|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Again, there is current and 30 year old technology
to solve a good portion of the problem NOW, but
our government is fighting AGAINST the solution.
"California leads the way" and their governor drives
a Hummer....it's symbolic of the larger problem.
> > I was in Mexico on vacation, in the city I was staying
> used SOLAR water heaters on all the rooftops-
This is 30 year old technology. And it was financially viable
with crude at $10 barrel and it works in most US climates, but
the PTB is trying to bury solar. Even Obama, raised in Hawaii,
hasn't a stated plan for solar (or any other alternative
energy) tax incentives:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#invest-in-a-clean
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL&tsp=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1214590370-NuytQNiOjxOH80i/eNxBkA&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
--- On Sat, 7/5/08, Ray Gurke <rgurke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Ray Gurke <rgurke@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 4:42 PM
> Speaking of "think-tanks" ...can you imagine
> something along the lines of a
> Manhattan Project focusing on alternative and/or renewable
> energy
> technologies. Does anyone believe that we couldn't
> solve this problem
> fairly quickly, if we actually had the political will and
> devoted the
> necessary resources to it...
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <marcmiller.themap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:03 PM
> Subject: Fw: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
>
>
> >I agree 100% with Gary.
> > Right Friggin on- This is EXACTLY what we need to do.
> > This is a very impressive "think-tank" here
> at the omegalist.
> > US Gov- are you listening?!!
> > I was in Mexico on vacation, in the city I was staying
> used
> > SOLAR water heaters on all the rooftops- of course it
> wasn't the climate
> > of Green Bay, Wisconsin-- but let's see some TAX
> breaks
> > passed to make this feasable in the areas that can
> support them.
> > A buddy of mine in California said that he can sell
> electricity back to
> > the
> > grid at 90 cents on the dollar, but here where I live,
> a buddy checked
> > into
> > solar
> > and found that he could only selll it for 8-10 cents
> on the dollar (back
> > to
> > the grid.)
> > Need some changes made.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
> > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:39 AM
> > Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> >
> >
> >> On 4 Jul 2008 at 21:41, Randy wrote:
> >> > No matter how much we want or hope for a
> solar , wind alternative
> >> > energy solution .....it's not going to
> happen . Lump them all
> >> > together
> >> > and the most optimistic forecasts are 5-10
> percent of current
> >> > consumption.
> >>
> >> It doesn't have to be. I did a
> back-of-envelope calculation once to see
> > how
> >> much solar energy could be produced on the
> government-owned lands of the
> >> desert Southwest. It would take an area of
> roughly 40,000 square miles
> >> to
> >> produce energy equal to the ENTIRE energy budget
> of the US, assuming
> >> only 10% efficiency. The US Govt owns 200,000
> square miles of prime
> >> solar
> >> real estate in Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.
> If they would cede 50k
> >> or
> >> 100k of that land to a US Energy Trust, they could
> launch a "man-on-the-
> >> moon" class of initiative that could make the
> US entirely energy self-
> >> sufficient, and virtually eliminate our dependence
> on polluting energy
> >> sources like coal or nuclear.
> >>
> >> Yes, there would be environmental impacts in the
> area -- but consider the
> >> environmental and economic impacts of coal mining,
> burning coal or oil,
> >> disposing of nuclear wastes -- or engaging in wars
> in the Mideast.
> >>
> >> Should we try to replace 100% of the US energy
> consumption with solar?
> >> Probably not, as there are other problems
> involved. But it could provide
> > a
> >> HUGE percentage of the energy this country needs,
> with a self-built and
> > self-
> >> owned source of endless clean energy.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >
|