickbacks (e.g., rebates on hybrid vehicles). Private enterprise is smart enough to recognize that such rebates will not last indefinitely. Then, what?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (544601)	1/18/2010 8:22:43 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

I suggest you read the Foreign Policy article I posted to you and try to wrap your melted mind around it. Its magical thinking to believe that solar and wind and the necessary storage technology are good enough here and now to replace fossil fuels and nuclear, or we are right on the verge of having them ready. Secretary Chu appparently knows that massive breakthroughs have yet to be made before that can happen. The last 49 years that I've been alive have seen unbelievable change. I think you may be a lot older than me Yeah, apparently I'm 8 years older than you. I suggest you have more respect for your elders .... maybe they've seen more than you and learned more. if you believe that electric powered vehicles won't be successful in a big way in our lifetimes. I don't know ... I'm open to the idea but I see some big barriers. I've addressed these elsewhere. You otoh KNOW its a certainty and that it will happen soon. And that we should base our policy on the certainty of it happening. They are more a efficient use of energy than burning fossil fuels and they are a more sustainable way of using our energy supplies, not to mention more environmentally friendly. Not necessarily. Depends on how the electric energy is made. Furthermore, there are environmental costs and limited resource constraints with all energy sources. Common sense tells you that technological breakthroughs will continue to happen, because they have happened continually for all of humanity's history. For you to think otherwise is really the fantastical thinking. The pace of technological development is uneven and hard to predict ..... except for magical thinkers.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (544601)	1/18/2010 10:42:34 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

GOP slows down geothermal drilling ... okay, the Obama administration is doing it but if your mind has melted you'll know the GOP is really behind it. Just like the GOP made liberal Democrats prevent windmill development offshore MA and solar development in the Mojave. Funny that you can't give any examples of actual renewable projects evil GOPsters have shut down but I can and have listed several examples of noble-minded liberal Democrats doing so. Seriously there were problems drilling to the desired depth and there might actually be some earthquake risk, who knows? ..... But I'm only saying that because I "love oil". LOL Geothermal Drilling Safeguards Imposed By JAMES GLANZ 16 January, 2010 The New York Times The United States Energy Department, concerned about earthquake risk, will impose new safeguards on geothermal energy projects that drill deep into the Earth's crust. The new policy is being instituted after a project in California that used the new technology was shut down by technical problems and encountered community opposition, federal documents indicate. The project, by Seattle-based AltaRock Energy, would have fractured bedrock and extracted heat by digging more than two miles beneath the surface at a spot called the Geysers, about 100 miles north of San Francisco. The company ran into serious problems with its drilling and faced accusations from scientists and local residents that it had not been forthcoming enough about the earthquake risk. AltaRock denied those accusations. The documents, provided to The New York Times by the Energy Department, indicate that the Geysers project has run through $6 million in federal financing in several unsuccessful efforts to drill to the necessary depth. As a result, the Energy Department ''considers the project in the Geysers to be concluded,'' according to a letter addressed to Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat and chairman of the House committee on Energy and Commerce. The letter, dated Dec. 30, is signed by Cathy Zoi, an assistant energy secretary. The Times reported in early December that AltaRock had removed its drill rig from the site and informed the department that the project would be abandoned, but the company had refused to comment publicly. In a second document dated Sept. 11, 2009, but not previously disclosed, the department concluded that earthquakes that would have been set off by the AltaRock project would ''not have a significant impact on the human environment.'' And in another endorsement of the company, the department later awarded AltaRock $25 million to try a similar project at the Newberry Volcanic Monument near Bend, Ore. The Oregon project was one of 123 geothermal projects in 38 states that received $338 million through the Obama administration's economic stimulus package, Ms. Zoi said in the letter. Two seismic experts who read the documents said the message about the perils and potential of geothermal energy was unclear. But Ernie Majer, a seismologist and deputy director of the Earth Science Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said that the new standards were a welcome development. The letters show that the department ''is being ultra-careful about any induced seismicity,'' he said, referring to earthquakes triggered by humans. Among the new safeguards are requirements that projects monitor ground-motion sensors and other data and have an approved plan to shut down if earthquakes induced by the drilling are too powerful. Companies must also file estimates of expected earthquake activity and submit project proposals to outside experts for a review of the risks and the likelihood of success. Ms. Zoi conceded in her letter that the department's findings were ''likely to have little practical effect on the AltaRock project at the Geysers,'' because the project apparently no longer exists. But she said that the defunct project and the findings ''have provided valuable lessons.'' In a statement responding to questions on the documents, Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the department, said that those lessons ''will help the United States succeed in safely harnessing geothermal energy.'' Donald O'Shei, AltaRock's chief executive, said in an e-mail message that the company was pleased by the department's finding that the Geysers project would not have had a significant impact on people in the area. Regarding the Oregon project, Mr. O'Shei said that the company was ''working on an initial planning process for the technical, permitting, and community education and outreach aspects of the project.'' Mr. O'Shei added, ''Bend is located approximately 22 miles away from the demonstration site, which is in a sparsely populated area to the west of Newberry in central Oregon.''