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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bart13 who wrote (135348)	8/31/2017 10:21:57 AM
From: bart13	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 219449

If they say you are wrong, say it again louder They’re back: spectrum.ieee.org I notice, again, that the authors do not estimate cost, or who they expect to pay, or the actual cost of development in barrel of oil equivalent units, or the cost of maintenance, or the limitations of wind and solar power generation. And, as in their study two years ago, still don’t state the cost of the energy storage that their proposal requires. They don’t account for projected growth of demand. This time, they pointedly also don’t mention the cost in comparison to the gdp of the countries involved. Obviously, the U.S. will be expected to foot the bill, and China and India will be expected to continue to absorb the pollution generated by mining, smelting, concrete production, and chemical processing. It will obviously be all free, since we will all be paying two or three hundred percent more (corrected for collectivized petroleum industries) for the five to ten-fold increase in fossil fuel usage that will be required to build these technologies. And of course, it will all have to be replaced again by 2075.