Kate wrote: > I don't buy this argument. To whom is it expensive? Alternative technologies > have been around for a very long time. The oil companies have a huge stake > in the status quo. The longterm price for not allowing the development of > alternative energy will be very expensive & not just in terms of money.
I said it was expensive to convert not to develop and was thinking of power generation for electricity, etc. That is not an argument but a fact. I'm all for it but people should be realistic and consider the cost and not think it can just happen immediately overnight seamlessly. Think about converting over all the present generating facilities throughout the U.S. that now operate on fossil fuels. I don't have the engineering expertise to elaborate on all the technical aspects of it but it is a major "re-tooling" operation for each plant. And despite everything, most alternative plants still require a certain degree of oil in order to run. In California alone it cost tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for many plants for which the investors were then given free reign to recoup on the backs of the people through wildly out of control charges. The example set in California has turned off a lot of other states who were considering mandating alternative energy generation. For years the people who have certain technology, such as for home solar generators, have charged an enormous amount for installation and maintenance of the units. Either the conversion technology/engineering has to become a lot more cost effective or some financial geniuses need to figure a better way to fund it. Nonetheless, I've heard many in the federal government and the Bush administration advocating moving forward towards alternatives. Kakki
