Politics of Energy Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4354)	1/20/2009 6:28:37 PM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 86356

Instead, they should be taxing the bad thing (oil and coal) and providing broad based incentives for the good things (alternative energy). NO, NO, NO!!!!! We should not be trying to tax anything out of existence until there exists an alternative energy source that is JUST AS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE!!! You want to punish the consumers by denying them an existing power source that is viable and reliable. It's like RW stated with Progress power in Florida. They want to increase their rates 20% to develop 2 gigawatts of nuke power and shut down 2 of their CURRENT coal plants. I believe this is an excessive cost and they are promoting the wrong sort of reactor. I'd say leave those coal plants in place as long as they are still economically viable, clear up their emissions (possibly in combination with R&D on algae based CO2 sequestration/bio-fuel efforts) and save those nukes for locations where power is being imported. Fill in the gaps in the national grid with PB Reactors and create a long-term infrastructure whereupon we'll have the necessary capacity to both provide for our electrical needs, as well as a base for hydrogen production from hydrolysis. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next