Assuming the government should subsidize energy costs, the government should invest primarily in:
I say nuclear energy. My reasons:
1. It could provide for the vast majority of our infrastructural energy needs.
2. We could export nuclear energy to Mexico and Canada.
3. It's very efficient.
4. It's safe.
5. It produces relatively little waste.
6. It's cost-effective (in the long term).
7. There's no compelling argument against it.
Even France understands:
IF the government insists upon investing in energy then why don't they invest in nuclear power? I think it has something to do with the radical, leftwing, environmentalist types that insist on turning every issue into an overly emotional cry-fest, ignoring the facts and distorting the ones they can't ignore.In 2004, France consumed 11.2 quadrillion Btu of total energy. Nuclear energy was the largest share, representing 39 percent, followed by oil (36 percent), natural gas (16 percent) and hydroelectricity (5 percent). France is the second-largest producer of nuclear power in the world, after the United States, however, nuclear energy is a much larger share of France’s total energy consumption than the United States (8 percent in 2004).
France: Energy profile | Spero News
Let's be practical America...nuclear energy is good stuff.