energy - That's the problem -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

04/26/25 11:25:28am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ]

Subject: energy - That's the problem

Author:
tjm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01/17/06 3:28:40pm
In reply to: krz 's message, "energy - what's the problem" on 01/16/06 12:52:14pm

>I offered that perhaps we have not agreed on the
>problem(s) of energy resources so perhaps I will throw
>out ideas I see:
>(1) petroleum and its byproducts used to power this
>and emerging economies are finite

agreed

>(2) we are on the downside of getting new petroleum
>resources (i.e., there's less to find so drill more is
>not a viable solution)

not conclusive as of today but it doesn't matter because its time is near if not here already so, agreed

>(3) more countries are developing their economies
>using petroleum as a major fuel (e.g., China as a big
>one)

agreed

>(4) Nuclear will not be a viable alternative in the US
>because of public concern for waste and fear of the
>energy source; nuclear will not be viable for the
>world because of fear of converstion to weapons grade
>(the US will prevent as much of this as possible)

i disagree. doesn't europe power a significant [if not majority??] sector of its society with nuclear energy[france in particular]? i think that's true.

>(5) wind, water and solar only solve some needs (e.g.,
>perhaps heating and some industry) but not adequate as
>a resource to maintain the current state of economic
>production

agreed

>(6) any new energy source should not be vewied as
>finite

unless of course it is finite..do you mean we should not consider any new sources viable unless they are renewable? i agree with that but not sure i understand the other

opinion: it's the great conversation. china and india have awoken. we knew they would not sleep much longer. the positives of globalization foster opportunity for developing nations which means in most cases production of goods and tapping of natural resources. as has been noted elswhere on the forum, there is a tricky equation to watch. the net gain and loss of energy in relation to harvesting resources and production of goods and services.

$20,000 would get you a nice solar home system that works in tandem with your electric company. i predict if we have good years with our business, we will be borrowing from the sun soon. i would like very much to set up a stout system. i am willing to gamble on its economic viability for the sake of being involved, like growing your own greens that in the end cost more dollars [factoring in all angles] than buying them from your neighbor. but they taste better.

we'll see if there's a way to finance it. we do have the sun.

-tjm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Savemoney/P126521.asp (NT)	tjm	01/17/06 3:46:37pm

Re: energy - That's the problem	krz	01/18/06 7:02:12am