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: Wharf Rat who wrote (38689)	3/3/2013 3:24:15 AM
From: teevee	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

I see it fine. You just nailed it. Chalk up two for the consumers. Yep, and they will reap what they sow.....the only thing they will be consuming is soup, after a long wait in an Obama soup line. Probably the best thing in the long run though. The green sham is about to go bust and you and your kind will find out what it is like with no real economy left.......

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38689)	3/3/2013 1:24:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Passed in 2009, Kansas’ RES requires investor-owned utilities to generate 20 percent of peak demand electrical capacity from renewable sources by 2020. Assuming that "renewable" resources are so competitive against Fossil Fuel generation processes, then why do energy companies need to be "required" to generate it?? If I were a smart businessman, knowing that renewables would increase my profitability against my competitors, it would be natural for me to spend the money to convert to renewables. But that's not the case, now is it? The require massive subsidies (30% tax credits) So.. that law should be reviewed and altered to state that the 20% that is renewable should not cost more than currently existing energy, so that it doesn't inflict an undue cost to the public, or state economy. Hawk