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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (125346)	1/18/2001 12:10:01 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Ten, Building nuclear power plants on top of the San Andreas fault, upwind of the rest of the US, may not be a brilliant idea. Scumbria

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (125346)	1/18/2001 12:43:58 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tenchusatsu, How about price increases until demand = supply? I think the opposition to nuclear generators would mysteriously disappear if the prices went up say 400%. Joe

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (125346)	1/18/2001 7:56:35 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Re: ...there are only two ways to solve California's energy crisis in the long term. Build more power plants (against the wishes of the community and environmental activists of the last decade) That's not the problem (California's electricity market can be served from Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, etc.) It's the state regulations that preclude the distribution companies from charging more than X (so they can't pay more than X) that stops new plants from being built. Actually, California's regulations preclude the distribution companies from paying more than X (they lifted that a little in the face of expected blackouts - but capacity can't be put into place instantly). Craig Barrett himself suggested nuclear generators Good Man!