[RegulatorCountry]

"Because we would still be locked into a higher cost of energy than our competitors world wide."

Competitors? Who are we competing with on price?

I guess you're saying that you'd prefer that we us just continue to gyrate wildly, like a yo-yo on a string, while games are played with the current sources of supply? This doesn't sound like a good course to pursue.

And, biomass isn't the only game. Oil shale, oil sands and coal gassification, plus expanded nuclear power generation are doable now, provided OPEC doesn't pull the rug out from under it again by dropping to $20.00/bbl., and they will, if the past is any indication.

[DB]

Perhaps you ought to read both what I was responding to and what I posted before commenting.

Everything we produce takes energy including chips.

We compete with the world on everything we export.

Artificially raising the cost of energy here while lowering it for our competitors is bad business. Period.

And I was responding to the idea of the government artificially holding the price of oil high so other alternate sources of energy could compete (if you can call that competing...).