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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: heraclitus who wrote (35127)	11/2/1998 6:16:00 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Nuclear power has proved to be more costly than was originally thought. Not a lot of new coal fired plants being built in the US -- mostly gas fired CTs or combined cycle units. It's a good choice while supplies last. There is quite a bit of gvmnt money spent on research into alternatives and there are consortiums. Absent outright subsidies or penalties, the most economic mix of resources is not apt to change that much in the immediate future, unless something happens to the supplies of natural gas.

To: heraclitus who wrote (35127)	11/2/1998 6:48:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

JPS, Nukes were dead long before Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, which is loaded with nukes. ("So what if I grow a third arm? Now I can hold down both of my sisters at the same time." <G>) They had trouble before. The China Syndrome and 3 Mile Island did them in. Even Larry Niven's great book where a nuke was the only thing that saved mankind made no impression. Yes, France is committed to nukes and we are not. But France is also committed to safety, and we allowed local yokels in Pennsylvania to screw that up. MB