Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (57476)	1/12/2001 9:52:36 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

hb - Don, i agree that initially, such a new energy source would be actually disruptive, as it would destroy the existing energy industry. but the costs of dependency on fossil fuels are not simply just economic costs: there's a huge environmental cost involved as well. and in the long run, an energy source that is both economically and environmentally more cost-effective than what we currently have (by a wide margin as it were), would free up labor and capital to pursue other endeavors. so on balance it should give the economy a big boost eventually This is all true, and the requirement of defense costs also comes into play, but 'economic golden age' threw the switch for me. Maybe a $35 gold(en) age. -g- Regards, Don