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.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (4344)	1/20/2009 2:52:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Hawk, somebody was just talking at you... were your ears burning? Hardly.. it's not the SCALE of the plans that I have problems with, it's the choices that are made. I personally believe we need a LARGE SCALE program of nuclear power plant building (Pebble Bed Reactors) in order to expand our baseload power capacity, as well as a major overhaul of the transmission infrastructure. THIS will provide the economic foundation for fostering economic activity. My father and I were debating yesterday as to the nature of what kinds of alternative energy programs the government could be involved in and the issue of the "fart tax" came up. The town he resides in is a major dairy producer and sometimes the smell is just overwhelming. I told him that I was highly in favor of promoting bio-digesters for the cattle waste, but that the role the government can best plan is in assisting in creating the distribution infrastructure where that methane production can be actually utilized by the surrounding community. Either that, or promoting technologies that can facilitate the conversion of that methane into some other form of usable power. I have one REAL CRITERIA for the kinds of stimulus that this administration advances. That whatever technology the government promotes should ENHANCE our economic productivity, not burden it with unnecessary economic liabilities. I'm ALL IN FAVOR of continuing R&D into electric vehicles and PHEVs, and commencing limited production as sport and/or luxury vehicles where cost is not as much of an issue. But ultimately, for the technology to be successful, we MUST make them cost-competitive and equally reliable with current vehicle technology so that it does not place an undue burden upon our economic recovery. Bottom line, you're not enhancing the consumer's purchasing power by denying them the ability to obtain a reliable and fuel efficient vehicle at a reasonable price. And if you lock them into a vehicle infrastructure where they are required to spend 14K every 5-10 years for a new battery pack, you're placing a huge burden upon them. Lithium batteries are just not a good long-term solution. But hopefully other technologies, such a ultra-capacitors, or newer battery technology, will provide that needed advantage at a reasonable price. That's not in our nation's interest. Energy independence, by the most cost-effective and reliable means possible IS in our interest. Hawk