Realismus in USA: 65 neue Kraftwerke, JÄHRLICH... - 500 Beiträge pro Seite
eröffnet am 23.03.01 22:56:35 von
neuester Beitrag 24.03.01 19:21:11 von
neuester Beitrag 24.03.01 19:21:11 von
Beiträge: 8
ID: 367.308
ID: 367.308
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 304
Gesamt: 304
Aktive User: 0
Top-Diskussionen
| Titel | letzter Beitrag | Aufrufe |
|---|---|---|
| gestern 11:52 | 2141 | |
| vor 48 Minuten | 2060 | |
| gestern 22:26 | 1282 | |
| 08.05.24, 11:56 | 1278 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 1121 | |
| vor 34 Minuten | 1087 | |
| vor 1 Stunde | 960 | |
| vor 51 Minuten | 886 |
Meistdiskutierte Wertpapiere
| Platz | vorher | Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % | Anzahl | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1. | 18.772,85 | +0,46 | 131 | |||
| 2. | 3. | 0,2170 | +3,33 | 125 | |||
| 3. | Neu! | 8,2570 | +96,67 | 108 | |||
| 4. | 4. | 156,46 | -2,31 | 103 | |||
| 5. | 14. | 5,7540 | -2,18 | 56 | |||
| 6. | 2. | 0,2980 | -3,87 | 50 | |||
| 7. | 5. | 2,3720 | -7,54 | 49 | |||
| 8. | 7. | 6,8000 | +2,38 | 38 |
Feedback
..vor allem Kohlekraftwerke und sogar Atomkraftwerke müssten über ca. 20 Jahre dort
gebaut werden, um dem Bedarf gerecht zu werden, Wind- und Solar-Energie hätten keine Bedeutung.
Das hat der zuständige Minister Abrahams unsrem Wirtschafts-Müller gerade beigebracht.
Da muss euch doch das Herz aufgehen, liebe Freunde.
gebaut werden, um dem Bedarf gerecht zu werden, Wind- und Solar-Energie hätten keine Bedeutung.
Das hat der zuständige Minister Abrahams unsrem Wirtschafts-Müller gerade beigebracht.
Da muss euch doch das Herz aufgehen, liebe Freunde.
@ Sellall
Wieder einmal nur die halbe Wahrheit sellall !
Du hast die Demokraten vergessen, die einen alternativen regenerativen . Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt haben !
Wie du vielleicht weißt herrscht im Senat ein Patt !
Mehr Wind mehr Solar mehr Geothermie Kraftwerke !
Vs. mehr OEL mehr Kohle (CO2) mehr Atommüll
Harrisburg steht wie ein mahnendes Omen and der Wand ! Die Amis werden Bushs plänen eine Absage erteilen !
Zumal Bush unter der Bevölkerung keine Mehrheit hat Fakt
Es wird die grösste Schlacht aller Zeiten werden in den USA
zumal :
CNN :
Bush declares war on environment
March 23, 2001
Web posted at: 12:20 p.m. EST (1720 GMT)
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- How many ways did George Bush find to destroy the environment today?
Chainsaw in hand, Bush has rolled back virtually every environmental regulation issued by Bill Clinton in his final months in office -- and turned environmental decision-making over to the major polluters. Whatever the logging and mining companies want, the logging and mining companies get.
In barely 60 days, Bush has attacked clean air, clean water, national forests and federally protected lands. And he hasn`t even started on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge yet. This guy makes Ronald Reagan look like John Muir.
How far is Bush willing to go? Consider this. He`ll even leave more arsenic -- yes, arsenic! -- in your drinking water, if that`s what the mining companies want. They do. He just did.
Acting on orders from the White House, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stopped implementation of new rules, scheduled to take effect March 23, reducing the level of arsenic in drinking water. Current regulations, adopted way back in 1942, allow 50 parts per billion; new rules would have reduced that to 10 parts per billion.
You almost have to feel sorry for the hapless Whitman. She came to Washington, having built a good conservation record as governor of New Jersey, hoping to be the chief environmentalist of the new administration. Instead, she`s been made to play the role of chief hatchet lady. She tried to defend suspension of the tougher, new arsenic rules by saying more scientific study was needed. Nonsense.
Excessive levels of arsenic in drinking water -- caused, in part, by run-off from mining operations in Western states -- have been identified by the National Academy of Sciences as a cause of bladder, lung and kidney cancer. How much more study is needed? The problem wasn`t lack of scientific evidence. The problem was opposition from the mining industry.
It was the second straight day Bush caved in to mining interests. In another little-publicized action, the EPA cancelled new regulations on mining on federal lands. These rules, also adopted during the last few weeks of the Clinton presidency, merely required hardrock miners, operating on federally-owned lands, to post a bond guaranteeing to clean up their sites when finished in order to prevent groundwater contamination. One would think that would be standard procedure. But mining companies balked. And Bush walked.
At the same time, the Justice Department is in federal court, seeking to delay implementation of a ban on new roads and virtually all logging in 58.5 million acres of national forests. Those rules were adopted 3 days before Bill Clinton left office. The timber industry doesn`t like them. Out the window!
But Bush`s environmental assault doesn`t stop there. That`s just the beginning. Just last week, remember, he first forced Christie Whitman to walk the plank, reversing her commitment -- and breaking his own campaign promise -- to add carbon dioxide to the list of regulated pollutants in order to help prevent global warming. Again, science said yes. Utilities and mining companies said no. Bush suddenly changed his mind.
Now Prime Minister Dick Cheney has taken the anti-global warming crusade one giant step further. Appearing on MSNBC`s "Hardball" on March 21, Cheney said the solution to clean air was to bring back nuclear power plants: "If you`re really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back and let`s take another look at nuclear power, use that to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."
No adverse consequences? Tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Or Three Mile Island. There`s a good reason why no new nuclear power plant has been authorized in the United States since 1975. But that won`t stop Cheney and Bush in their zeal to destroy the planet.
Next target, of course, is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No doubt Bush will soon unveil plans to hand over to big oil companies our last and greatest expanse of wilderness, first recognized and protected as a national treasure by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. But that`s not all. Department of Interior sources say Bush`s energy plan will also call for new drilling off the coast of California. Damn the environment. Full speed ahead!
Now here`s the spin. Bush and Cheney say they aren`t out to destroy the environment, they`re just out to provide a little "balance." Balance? After clear-cutting the forest, strip-mining the land, polluting the air and water and destroying the wilderness, where`s the balance on the other side? There is none. There is no environment left.
George Bush has declared war on the environment. Quick! Does Ralph Nader still believe there`s no difference between Bush and Gore?
Es herrscht Krieg
Wieder einmal nur die halbe Wahrheit sellall !
Du hast die Demokraten vergessen, die einen alternativen regenerativen . Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt haben !
Wie du vielleicht weißt herrscht im Senat ein Patt !
Mehr Wind mehr Solar mehr Geothermie Kraftwerke !
Vs. mehr OEL mehr Kohle (CO2) mehr Atommüll
Harrisburg steht wie ein mahnendes Omen and der Wand ! Die Amis werden Bushs plänen eine Absage erteilen !
Zumal Bush unter der Bevölkerung keine Mehrheit hat
FaktEs wird die grösste Schlacht aller Zeiten werden in den USA
zumal :
CNN :
Bush declares war on environment
March 23, 2001
Web posted at: 12:20 p.m. EST (1720 GMT)
By Bill Press
Tribune Media Services
WASHINGTON (Tribune Media Services) -- How many ways did George Bush find to destroy the environment today?
Chainsaw in hand, Bush has rolled back virtually every environmental regulation issued by Bill Clinton in his final months in office -- and turned environmental decision-making over to the major polluters. Whatever the logging and mining companies want, the logging and mining companies get.
In barely 60 days, Bush has attacked clean air, clean water, national forests and federally protected lands. And he hasn`t even started on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge yet. This guy makes Ronald Reagan look like John Muir.
How far is Bush willing to go? Consider this. He`ll even leave more arsenic -- yes, arsenic! -- in your drinking water, if that`s what the mining companies want. They do. He just did.
Acting on orders from the White House, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman stopped implementation of new rules, scheduled to take effect March 23, reducing the level of arsenic in drinking water. Current regulations, adopted way back in 1942, allow 50 parts per billion; new rules would have reduced that to 10 parts per billion.
You almost have to feel sorry for the hapless Whitman. She came to Washington, having built a good conservation record as governor of New Jersey, hoping to be the chief environmentalist of the new administration. Instead, she`s been made to play the role of chief hatchet lady. She tried to defend suspension of the tougher, new arsenic rules by saying more scientific study was needed. Nonsense.
Excessive levels of arsenic in drinking water -- caused, in part, by run-off from mining operations in Western states -- have been identified by the National Academy of Sciences as a cause of bladder, lung and kidney cancer. How much more study is needed? The problem wasn`t lack of scientific evidence. The problem was opposition from the mining industry.
It was the second straight day Bush caved in to mining interests. In another little-publicized action, the EPA cancelled new regulations on mining on federal lands. These rules, also adopted during the last few weeks of the Clinton presidency, merely required hardrock miners, operating on federally-owned lands, to post a bond guaranteeing to clean up their sites when finished in order to prevent groundwater contamination. One would think that would be standard procedure. But mining companies balked. And Bush walked.
At the same time, the Justice Department is in federal court, seeking to delay implementation of a ban on new roads and virtually all logging in 58.5 million acres of national forests. Those rules were adopted 3 days before Bill Clinton left office. The timber industry doesn`t like them. Out the window!
But Bush`s environmental assault doesn`t stop there. That`s just the beginning. Just last week, remember, he first forced Christie Whitman to walk the plank, reversing her commitment -- and breaking his own campaign promise -- to add carbon dioxide to the list of regulated pollutants in order to help prevent global warming. Again, science said yes. Utilities and mining companies said no. Bush suddenly changed his mind.
Now Prime Minister Dick Cheney has taken the anti-global warming crusade one giant step further. Appearing on MSNBC`s "Hardball" on March 21, Cheney said the solution to clean air was to bring back nuclear power plants: "If you`re really serious about greenhouse gases, one of the solutions to that problem is to go back and let`s take another look at nuclear power, use that to generate electricity without having any adverse consequences."
No adverse consequences? Tell that to the people of Chernobyl. Or Three Mile Island. There`s a good reason why no new nuclear power plant has been authorized in the United States since 1975. But that won`t stop Cheney and Bush in their zeal to destroy the planet.
Next target, of course, is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. No doubt Bush will soon unveil plans to hand over to big oil companies our last and greatest expanse of wilderness, first recognized and protected as a national treasure by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. But that`s not all. Department of Interior sources say Bush`s energy plan will also call for new drilling off the coast of California. Damn the environment. Full speed ahead!
Now here`s the spin. Bush and Cheney say they aren`t out to destroy the environment, they`re just out to provide a little "balance." Balance? After clear-cutting the forest, strip-mining the land, polluting the air and water and destroying the wilderness, where`s the balance on the other side? There is none. There is no environment left.
George Bush has declared war on the environment. Quick! Does Ralph Nader still believe there`s no difference between Bush and Gore?
Es herrscht Krieg
@ M-B-S
.
Nee, nicht MEINE halbe Wahrheit, war Auszug aus der FAZ von heute:
Unser Wirtschaftsminister hatte sich halt nicht mit den alten Demo-Kumpels getroffen,
und deshalb konnte eine Alternativ-Sicht nicht wiedergegeben werden.
Bush und die Mehrheit, das ist einfach, überall mal kurz den Strom abgeschaltet und dann
das Bush-Statement: "Wir brauchen ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste Energie und das umgehend".
Volle Mehrheit, wetten? (Wäre bei uns genauso).
Was ist eigentlich "Bill Press" die du zitierst, die letzten Propaganda-Mohikaner von Clinton? Dabei wird der Bill aber kräftig enttarnt, hat der doch in den letzten Monaten (ja sogar letzten 3 Tagen!!) seiner "Tätigkeit" noch Umwelt-Beschlüsse gefasst wie verrückt, die Umwelt muss ihm also in den langen Jahren zuvor recht gleichgültig gewesen sein, wollte wohl seinem Nachfolger noch paar Knüppel zwischen die Beine werfen.
Und Cheney spricht es aus: Wenn ihr keine greenhorn gase wollt, machen wir AKWs,
die sind sauber, recht hat er.
Aber Angst musst du keine mehr haben vor Harrisburg o.ä., die Technik und die Materialien sind sehr viel besser geworden in den vielen Jahren seit dem Vorfall.
Alles in allem, trotzdem ausnahmsweise ne Sache , bei der ich gespannt auf den Ausgang bin (Ich selbst wette, dass Bush mit all seinen Plänen ohne Probleme durchkommt).
.
Nee, nicht MEINE halbe Wahrheit, war Auszug aus der FAZ von heute:
Unser Wirtschaftsminister hatte sich halt nicht mit den alten Demo-Kumpels getroffen,
und deshalb konnte eine Alternativ-Sicht nicht wiedergegeben werden.
Bush und die Mehrheit, das ist einfach, überall mal kurz den Strom abgeschaltet und dann
das Bush-Statement: "Wir brauchen ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste Energie und das umgehend".
Volle Mehrheit, wetten? (Wäre bei uns genauso).
Was ist eigentlich "Bill Press" die du zitierst, die letzten Propaganda-Mohikaner von Clinton? Dabei wird der Bill aber kräftig enttarnt, hat der doch in den letzten Monaten (ja sogar letzten 3 Tagen!!) seiner "Tätigkeit" noch Umwelt-Beschlüsse gefasst wie verrückt, die Umwelt muss ihm also in den langen Jahren zuvor recht gleichgültig gewesen sein, wollte wohl seinem Nachfolger noch paar Knüppel zwischen die Beine werfen.
Und Cheney spricht es aus: Wenn ihr keine greenhorn gase wollt, machen wir AKWs,
die sind sauber, recht hat er.
Aber Angst musst du keine mehr haben vor Harrisburg o.ä., die Technik und die Materialien sind sehr viel besser geworden in den vielen Jahren seit dem Vorfall.
Alles in allem, trotzdem ausnahmsweise ne Sache , bei der ich gespannt auf den Ausgang bin (Ich selbst wette, dass Bush mit all seinen Plänen ohne Probleme durchkommt).
@sellall
Lass den Amis mal die Wahl zwischen Bush Oel AKW und Kohle Kraftwerken oder Wind Wasser Solar Geothermie Biomasse Kraftwerke :
Du wirst dann sehen wie sie wählen würden ! Gore mit 500000
Mehrstimmen Landesweit lässt grüßen !
Nun zu Bush jr. Lösung : Der Energiekrise !
Dies macht nur dann Sinn wenn man begreift, daß der Bush Clan sein Geld mit Oel - verdient
Texas - Oel 28 $ /b
Anstatt Amerika in das solare Wasserstoff Zeitalter zu führen, setzt dieser Idiot ( Meine Meinung ) weiter auf OEL ! Und damit auf "Sand"
Lass den Amis mal die Wahl zwischen Bush Oel AKW und Kohle Kraftwerken oder Wind Wasser Solar Geothermie Biomasse Kraftwerke :
Du wirst dann sehen wie sie wählen würden ! Gore mit 500000
Mehrstimmen Landesweit lässt grüßen !
Nun zu Bush jr. Lösung : Der Energiekrise !
Dies macht nur dann Sinn wenn man begreift, daß der Bush Clan sein Geld mit Oel - verdient
Texas - Oel 28 $ /b
Anstatt Amerika in das solare Wasserstoff Zeitalter zu führen, setzt dieser Idiot ( Meine Meinung ) weiter auf OEL ! Und damit auf "Sand"
Nachtrag :
Demokratischer Entwurf
Democratic lawmakers unveil alternative energy bill to Arctic oil drilling
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Eleven Democratic Senators have come out in support of an alternative energy bill to the one authored by Republican Senator Frank Murkowski which seeks to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling.
The Democratic bill, authored by Senator Jeff Bingaman, opposes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum development and instead urges the Bush administration to proceed with an oil and gas lease sale in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
Speaking to reporters at a news conference launching the Democrats bill, Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle said the cold winter, higher natural gas prices, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries recent output cut agreement, and power blackouts in California call for a new comprehensive energy plan.
"This plan will provide energy security for our nation for decades to come, this plan will increase domestic supplies of energy, reduce demand by improving energy efficiency and promote the use of clean, renewable sources of energy bringing our energy system into balance in a way that protects the environment," Daschle said.
A looming battle over the environmental issue of whether or not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is causing a divide along partisan lines in Congress, and both energy bills will now face a tough fight in the 50-50 split Senate.
"Any oil from the Arctic refuge represents at the very most a six month supply, it would take up to ten years to reach the market, and have no impact on oil prices," Daschle said stressing that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected lands "would be a betrayal of our responsibility to protect our most precious lands."
The Bush administration has indicated that it would use the expected 1.2 bln usd in bid bonuses from energy groups, like BP Amoco PLC, Chevron Corp, ExxonMobil Corp and Phillips Petroleum Co, seeking the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge exploration rights for research into renewable energy resources.
However, the Democrats say that their bill would provide incentives to ensure a wide range of fuels and technologies are available for the future, without opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, from advanced coal and nuclear to fuel cells and renewables.
Asked why drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico is more viable than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bingaman replied: "In the first place there is production in the Gulf of Mexico, there is a lease sale that is pending down there which we believe they should go forward with."
Significant production also exists in Alaska, which is home to the Prudhoe Bay oil field, one of the largest in the U.S.
"Governor Jeb Bush (the brother of President Bush) of Florida has objected to that even though what we`re proposing they go ahead with is in areas 100 miles off the shore of Florida, that`s a near term solution," Bingaman added.
Democratic Senator Patty Murray said: "I can only assume that the influence of the oil industry in the Bush administration is keeping them from helping out in our economic crisis in the state of Washington" which is being sapped by increased power demand from California.
Bush is a former Texas oil company executive, and Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly the chief executive officer of Halliburton Company, one of the world`s largest oil services group`s.
Among other measures, the Democrats bill also includes an incentive to expedite construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas stranded on the North Slope of Alaska, but not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to the so-called lower 48 U.S. states.
The bill would also provide credits for domestic drilling when the price of oil is extremely low, under 14.00 usd, to maintain stable gas supplies and to ensure the services industry is able to retain a technical workforce, and assess whether the Secretary of Energy needs more flexibility in drawing down the nation`s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Earlier today, a coalition of environmental groups picketed ExxonMobil`s government relations offices in Washington as part of a campaign to stop the company`s plans to drill for more Arctic oil.
jjc/jmp
Ja, es wird spannend !
CU
Demokratischer Entwurf
Democratic lawmakers unveil alternative energy bill to Arctic oil drilling
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Eleven Democratic Senators have come out in support of an alternative energy bill to the one authored by Republican Senator Frank Murkowski which seeks to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling.
The Democratic bill, authored by Senator Jeff Bingaman, opposes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to petroleum development and instead urges the Bush administration to proceed with an oil and gas lease sale in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.
Speaking to reporters at a news conference launching the Democrats bill, Senate Democratic leader Thomas Daschle said the cold winter, higher natural gas prices, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries recent output cut agreement, and power blackouts in California call for a new comprehensive energy plan.
"This plan will provide energy security for our nation for decades to come, this plan will increase domestic supplies of energy, reduce demand by improving energy efficiency and promote the use of clean, renewable sources of energy bringing our energy system into balance in a way that protects the environment," Daschle said.
A looming battle over the environmental issue of whether or not to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is causing a divide along partisan lines in Congress, and both energy bills will now face a tough fight in the 50-50 split Senate.
"Any oil from the Arctic refuge represents at the very most a six month supply, it would take up to ten years to reach the market, and have no impact on oil prices," Daschle said stressing that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other protected lands "would be a betrayal of our responsibility to protect our most precious lands."
The Bush administration has indicated that it would use the expected 1.2 bln usd in bid bonuses from energy groups, like BP Amoco PLC, Chevron Corp, ExxonMobil Corp and Phillips Petroleum Co, seeking the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge exploration rights for research into renewable energy resources.
However, the Democrats say that their bill would provide incentives to ensure a wide range of fuels and technologies are available for the future, without opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, from advanced coal and nuclear to fuel cells and renewables.
Asked why drilling in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico is more viable than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bingaman replied: "In the first place there is production in the Gulf of Mexico, there is a lease sale that is pending down there which we believe they should go forward with."
Significant production also exists in Alaska, which is home to the Prudhoe Bay oil field, one of the largest in the U.S.
"Governor Jeb Bush (the brother of President Bush) of Florida has objected to that even though what we`re proposing they go ahead with is in areas 100 miles off the shore of Florida, that`s a near term solution," Bingaman added.
Democratic Senator Patty Murray said: "I can only assume that the influence of the oil industry in the Bush administration is keeping them from helping out in our economic crisis in the state of Washington" which is being sapped by increased power demand from California.
Bush is a former Texas oil company executive, and Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly the chief executive officer of Halliburton Company, one of the world`s largest oil services group`s.
Among other measures, the Democrats bill also includes an incentive to expedite construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas stranded on the North Slope of Alaska, but not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to the so-called lower 48 U.S. states.
The bill would also provide credits for domestic drilling when the price of oil is extremely low, under 14.00 usd, to maintain stable gas supplies and to ensure the services industry is able to retain a technical workforce, and assess whether the Secretary of Energy needs more flexibility in drawing down the nation`s Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Earlier today, a coalition of environmental groups picketed ExxonMobil`s government relations offices in Washington as part of a campaign to stop the company`s plans to drill for more Arctic oil.
jjc/jmp
Ja, es wird spannend !
CU
Trading Spotlight
Bush "verheizt" seine Nation; mit Öl und dem atomaren Feuer.
wenn mann dem ami den strom abstellt wird er nach
einer autarken lösung suchen und das sind keine
großkraftwerke.die alte debate sicher, oder sicher nicht,
greift auch nicht.diesmal wirds bei einen unfall
sicher viel geld kosten dafür wird ein heer von
rechtsanwälten sorgen fals je doch noch eins durchkommt
in der postbusch ära.
einer autarken lösung suchen und das sind keine
großkraftwerke.die alte debate sicher, oder sicher nicht,
greift auch nicht.diesmal wirds bei einen unfall
sicher viel geld kosten dafür wird ein heer von
rechtsanwälten sorgen fals je doch noch eins durchkommt
in der postbusch ära.
M-B-S
Na, dieser demokratische Gesetzes-Entwurf ist ja so toll nicht:
Es geht eigentlich nur um den Schutz des Arktischen Nationalparks,
alle anderen Sachen, darunter Schweinereien (aus deiner Sicht), wollen auch diese machen:
".. von moderner KOHLE- und NUKLEARtechnik bis zu Energie-Zellen und Erneuerbarem".
Na, dieser demokratische Gesetzes-Entwurf ist ja so toll nicht:
Es geht eigentlich nur um den Schutz des Arktischen Nationalparks,
alle anderen Sachen, darunter Schweinereien (aus deiner Sicht), wollen auch diese machen:
".. von moderner KOHLE- und NUKLEARtechnik bis zu Energie-Zellen und Erneuerbarem".
DurchsuchenBeitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Zu dieser Diskussion können keine Beiträge mehr verfasst werden, da der letzte Beitrag vor mehr als zwei Jahren verfasst wurde und die Diskussion daraufhin archiviert wurde.
Bitte wenden Sie sich an feedback@wallstreet-online.de und erfragen Sie die Reaktivierung der Diskussion oder starten Sie eine neue Diskussion.
Meistdiskutiert
| Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
|---|---|---|
| 78 | ||
| 42 | ||
| 22 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 19 | ||
| 17 | ||
| 15 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 10 |
| Wertpapier | Beiträge | |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 5 |
