"I love that dirty watah...oh BOSTON YOU'RE MY HOME!"

After spending the past four years in Ithaca, there is one thing I have come to appreciate more than ever:  The Boston Red Sox.  To some this may sound silly; however, when put in perspective it makes perfect sense, at least to me and fellow baseball fanatics.  I am a displaced Sox fan who lives and dies with every pitch of the season from the beginning of April until the middle of October.  Although the Sox have many games nationally broadcast, there is a majority of the season I am unable to watch on television because I am in an out of market city.  I am stuck to reading the box score and watching Sports Center every morning to keep up with my boys of summer.

            Although I complain, there is another option aside from counting the days until the Sox are featured on ESPN Sunday night baseball or play the Yankees (I cringe to write that word).  Major League Baseball has created a phenomenal site in general that offers many services for fans to keep up with their favorite teams and players.  I can follow live box scores, listen to the game on the radio, or even watch the game on my computer.  I can get all the latest news and updates though my RSS Feeds and then shop for the coolest gear.  They have created a great site that allows fans of any degree to easily find what they want and meet their needs.

            There are a multitude of services offered; however, I would like to key in on two services offered that are extremely similar, which are the MLB TV and Game Day Audio.  MLB TV is section of the MLB website that allows fans to sign-up for access to stream any game straight to their personal computer.  It also features archived games and highlights.  MLB Game Day Audio is a service offered that allows fans to stream radio broadcasts of their favorite teams straight to their computer.  Although these are both great services offered by the MLB, they do not give them away and charge customers fees.  They have found a way to put a price tag on dedication to a particular team.

            MLB TV uses a fixed pricing strategy to charge customers and earn revenues.  A fixed pricing strategy is one where the producer, MLB in this case, determines a steady price that every customer is charged.  This price is enough to cover expenses plus turning a profit, better known as a markup price, which is a traditional form of pricing for many companies.  MLB TV offers two levels of services, a regular and a premium.  Both can be purchased on a monthly or a yearly basis for $14.95/79.95 or $19.995/109.95 respectively.  Considering there are 162 games in a season, which breaks down to less than a dollar a game.  Not a bad deal for the diehard fan!

            Regular and premium servicing is fairly similar; however, there are marked differences for the two services.  Both give a user access to all 2,430 regular season games plus post season play and is compatible on a Mac or PC.  They offer TV quality picture and archived games as well as condensed games.  The advantage of MLB TV is that they also use a bundling strategy by including Game day Audio with MLB TV.  Premium service offers high quality streams, the ability to digitally record games, multi-game viewing capability, picture in picture and player tracker.  It also has the advantage of allowing a user to select the broadcast they want (home or away) so that they may listen to their favorite or hometown announcers.

            MLB Game Day Audio is a flat fee of $14.95 a year and provides streaming radio broadcasts of all regular season games in either English of Spanish.  They have currently paired with Sports Illustrated to offer a free three month subscription to the magazine as part of a promotional pricing strategy as an incentive for fans to purchase.  This is a great inexpensive alternative to MLB TV.

 

           Promotional pricing and bundling pricing are two strategies heavily used by Major League Baseball to both sell and up sell users to turn a larger profit.  Promotional pricing is what was described with the partnership between Sports Illustrated and MLB where the producer offers s discount or incentive to sign up for services.  Bundling is used by the MLB through the offering of Game Day Audio with the subscription of MLB TV.  MLB TV also offers the option of bundling your MLB TV subscription with either ESPN.COM Insider or the NHL Game center for $129.95 or $139.95 respectively.  For an extra ten or twenty bucks you gain access to content at great discount.  By bundling ESPN.com Insider with MLB TV a user saves ten dollars on the Insider stand alone price.  Users save thirty dollars by signing up for NHL Game Center.

            Judging the effectiveness of these pricing strategies is a bit difficult given the fact that financial measures and user statistics are not readily available as Major League Baseball is a private entity.  According to their website, they have 8.2 million opt-in users, users who choose to access content that is not free.  That number, although it may seem low given the number of fans worldwide and site visitors, is still very high and profitable.  Running MLB TV and Game Day Audio is not an expensive process for the MLB because it uses a person’s home computer and their available bandwidth and hardware to make the streaming possible.  Overhead costs are minimal as there is most likely a small to midsized web development staff with offices that are not independent of league offices.  This all adds up to a high profit margin for the MLB.

            The average user of MLB.com is between 19 and 45 years old, 73% of which are male.  Seventy eight percent of all their users also have an income of over $40,000 a year, which is an important stat.  These stats allow the MLB to set their price ranges and decide which strategies to implement.  Given the service they offer, it is fair to use a fixed price strategy with the bundling and promotional options.  Although the price points may seem high, the per game breakdown is very reasonable, especially for their target market who makes over $40,000 a year.  Overall it is a great product and service offering that has been successful as it has been up and running for many years now and has a loyal following.

Many of my posts have been about alternative vehicles, and yet another article has jumped out at me. This weeks article comes from the Boston Globe: Cab fleet wary of 2015 hybrid law

Boston Mayor Tom Menino recently announced the passing of a bill that will require all licensed taxi cabs in the city to be hybrid vehicles by 2015. The passing of this bill has spurred many lawsuits by city cab companies as they argue that it is unrealistic to expect companies to shell out thousands of dollars for new vehicles as opposed to buying up used police cruisers. They also argue that it is unconstitutional because there are not the same standard for other state fleet vehicles.

Although I agree with the bill that was passed, the cab companies have a legitimate point. They have pointed out a significant double standard. The state government is imposing a regulation that they themselves have no intentions of following. There is a rigid 2015 deadline for private business; however, for the public sector, there is no concrete deadline to switch fleets to hybrids. This state bill only helps to aid what little progress has been made be revamped CAFE standards.

The Great Depression take 2

The New York Times published an interesting article about the rise of tent cities throughout the United States as poverty rates continue to rise: Cities Deal with a Surge in Shantytowns

The article describes the desolate situation is that a growing concern as the economy sinks further into the recession, which is shantytowns. These towns spring up on the sides of highways and under bridges, and has even prompted local governments to move them onto fairgrounds. These towns area direct result of the growing rate of homelessness and foreclosures which have left families with simply no other option but to move to the streets. Poverello House, a non-profit, has taken to building 8x10 storage sheds for homeless families to use as shelter. Although they are not luxurious, they provide a roof, light, sleeping bags, and cots in the Village of Hope efforts.

The problem with these Shantytowns is the vast array of problems they cause the city in terms of infrastructure and the correlation to drug and crime rates. They also pose a problem as there are severe health concerns that go unnoticed and unaddressed. As we discuss social entrepreneurship, this article made me think about the void that is present in the market. There is no one catering to the needs of these people and not many people willing to reach out like the Poverello House organization. Why should these people, many of whom used to have well paying jobs and lives, be completely forgotten? Our flawed system has led them to this state of poverty so it is the job of the system and social entrepreneurs to pick up the pieces and fight.

One man's trash is another man's treasure...

Since finding The Business of Green video section on Fortune.com, I have
fallen in love with it! It combines my love of sustainability with my love
of business. This particular video investigates SC Johnson practices of
using methane gas to power one of their Windex plants.The company
utilizes a local landfill to capture and sequester the methane gas that is
produced from the decomposing trash. Sitting approximately 100 feet
underground, the methane is captured,treated, and then sent to the plant
for use as energy. This has reduced their energy consumption of coal by
half. The infrastructure will pay for itself in about 7 years while reducing
CO2 emissions by 52,000 tons a year.

The potential to implement alternative energy in big business is huge, but is
still an untapped market for the most part. The obvious environmental
impact is that it reduces our dependence on coal and works towards reducing
green house gas emissions, which makes our world a cleaner one. Aside
from the environmental impact, there is huge savings potential as companies can
reduce overhead costs and widen the margins. Clean and alternative energies
are definitely the future and the future is now!

The battle of the books!

            

When the internet was originally created in 1969 by the National Science Foundation, it was strictly for academic and military purposes with a strict ban on the use of it for commercial purposes.  Although the internet is still a widely used academic resource, in the mid 1990's it became very commercialized and has been extremely profitable for many industries and companies.  That was of course until the "dot com burst" in the late 90's.  Since that bubble burst the internet has undergone a transformation and has entered into the web 2.0 generation and commercial endeavors have taken off again with more knowledge of what it takes to be successful and with a wide array of new business models.

            One particular business model that has been very popular recently is the idea of the e-business pure play model.  A pure play business is simply one that is characterized by a full commitment to the internet, meaning that they are only found on the internet.  Many familiar pure play companies include Amazon, EBay, iTunes, and Netflix.  One company which implements the pure play strategy is iChapters.  iChapters is intriguing because of the service they offer.  They are a strictly online retailer of textbooks, etextbooks, echapters, and audio books.  Although this may seem similar to Amazon and other online book retailers, there are some significant differences.  One is in the use of business models.

            iChapters uses two separate business models as a source of revenue: merchant and manufacturer model.  Within the merchant model there are four different variations of a merchant, which are virtual, catalog, click and mortar, and a bit vendor.  A virtual merchant is an online retailer like iChapters.  A catalog merchant is one that is strictly catalog order while a click and mortar is a combination of traditional retail operations and online retailing as well.  Lastly, a bit vendor sells things downloadable products like software or music.

            A manufacturer model is similar to a merchant model in that they are still selling a product; however, they have cut out the middle man and distribution partners.  There are three different purchase options that help to characterize a manufacturer model.  A customer can either purchase directly, lease, or license products from the company.  The combination of these two models allows iChapters to turn revenue as a pure play e-business and provide customers with exceptional service and product selection.

 

Properly implementing the correct business model is crucial to ensuring success and longevity, regardless of what industry a company functions in or what manner they function in.  The textbook industry has become what some argue to be a monopoly as prices are extremely expensive, and until recently, the school bookstore was the only option to purchase textbooks.  Publishers set the price, the bookstore marks it up to make a profit, and in turn, my wallet suffers.  iChapters is one company offering an alternative to traditional textbook buying.  The company is able to do this by providing four textbook buying options, which also have the potential to save customers money.  How often, as a student, do you purchase an entire textbook, only to find out your professor is only using half of the book?  Why not buy half the chapters?  With iChapters you now have the ability to do this.

            iChapters utilizes a merchant model through traditional sales of textbooks and products.  Customers can order a traditional textbook at an advertised “up to 15% off”.  This would be just as if you were ordering a book from a more traditional online retailer such as Amazon or half.com.  Simply search for the textbook and proceed with the transaction, and then wait for it to ship to your doorstep.  Similar to purchasing a traditional textbook, they offer the etextbook which is a great alternative.  The etextbook is a downloadable version of the traditional textbook which can be purchased at half the cover price.  Customers must first download a digital rights manager to their computer which ensures that all copyright laws are being followed and that the content is used for its intended purposes.  Included in that download is also the unsealer which allows you to view the content, which comes to you as a PDF file.  It allo

ws for portability and the ability to print the content; however, only three copies of any given book may be printed to provide copyright protections.

Textbooks

up to 15% off

eTextbooks

always 50% off

          Similar to the etextbook, is the echapter.  The echapter is a product offered by iChapters that allows a customer to purchase a book one chapter at a time.  It is a similar one that iTunes implements where a user can buy one song or an entire album.  iChapters recognized the fact that if they did not offer the ability to digitally purchase single chapters, more users would turn toward traditional forms of media and simply buy a textbook.  These echapters range in price from $1.99 to $4.99 per chapter.  If a student is aware that their professor is using only select chapters, there is the potential to save hundreds of dollars.  The same technology is in place for downloading echapters as with the etextbook.  Both the etextbook and echapter can be easily accessed online or downloaded and printed from your own computer once it has been purchased.

       

   Audiobooks as low as $1.99     

Lastly, iChapters also functions as a bit vendor as they now offer audiobooks that can be downloaded and listened to right from your computer.  Audio books can be purchased for as little as $1.99.  iChapters appears to be the first company to break into the digital age of textbook downloads and individual chapter sales and there is a huge potential to capitalize off of.  There is of course competition from Amazon with their introduction of the latest Kindle; however, the focus of the Kindle is pleasure reading as opposed to academic reading.  There is the ability to offer textbooks through the Kindle though that poses a threat to iChapters.

            As the company continues to grow it is important that they be able to measure their success so that they may continue to grow and improve their product offerings as well as innovate.  The most obvious performance measure they need to use is sales, but they should break their sales down into each category of product to track exactly how well each medium performs.  A similar performance measure to keep in mind is the amount of repeat business and traffic to the site.  This will help the company analyze their strengths and weaknesses in terms of customer satisfaction.

            Another performance measure that they must be aware of is their download speeds and ease of use.  It is a major pitfall of many companies when a user tries to download something and three days later it is done or if a user simply cannot figure out how to download the content.  If iChapters can take into account their competition and create a system of performance measures, their unique offerings will continue to allow them to be successful and grow.The product is so successful because it caters to many different tastes and needs.  The financially strapped college kid can save a few bucks, the person who likes an old fashioned book is happy, and the environmentally conscious are happy as well.

 

 

Powering up the green way...

As technology increases, so does demand as more and more people want the latest and the greatest when it comes to gadgets. Many iPhone users, for example, will trade in a perfectly good working one for the latest model. Why? So it is unnoticeably faster than their old one? Either way, this practice and innovation creates a great deal of e-waste, as seen in the video The Digital Dump.

One of the major problems with consumer electronics is the lack of re usability and the ability to recycle different parts of the product. One part in particular is extremely difficult to reuse and recycle, the battery. Most batteries for every day use are either your typical disposable batteries or rechargeable lithium ion batteries. The first ends up in a landfill at the end of its life cycle and the second will most likely do the same as very little of it can be recycled.

A new company, Z Power, is bursting onto the market and hopes to make a serious splash for the model year 2010 with the introduction of the Z battery. This battery is made of silver and zinc and is composed of 95% recycled materials. Past attempts have failed greatly because there was simply no good alternative to traditional batteries. They could not meet the needs of the consumer. Battery life and portability were obstacles no one has overcome as of yet, but that is something that Z Power is hoping to change.

As the technology advances, hopefully the sustainability of it will as well. It is the responsibility of the consumer, producer, and retailer to put pressures on each other to create an ideal market for products such as the Z battery. Not only does a product like this suffice the bottom line, but it satisfies the triple bottom line as well.


This weeks feature is brought to us by Fortune Magazine:

You could buy what?!

As President Obama signs off on the $787 BILLION dollar stimulus package, it got me thinking about exactly how much that is. It is an enormous amount of money which the Boston Globe was nice enough to translate into other areas. Lets just say I would be extremely happy if it were rewritten to include item number one on the list: pay off all student debt!

Check out the complete list and see for yourself

http://boston.com/business/gallery/whatcan787bbuy/

Jump on the train!

With each day that passes, new law and precedent arises with which the legal system of our Country has to work with. This is particularly true as technology is continually enhanced as we move further into the world of the internet. Unfortunately, intellectual property (IP) and web based material is not as heavily protected as a traditional business with tangible operations, mainly because it is something our legal system never had to deal with prior to recent history. Although legal protections have come a long way, there is still a great deal of land to cover to affording IP holders the rights they deserve.

Many internet business ventures, both for profit and non-profit, have attempted to maximize their development potential and give users exactly what they want by allowing them to create it through an open-source model. An open source model is one that allows users to actually write the code for the specific program in order to enhance it. By implementing open sourcing into a business model, many challenges are presented; however, there are also many advantages. Anyone can use the coding, nobody owns it, anyone can improve it, it is very complex, but ultimately, it allows for rapid change. This is the concept with which systems such as Wikipedia, Linux, and Mozilla Firefox operate on.

The largest problem and challenge open sourcing poses for a creator is that nobody truly owns it, so who is responsible and can anyone be held liable? It would seem as though users would self-police themselves to avoid malicious content being built into the source and to ensure no one person was abusing the privilege of being allowed access to create and modify programs. Open source also presents the problem of legal protection because no one truly owns the coding so it is extremely difficult to prove copyright infringement or to determine who exactly owns th

e intellectual property rights. It was not until 2008 that the Courts decided whether or not it was possible to infringing on copyrights with open source content, and even still that issue is being debated through the appeals process.

In 2007, Robert Jacobsen brought suit against Matthew Katzer (Kamind Associa

tes, KAM Industries) alleging that Katzer violated the open source license agreement. Jacobsen is the owner of DecoderPro, a company which is a pure play open sourced and provides users with codes to unlock model trains. Katzer created a similar program for commercial purposes; however, he did not include the proper information necessary to comply with the open source license agreement. When this case was first brought to the Courts, Jacobsen was seeking injunctive relief; however, he was denied that remedy. On appeal is when the Court decided that there had been copyright infringement.

In past attempts from different individuals and companies to bring suit for copyright infringement in regards to open source content, courts had found that there was no infringement and often awarded damages based on breach of contract, in most cases being the license agreements. When users of open source programs, or web based programs of any kind, register to use the services being offered, they almost always are prompted to accept a user agreement. Countless people, including myself at times, often just click accept and do not at all read the agreement. Then when a person violates it, they are found to be in breach of contract. The Jacobsen case has the potential to increase the harshness of penalties if a breach is now also considered to be copyright infringement. Only time will tell as the case has been remanded back to the lower courts as Jacobsen is seeking certiorari, or an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The interesting part about this case, regardless of the outcome, is that an open source creator was finally granted access to the legal system under not only breach of contract, but copyright infringement. Although there have been plenty of suits regarding copyright infringement and IP rights in traditional forms of media, there have been none is the world of open source communications. Traditional copyrights vest the owner with four unique rights to their property: reproduction, derivative works, public performance, and distribution as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The operative word that has been so troublesome in open source disputes is “owner” because by definition, open source content has no owner. It is treated as if it is public domain. I think the sticking point that will develop from the Jacobsen case is that the original creator of the open source content will be provided with much greater protection for their original creation of the content. To contradict that, the prevailing argument is that with all the user changes and development of the product or service, it has been materially changed and therefore should not be provided the same protection as traditional media.

By materially changing the product, Katzer violated the Artistic License and user agreement and in turn commercialized the product to reap the financial benefits of the decoding of trains. This of course violates the fair use doctrine through profitable gains for Katzer. The Artistic License is a form of a click wrap license for a pure play business such as the one Jacobsen operates and allows him to dictate exactly what may and may not be done to the original content. When Katzer proceeded to reproduce the content and commercialize it, he did not allow access to the code, therefore making the content no longer open source and violating the license. The artistic license used by Jacobsen read as follows:

The program “allowed the software to be used and modified by the public free of charge provided that the user describe any modifications to the source code and a) make the modified versions freely available; b) use the modified package "only within [the user's own] corporation or organization"; or c) "rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page for each non-standard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version." The license also required that the user identify the original authors and include the copyright notices.” Law.com

This is becoming a more and more important concept as open source businesses are now seeing real financial gains from their product as companies like Mozilla and Automatic (parent company to Wordpress.com) incorporate. Creative Commons, a non-profit organization dedicating to protecting IP rights through alternative copyrighting methods will be a crucial tool and resource for companies to use to protect their own interests. With the use of their copyrighting techniques, it will be exponentially easier to prove infringement as opposed to simple breach of contract. For example, the attribution feature they offer would have protected Jacobsen by allowing others to copy and work and derivatives so long as credit was given and the content kept open.

The end result from the Jacobsen case, regardless of the legal outcome, is at the very least a heightened sense of awareness about the problem of protecting ope source rights. There are no teeth to current laws and statutes which may ultimately end in companies rethinking their business models if they cannot be afforded the protections that traditional media holds. There is now more of a need than ever to protect these rights and interests, especially because open source and pure play businesses are recognizing significant financial gains that are in jeopardy of being stripped away.

Back to the Future?

This weeks entry is not the typical article or video clip, but rather and interesting slide show posted by the Boston Globe: The 2009 Detroit Autoshow

As recent as two years ago many Americans were calling for bigger and better vehicles with more power, more space, and more bells and whistles. In a matter of just one year there was a shift in philosophy as gas prices crept towards $5 dollars a gallon and Americans were calling for alternative fuels and gas efficiency. Although there has been some relief in gas prices, that trend is still prevalent in the US Auto industry and the industry is finally listening as they take government dollars to stop their economic free fall. The 2009 Detroit Autoshow was evidence of that as everyone from domestic manufacturers from General Motors and Ford to Foreign producers such as Toyota and Honda. There was even a touch of true class and beauty from companies such as Lexus (a great car, but glorified Toyota, their parent company) and the Karma S from Fisker, which could be yours for a mere $90,000.

The technology featured was mostly some form of electric, most notably the much anticipated 2011 release of the Chevy Volt by GM. GM recently announced finalized plans to implement an LG battery to power the car, a shift from their original plan, but one they believe will perform better. This of course involves outsourcing jobs, as JG is not an American company. They have come under some heat for that decision. What appears to be overlooked by many with the anticipation of the electric car from GM, is that they are reinventing the wheel with the Volt. In the late 80's/early 90's GM introduced the EV-1, which was a huge hit and was the blueprint as far as alternative fuel vehicles were concerned. Seemingly on a whim, they pulled all EV-1's from the road and "recycled" them. The Movie, Who Killed the Electric Car, gives a great in depth look at the EV-1.

Interestingly, there was also the introduction fo the new Smart Car which is being produced eerily like the the EV-1. Only 1,000 are being manufactured and they are only being put out on the road on a lease basis so that they may retain control of all the vehicles. Another interesting unvieling was the 2010 Saturn Vue hybrid, mainly because who knows if Saturn will be around in 2010 as GM proposed cutting that line in order to save costs and avoid bankruptcy. Each of these new concept cars are incorporating more and more bells and whistles and providing luxury and usefulness, while working toward developing electric cars. The future is now!

Are you smarter than a .....

This weeks entry is not an article, but an interesting video clip from Fortune.com:  The Smart Grid

As I have posted about before, the world is in a race to find clean, renewable energy.  Coal plants emit too many tons of green house gases each year and nuclear energy is something this nation is torn over.  Is it safe, is it not?  My question is, why not harness the power of the solar system and earth to meet our energy needs?  Solar and wind technology has taken off on a local scale, but is not yet wide spread.

An upstart venture, Greenbox Technology, is seeking a way to encourage homeowners and cities to replace outdated grids and replace them with new smart grids.  These smart grids essentially act to eliminate waste.  The green box is software a user downloads to their computer, which is then linked to their home energy meters, and can be tracked on-line.  The great part about this is that it reduces both energy usage and cost.  Oklahoma Gas and Electric is the first major city to implement this technology.  Their reasons for doing so is that it will cut back on their costs and allow customers to save.  It will also allow users to see the going rate throughout the entire day so they know when rates are highest and lowest so that they may be more cautious as to when they expend the most energy.

With many power plants reaching capacity, this technology has the ability to alleviate the problem.  It allows users to see what their neighbor's usage numbers are and compare them to one another.  If this smart grid were combined with renewable energies, the savings and benefits would be huge.  Stress for customers, companies, and the earth would be greatly relieved.  The drawback of course is that they are extremely expensive to install and in this down economy, you do not see companies willing to absorb upfront costs for future savings as many companies are in a tight cash situation.  It is only a matter of time before the smart grid erupts, hopefully sooner rather than later.  Until next time.....remember to reduce, reuse, recycle!

This weeks article comes to us from the National Law Journal: Nuclear Waste is Piling Up

Last week I discussed the California emissions waiver and the Obama Administrations commitment to the environment and cleaner energy.  This weeks article posses the same them:  Cleaner energy.  One very controversial solution to our Country's current energy problems is the increased production of nuclear power.  Some argue nuclear power is dangerous while others argue it is human error.  Either way one problem exists that must be solved first:  What do we do with the nuclear waste that is generated in the process?

There is a distinct timeline in the regulation and policy of nuclear waste dating back to the 1960's.  The 60's were highlighted by a policy that called for waste to be reprocessed and recycled with the highly radioactive was falling under Government control for disposal deep under the ground.  The late 70's were characterized by storing spent fuel and waste above and below ground.  It was no longer legal to reprocess it.  The 80's were an optimistic time for nuclear energy supporters with he passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for the Dept. of Energy to build a national depository for nuclear waste.  To fund this, utility companies would pay a surcharge tot he government, ultimately about 16 billion dollars.  What is there to show for this today? Nothing.  Utility companies  have been able to recover a marginal amount of this through litigation as the Government has yet to respond.  Aside from the Government letdown, companies have had to sink millions into alternative storage and disposal methods.

America is in a vulnerable state right now as we are reliant on foreign energy imports, mostly of fossil fuels.  We also have a sever problem with green house gas emissions and air quality.  Nuclear power is an alternative that is much much cleaner than coal and wold also allow the US to work towards energy independence.  The only problem is that without the support of the Government, nuclear energy requires too many financial resources.  It is also a lengthy process to gain site approval.  The DOE needs to get their act together and take definitive action, whether it be in favor of nuclear energy or not.  If they are in favor, they must fiercely pursue it.  If not, they need to stop wasting time and money and make it know they do not support it and invest time and money into other alternatives.  The regulation by the DOE is simply a mess and must be figured out.  They need to work in conjunction with the EPA on alternatives and impacts of actions as well, something that they currently do not seem to utilize.

Nuclear energy is something that we must give a more serious look to.  Although ultimately it may not be the answer, it may act as a band-aid until something better comes along or it may lead us to the answer.  Either way it will lead toward energy independence and take great strides toward protecting our environment.  So I urge you to read up on the issue and decide for yourself.  Until next time.....remember to reduce, reuse, recycle!