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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Bucks who wrote (2965)	4/25/2006 7:12:05 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 16955

I am not against a rational energy policy. I certainly understand why we subsidized certain energy sources in decades past. For example, when faced with the need for more energy in the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear power seemed like a pretty worthwhile thing to support, and we did support it to the tune of billions and plants were built that still supply about 20% of our electricity. Oil too, we have supported it in many way for decades and reaped the benefits. I just think it's time to change our approach now in the 21st Century. Time to give new emerging energy alternatives a fair shot at making it in the marketplace. Although I would not oppose building new pebble bed nuclear reactors. I don't see the need to provide a new public subsidy to do so. If pebble bed nuclear reactors are the cheapest most efficient way to make electricity, then let them win over the investors and market participants. What's wrong with letting the American free market work for a change? It's the dinosaurs like oil and nuclear power that fear a free market and try to continue the public subsidy.