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 (47176)	2/1/2014 12:18:49 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86363

I would have to understand more of what Reagan said. if he was blocking private enterprise or the states from adopting alternate energy sources, then yes, I would be very much against that. But if he was saying that it isn't the federal government's job, then I agree with him. If you really wanted to make it a federal government responsibility, you could take the angle that energy independence is a national security issue. But I don't trust the government to pick the right solutions. It would turn into more crony socialism that we see today. As far as dams in California, most viable sites for hydroelectric throughout the states, have been developed. If his policies affected the development of a dam site, in the whole grand scheme of the energy, it's not very meaningful. It's probably more important from a water resource perspective. As far as coal, we will get to the lower percentages without closing one coal mine or coal burning power plant. This is what is so absurd with the war on coal. We need all of the alternate energy sources just to keep up with the demand that an ever increasing population will put on the grid. And as we use more electric vehicles, that will put even more demand on the grid. There was never a need to declare war on coal. It just made our economy weaker and our energy infrastructure more vulnerable.