You know, a lot of private investors dumped a lot of money in the dot-com boom also. Everyone has heard stories like "If you would have invested $100 in Polaroid / Apple / what have you when they first started you would be a millionaire right now". That kind of thinking drove the dot-com era, and I think it is the same kind that is driving the alternative energy market. Many sources won't make it, but some will probably make it big.
An MSR reactor investment is not at all like a dot-com investment. One can use science and math to determine the facts about what an MSR can and cannot do.
Hey Strawman! Let's not compare investment in new, non-mature businesses like dot-com businesses in 2000 for which almost none of them had any sound profit building plans, with the energy market, which is a very well known industry with clear, regular paying customers.
I'm not drawing a comparison between the business models, I'm just pointing out that often times investors will jump on something that is "the future" even if the risk is high, because the rewards for success are even higher. So how is that a strawman?
Because you are comparing two very different situations and saying "the same kind that is driving the alternative energy market". The dot-com era investment was born out of the anticipation that the Internet was somehow going to revolutionize everything and that investing now would be rewarded at a later date, even if the business did not even any idea how to make money then. The energy market is not driven by the same investors, not the same companies. Energy groups are multi-national companies generations dozens of billions of revenues, and they are the ones funding the future initiatives, and I seriously doubt anyone could kickstart their way in the energy market because of the investments required to start anything from scratch.
There is nothing that could be as remote as these two markets.
