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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (55097)	9/13/2001 8:45:56 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

And people are still arguing about the ANWR? H...you're right... After this i can guarantee... 1.the ANWR will be drilled. 2. Borders will be tightened, expect a long wait... 3. No amnesty for illegal aliens living in the US. 4. Some key immigration laws will be looked at. 5. Airport security will increase to the point air travel will really be a pain in the butt.

To: hmaly who wrote (55097)	9/13/2001 9:13:17 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Harry, where do you think the US is going to find 10 more ANWRs? The US is by far the most thoroughly explored territory for oil in the world. ANWR is pretty much the last major field anybody expects to find. There are alternatives. The Alberta tar sands have an astonishing amount of oil, Saudi scale rather than Prudhoe scale. It's almost economically feasible to produce at current prices, even. There is also a lot of oil shale in COlorado. There used to be big pilot programs for this stuff, it was all shut down in the '80s. Nuclear's problems have a lot more to do with incompetent utility management and regulatory problems than with environmentalists. All the cost overruns and endless construction delays had very little to do with environmentalists. It would be a huge gamble for private industry to put up the money for plants that might or might not be ready 7 or 10 years down the road. The government could guarantee the money, but there's a philosophical consistency problem there.

To: hmaly who wrote (55097)	9/14/2001 3:36:51 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 275872

>This is due to the enormous scare tactics and burdensome regulations and duplicate and triplicate safety systems which made nuclear uneconomical. New reactors are inherently safe, and while more costly than coal, will be as cheap as natural gas and much cheaper than renewables. Electricity is the one energy source which can take over many of the energy uses from oil.< If the U.S. had gone with thorium breeder reactors instead of uranium reactors, which were adopted primarily to provide bomb grade fissionable materials, not only would the safety concerns have been more easily managed, costs would have also been lower. I am all for nuclear power, but only after safe, efficient, reliable thorium breeder reactors are developed.