no argument here. but that wasn't the point. yet at the same time, it was. i mean, if we were to let such considerations determine our actions--let alone what we are willing to think or imagine--we wouldn't all be on this list, would we? ;›)
cheers, -chris b. on 7/21/05 6:21 PM, Kirk McLoren at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>The machine to harvest the energy is a capital investment and when you >>consider the utilization factor the cost of the harvested energy is not >> competitive. > > > >"Payback period is the most widely used measure for evaluating potential >investments. Its use increases in tough economic times, when CIOs are apt >to say things like, 'We won't even consider a project that has more than a >24-month payback.' " > >Above from Computerworld. Any technology that has a payback period of, say, >10 years or more (fusion, hot or cold, tidal, deep ocean thermal) will >never get off the ground. Easter Island: "take half their pay to plant >more palms that won't make canoes for 10 years?? Off with your Head!!" > >Until the evaluation system changes, innovation suffers. -K _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
