SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (4627)6/11/2010 11:18:40 PM
From: yard_man  Respond to of 4904
 
Again -- you've bought the global warming -- correlation == cause.

Nuclear has proved itself too costly -- unless something changes. No one will drink that cool aid unless the government agrees to indemnify the builders -- sheer stupidity.

Yes, we'd be a lot better off burning something -- coal, in particular. In the US we have years of coal -- it will be used regardless of cap and trade or any other nonsense ...



To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (4627)6/13/2010 11:42:04 PM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4904
 
Wind power at 0.0001% of energy produced in USA.
Yea were gonna double it by 2020? Whoppie-s-



To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (4627)6/14/2010 7:52:44 AM
From: forceOfHabit  Respond to of 4904
 
patron,

Do you consider nuclear fission to be burning things? I don't, unless there's a meltdown.

I do, and the dangers of the toxic byproducts of nuclear fission make CO2 (hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide / sulfuric acid, hydrogen flouride, mercury etc.) from coal burning (for instance) seem like a walk in the park.

But I also agree with DAK, who says (in a later post) that we should take this elsewhere...

habit