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: tejek who wrote (691765)	1/8/2013 1:58:28 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577483

"So then do you think we should use coal instead of biofuels?" Why do you insist on responding to a factual report with making stuff up about me? That is very odd. First, that is an article I didn't write or comment on. It is simply the results of a European study on their efforts at creating a bio fuel industry. The article was focused on wood based biofuels (big in Europe), whereas I realize there are dozens of different viable candidates for biofuels, some cleaner than others. I understood the USA approach is more focused on using corn as its main source of biofuel production. None are as free of detrimental effects as first promoted. Using corn adds an additional burden on food prices and global food shortages, so the Europeans are less fond of it than wood based biofuels. Coal has serious environmental impacts. The benefit of using coal at the moment is that alternative energy development has not come far enough to provide enough energy at affordable costs. Some hard choices have to be made if we are going to consume commercially produced energy at a price that is worth it. City slicking elites who have no involvement in energy management can dismiss the facts to rail about ideal pure energy but that is hypocritical because when it comes to producing and consuming, they are the biggest consumers and the least productive. When you're not living among the world's starving populations, it is easy to say use corn not coal. Coal is a cheaper option and does not cause a reduction in food production, but that doesn't mean we should be irresponsible around its production and use. As long as it is available we should leave that option on the table. That article also refers to the drawbacks of using fossil fuels so it seems fairly balanced in its reporting of the plusses and minuses of each.