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: No Mo Mo who wrote (38477)	2/25/2013 6:36:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86356

Y'know.. if price is not a problem, it might make more sense to pursue this idea: dailymail.co.uk The rub lies in the need for cheap electricity and producing at commercial quantities. It's likely worth funding continued R&D, within limits, in order to prove the ability to meet economic milestones. But I certainly wouldn't dream of forcing the DOD, or our country, into relying upon it for our energy needs, just so they can be a "greener" force of mass destruction and mayhem to our enemies. It would be more appropriate as a proof of concept as a back up to a major global energy disruption that prevents our military from obtaining the fuels they require. But then again, that's why we used to have oil reserves like Elk Hills.. Which Gore helped to sell off to Occidental Petroleum (the stock of which the Gore family owned). I'm actually a believer in the promise of algal based bio-fuels.. But until they are economically competitive, I don't see the need to force our military to rely upon these more expensive fuels. Especially when we have cheap Natural Gas as a viable alternative, with the future promise of creating the distribution network for hydrogen (the holy grail of alternative energy, IMO). Hawk