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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (599935)	2/4/2011 7:25:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570478

Direct costs - Building all the new power plants, transmission capacity, possibly energy storage (could be huge if you want to rely primarily on solar, even more so for wind), possibly fuel generation plants. One level removed from that is the higher energy costs you get from running these alternatives. Also if you want to drastically cut CO2 emissions relatively quickly, even a hyper-expensive crash program for alternatives won't be enough, you will have to reduce energy. Some of that will be in costs for things like insulation, florescent bulbs or LEDs etc, but a lot of it would simply amount to producing less (assuming we are talking about an 80% CO2 emission reduction over any but a VERY long time scale. In non-monetary costs you have the loss of personal freedom through all the pressure and control you need to force this change to happen. You also have people having to adjust their lifestyles to deal with a lower (or at least not as rapidly increasing) and/or less reliable and consistent amount of energy production.