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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sweet Ol who wrote (27181)	11/17/2003 9:11:26 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

A closer look at the wording shows something like "authorize" rather than "direct" or "require," but the language certainly does mention specifically the reprocessed Russian warheads, and speaks of a strategic stockpile of reactor fuel being built up. At the very least, that would seem to be a good thing for USEC--just to have language that encourages nuclear power and the production of nuclear fuel. Now that the "tax" section of the energy bill is available, I do not see anything specifically aimed at nuclear power there. Antinuclear activists seem to believe that there are going to be tax credits to encourage construction of reactors (something like 1.6 to 1.8 cents per kwh up to a certain limit, covering the output of such a plant for a year or two). As we all know, it takes years of construction to bring nuclear reactors on line, on top of the time needed to license them and overcome opposition to them. I am not as excited about USU as I was 24 hours ago, but let's just say that the language in the energy bill ought to be quite reassuring to company management.