The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

Just curious about your thoughts on this.  Personally, I'm all for alternative energy solutions as the market drives that way in the long term.  However, I think we are making huge mistakes by not being able to drill in ANWR, the shale oil sites in Utah, Colorado, Montana, and the Dakotas as well as drilling offshore and putting up more refineries.  It's a huge crippling effect on our dollar.  We have enough oil sources to be fully self sufficient and export as well.  Plus with natural gas, coal, and nuclear capabilities, our government is completely failing us on our energy policies.  I'm curious as to what you all think. 

Their is an online petition advocating this http://www.americansolutions.com/  (http://www.americansolutions.com/).

Energy development is the number one thing that government is doing to hurt it's citizens that I think can be capitalized on. Drilling our own is 13 times less likely to have an accidental spill then importing by oil tanker. Offshore deposits already have seepage into the ocean.

The Chinese are horizontal drilling from near Cuba to reach the deposits near Florida, why can't we? The government has a ban on drilling in any of these new areas and environmental laws make  the paper work to drill, build refineries, build nuclear plants take years.

Right now I'm more worried about the government wrecking our economy than I am about being blown up by terrorists.

Samantha

How are you hurt by energy prices? Are you hungry? Are you homeless? Are you without love and family? I understand that we used to live in an era of cheap energy and they were good times. We had a lot of stuff; neat little gadgets, nice cars, and big houses. Where did that get us? Our environment is suffering and Americans have gone soft. Because we're drunk on material possessions and overconsumption, we've made trade and energy the focus of our foreign policy, with very little else in consideration. It has made us care for nothing else, but the continued flow of the gravy train and willing to use force to keep it moving.

It is over. The good times are over. Cheap energy, whether we like it or not, is a thing of the past. At best, ANWR holds only ten years worth of petroleum for U.S. Markets at current levels. That is still a lot, but it isn't a real long-term solution. The oil shales aren't either. We can only extract a small percentage of what exists with current technologies and in doing so, we will lose most of the rest. Instead, waiting until technology improves and extraction becomes more economical so that we can make better use of what is there might be smarter.

In the end, what is best for America is that we stop this culture of excess. If the price of petroleum reaches $200 per barrel, you'll survive. You will still be able to find a place to live. You will still be able to afford food. The market will never set prices beyond what people can afford. The love of your family won't evaporate without cheap energy. Learn to live with less and love what you've got. Don't get your children addicted to this excess.

So, in my opinion, it is not worth sacrificing even one acre of land for marginal gains in petroleum production. I've always been of the opinion that the only long-term solution to the diminishing availability of petroleum is solar power. Solar power plants powering production of hydrogen fuel-cells will power our vehicles, or we will have none. It is the only answer. I don't want to see more scarred Earth over diminishing petroleum reserves, such as these shale deposits would case.

Bottom line, oil was and still is cheap.  Cheap = no need for alternatives.  Higher prices, the more need for Nuclear Energy where we need ample and cheap electricity to run electric cars.  104 Nuclear Power plants in this country and no casualties.   

If there were no need for alternatives, the government wouldn't subsidize ethanol to make up 10 percent of our gasoline. We wouldn't have 104 nuclear power plants, increasing numbers of windmills and solar power plants opening up. The oil is running out and the majority of what is left is in nations not so friendly to us.

Within the next decade, the US will end production is no new sources are accessed. Mexico is set to end exports within the coming years. Indonesia is increasingly importing more oil when just a couple of decades ago it was a net exporter. China has roughly 8 years worth of production left at current rates. The vast majority of the oil infrastructure in the world is aging and falling apart with more frequent repairs and maintenance. By 2018, we will either have alternatives providing us with the majority of our energy needs or we will be in the middle of a massive global recession.

John,
I'm so glad that your life is so grand that the price of gasoline and other petroleum products means nothing to you. Having come off a year fighting for my daughters life with cancer I can honestly say that my family is borderline. The neat little gadgets my kids have were given to them by generous people who had compassion, of which I'm thankful. You really do assume to much.


John, in certain local areas what you say about environmental damage is true. Over all our enviroment is not suffering, where I think Americans have gone soft is in the head, believing in the global warming hoax.


I wish that there was a coherent philosophy for our foreign policy, in the post cold war era it has not made a lot of sense. Clearly we did not have a war for oil, we did not get any of it. Clearly support of Israel does not add anything to our coffers, I think your philosophy blinds you a bit.


John, I would like to know where you get your facts. They seem in conflict with the information I have seen. I'll take the 1million barrels a day for ten years from ANWR. As I understood processing oil shale is very effective, it's defect was in being expensive. $40 dollars a barrel is not expensive NOW. Coal to Diesel can provide more fuel than the entire Middle east from Montana deposits alone.  We have untapped oil deposits in Wyoming and the Dakotas. Continental shelf deposits are nothing to sneeze at and you are thirteen times less likely to have a mishap with an offshore rig than you are using tankers to import. The Continental shelf deposits also have a lot of Natural Gas nearby major cities that need it for home heating.



John, all of this could be said of the Great Depression, you are the first person I know who thinks this is a good thing. I might agree with you that my neighbor owns too much junk. It is not up to me though to force my neighbor to give it up. The problem with energy development in the USA is purely a consequence of government manipulation and regulation.



John I think that you are naive. People will suffer. A few acres of land not looking pristine is not worth people suffering. I had a friend in Georgia that did environmental clean up after Kaola clay strip mining, he did a real good job and made a lot of money too.


You give politicians way too much credit for not doing stupid things for the wrong reasons. Ethanol subsidies are nothing more than a bribe to middle America for votes in the agriculture, everything I've read or heard about ethanol makes it sound like a real stupid idea. Just compare Ethanol made in Brazil without grain to what we make, and we have a tariff on imported ethanol.

Whether a majority of oil is in other countries or not, it is immaterial if we have enough to provide for our own needs. We can be energy independent without collapsing our economy if we had a national will to do so. Petroleum is used for a lot more than just gasoline.


The obvious answer to me is to access the new deposits. China right now is setting up oil rigs off the coast of Cuba drilling horizontal to tap the deposits that we refuse to tap. Who is more environmentally responsible the U.S. or China? The U.S. will not have a war for oil, but I guarantee that other nations will. The vast majority of infrastructure is in nations with dictators or oligarchy's that control the oil production, command economies are rarely efficient, where as capitalist economies are. Until we have the great new technologies which are on the horizon, I say we make the most of our god given resources.

Peace and Love,
Samantha

And people like you make up what percentage of the population? The vast majority of people aren't suffering the high energy prices, because their daughter has cancer. They are suffering high energy prices because they drive gas-guzzling SUVs, have three TVs and DVD players, two computers, and consume tons of other petroleum-derived plastics and other goods that cost energy for them to be able to just throw it away. These people are hurting cause they finally have to really watch what they spend and what they consume. It is no longer just a free for all. I don't have to suffer, cause I've always lived simple and kept my consumption minimal.




I don't care to make any assumptions about global warming, but the evidence for real environmental damage is clear and leading us in a terminal direction. Climate change is reality.




Are you telling me that we didn't interfere with the domestic affairs of the Middle East since the 1930's in order to prevent petroleum reserves from falling into the hands of the Nazis and later the Soviets?

Are you telling me that we didn't send troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990 for the sake of sustaining petroleum exports to Europe and North America?

You're being naive.




The US consumes over 20 million barrels of petroleum per day.

There is no standard way to process oil shale. Every geologic site is different. Processing it in Canada is different from the US. We can, of course, get plenty of oil from our deposits, but there is many times more oil available than that, but that is currently unattainable using current methods.

Regardless, these deposits are finite and cause ecological damage; irreversible in some cases. We are going to have to develop alternative sources.



Well, I can only disagree. The cheap sources of energy are running out. Meanwhile, there are more and more people using more and more energy. Everybody wants to be a resource hog like Americans and Western Europeans. It won't -- can't last.

And yes, I think it is a good thing for people to be forced into simple living due to natural market forces. It will save us our environment and serve to curb population growth. Modern living is what makes us soft.



People will suffer only because they've put themselves in positions to suffer. Don't spend more than what you take in. Don't insist on having a tv and dvd player in each room. Don't insist on the video games and the gas guzzling SUVs, and credit spending. Don't buy huge, expansive homes. Don't live so close to the edge and live unsustainable lives.



I didn't say it was a good idea. Brazil's ethanol is cheaper, because it is made from sugar-cane.



You're just putting off the economic collapse or getting back onto the foreign tit for a decade or so.



[/quote]

The new deposits are outpaced by growth in demand. Petroleum and gas is limited. We've more than likely already passed peak oil production and might be at the beginning of the slide. It is time to get used to the idea that the good times are no longer rolling.

Gee John thanks for telling me I don't matter :) Why harm even one person if there is a better way.

Evidence of environmental damage on a global scale is pure conjecture that there are terminal consequences. I can unequivocally say that change does not inherently mean damage, let alone "terminal" damage. Short of creating a total toxic environment, change may be irreversible, but equating to permanent damage is extreme. Do volcanoes cause permanent ecological damage with long term terminal implications?

You want terminal consequences just look at the ban on DDT. No provable damage to the enviroment has or could be done by DDT. Millions have died from disease because DDT has been banned. Please don't tell me how small a percent of the world population that is to do something to make enviromantal nuts feel good about themselves.

I never said that we did not interferre in the Middle East, I said we have no coherent foreign policy in the Middle East. Free flow of oil or depriving others of oil is one of many strategies employed. Letting the Shah fall is one of the worst things we could have done if Oil ruled our foreign policy.

Actually I will not buy into the concept that there is only a finite amount of petroleum on the globe. Oil is compressed dead carbon based life forms, as long as carbon based life continues to die and be compressed oil results (yes I know I'm over simplifying). It is not considered a radical idea that the Earth is still producing oil. Admittedly we are probably using it up faster than it is produced.

Considering the advances in technology in my 40 years of life, I'd much rather push off running out of oil for 30 years rather than accept defeat today when there are untapped resources. Even if the U.S. is willing to cripple itself the rest of the globe will just laugh and bury us. If China becomes the dominant country on the globe and not the U.S. do you consider that a good thing?

John said"And yes, I think it is a good thing for people to be forced into simple living due to natural market forces. It will save us our environment and serve to curb population growth. Modern living is what makes us soft."

The problem is that we are not talking about natural market forces, we are talking about government regulation forcing consequences on people. Are Libertarians in favor of coercive force when it suits their environmental Theology? So I say let the government lift it's ban and remove regulations and let natural market forces operate!

Population growth??? Have you noticed that the less developed a nation is the higher it's population growth. When there are no gadgets to amuse, people resort to free entertainment like sex. As it stands Caucasian people of the western world are in a population decrease. On a related note Christianity is actually the fastest growing religion through conversion; Islam is the fastest growing religion because they have lots of children. If western culture, with it's libertarian values becomes extinct, would this be a good thing?

With or without man climate and the environment change. It is a question of faith and not science that changes in the environment caused by man are inherently bad. Undeniably man killed off the passenger pigeon, what has been the consequence? I live in an area with lots of closed slate quarries that nature is reclaiming, where is the harm? Considering all of the claims made about the Alaskan Pipeline and the fact that it has actually been good for wild life, explain the disaster that ANWR would be? On Discovery channel I saw a program about how quickly NYC would disappear if people did not stop nature, what man does is incredibly fleeting in a geologic scale.

The time is not now to concede anything! Let the oil flow until we find alternative ways to keep the good times rolling. If the good times do stop I do not want them to stop by the hands of the U.S. government. If we do not drill the oil someone less environmentally conscience will, even if they do it over our dead bodies. Shrinking the U.S. economy while our enemies expand theirs only brings that conclusion.

Peace and Love,
Samantha

John-
Subsidies for alternative energy are unessecary.  People can move to alternative energies in an open market.  There's no need to put crop supplies at risk and raise food costs at the same time.  Regulation has left the greatest source of alternative energy, nuclear, at a stand still, and has also cripple refinery construction.  The free market did not move oil costs to the astronomical levels, its the restrictions on supplies and the hysterics over global warming.  Al Gore and his ecolytes have a vested interest in spiking oil prices in order to manipulate the flow of investment into the companies and funds they have large shares in, the man has increased his net wealth enormously in an extremely short period of time, even with the market in the current state it is in.  Despite the feeling that "we will survive" that is not true.  Commuters can not survive.  In almost any other market, especially electronics, we have seen where the increase in demand is met with better performing items and an increase in supplies, one that can be tapped into using shale oil, natural gas, and even here in PA, coal, but envirofascits have hijacked the nation.  You should read up on the founder of the Weather Channels' talk to the San Diego Chamber of commerce recently to fully understand the costs of hysterics.  Vaclav Klaus's book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles" is also a great source of information and makes you wonder if green is the new communist red.  The problem is that the free market and the desire of the people is not being met and with new technologies impact the environment is limited at best anyway.

I disagree completely.  Do you have any sources showing how ANWR or drilling in any other places would be useful?  It is not crippling our dollar, in fact drilling in ANWR will have virtually no effect on oil prices.  To say that we have enough oil to be self sufficient is laughable.  And I'm not trying to be rude, It just isn't even CLOSE to being true.

I agree that the Gov is failing with its energy policies but really for the reason that the US doesn't really have any type or energy plan.

Lots of folks have plans, the government just needs to get out of the way. Everyone is afraid that the government will do what they did to LILCO (Long Island Lighting Company) they built two nuclear plants at great expense and then were told they could not use them. LILCO of course is out of business. Most energy related businesses are very concerned that the government will pull the rug out from under them.

Samantha

This isn't a matter of anyone harming anybody. The market forces are raising the cost of energy. You're in a tight situation due to family illness. I sympathize with you, but these things happen. The point is that, in general, people are not suffering high energy prices for the reasons that you are and when we discuss the situation, it is unfair for you to be the poster-girl for what is wrong with high energy prices when your case is not typical of the general population.



Yes, the larger volcanoes can and do cause permanent ecological damage on a human scale. While unprovable, it is largely thought by the scientific community that volcanic eruptions were among the causes, if not the leading cause of the "Little Ice Age" (1650 - 1850).

There is no single effect of human environmental damage that has a global reach that I know of, but humans have a global reach and the many effects of our lifestyles has affected every part of the globe. Our lifestyles and the nearly seven billion people on this planet are unsustainable. We either have to reduce our population or start consuming less.



I am going to decline to get into yet another DDT debate with anyone.



We didn't have much of a choice in that matter. When the people truly want it, they get it -- if they're willing to fight for it. The United States did everything within its abilities to prevent the Shah from losing control of that country, but the US isn't invincible. We were defeated in that struggle.


Then, in human terms, petroleum is finite, especially since it takes thousands of years to produce.



So you want us to be like China? China is an ecological disaster area and believe me, that will come back to haunt them very soon; already is. China is a paper tiger, just like the Soviet Union was, and at least the Soviets had nuclear weapons out the wazoo. China is lucky that it can sustain itself as a nation, much less be a threat to anyone. China will never be the dominant global power.

Regardless, we don't have 30 years, even with the best projections. We cannot increase production enough, even by tapping these new reserves and waiting for new infrastructure that will last us barely more than a decade, and prices will still be high.

I think that now, while we have the imports available, and the domestic back-up, we ought to be trying to shift over our energy use from fossil fuels to some other alternative, preferably a mix of solar, hydrogen fuel-cell, hydro-electric, wind, nuclear, and coal. We ought not to wait until the last drop hits our taps. That is what is going to crush this country.



You just seem like a blame government for everything kind of person. The government can drop regulation as much as it wants and the price won't be affected to any significant degree. The best that it could do is drop the fuel tax and your pump prices might go down thirty cents, but then they're just going to have to raise taxes somewhere else.



Yeah, thats what I said.



I never said that we ought to be a less-developed nation, only that we should consume less.



NYC shouldn't have been built on a swamp, just like New Orleans shouldn't have been built below sea level.

I don't think much environmental damage would come out of drilling in ANWR. What does concern me is that we're putting off the inevitable and probably gaining very little in return.

What is the consequence of the loss of biodiversity? How high is the rate of extinction?


The time is not now to concede anything! Let the oil flow until we find alternative ways to keep the good times rolling. If the good times do stop I do not want them to stop by the hands of the U.S. government. If we do not drill the oil someone less environmentally conscience will, even if they do it over our dead bodies. Shrinking the U.S. economy while our enemies expand theirs only brings that conclusion.

Peace and Love,
Samantha
[/quote]


You know, I am done arguing this with you. I am not going to convince you of anything and you're not going to convince me of anything. I am not going to keep running in circles to

Never said that they were.



 

Never said otherwise.


 

I cannot speak to that.




You can survive, and will. Consumers are the primary market force. If consumers don't survive, neither will the business. I am not saying that radical environmentalists haven't made things harder or that government regulation isn't a burden. I am saying that it is only making things worse in a bad situation. The petroleum and gas is running out. PERIOD. It will come to an end, and the effects of the diminishing supply are being felt now and will only increase in intensity. The time to find alternatives is now. I personally don't think ethanol is it for us, but there are other options that we're not exploring seriously enough and that is because oil is still more profitable for business and cheaper for consumers.

Well, in the short and mid-term, we definitely ought to be accessing nuclear power. It is insane in this day and age where we've virtually eliminated the threat of a melt-down, with energy prices as high as they are, and the alternatives to nuclear power as dirty as they are, not to tap into nuclear power more. Long-term, I don't think nuclear power is necessary, but it can't hurt either.

I am going out on a limb here and say the nuclear energy industry has to be regulated by the federal government.  Exact copy of NPP (Nuclear Power Plants) like France does.  I previously felt this should be a state function, however I have discussed with a couple nuclear engineers and they say the damages from a nuclear accident would cross borders and is a national security issue.

We do need another 200 nuclear power plants in this country.

I'm not saying that Nuclear power plants do not need to be regulated in some way. What I'm saying is that you can not build a nuclear plant, do it exactly the way the government tells you to and when it is finished be told that you can not use it. The supposed sticking point was not being able to evacuate Long Island if something went wrong. Nobody of course thought of this before LILCO spent $6 billion to build it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

Power generation companies want guarantees from the government that if they build a plant that they will be able to use it. The government refuses to give any guarantees. Deadlock!

Bird lovers of course will put up obstacles to wind power. Solar works but it still makes oil look cheap and energy storage technology still is not up to covering for nights and cloudy days.

Samantha

Well, we can certainly increase drilling, but the problem with gas prices isn't necessarily "speculation" or reduced supply. Yes, those two play a factor, but the real issue is our dollar's value.

For example, let's look at this chart:
(http://goldprice.org/james-turk/uploaded_images/Oil-Price-780567.GIF)

As you can see, when you plot the cost of oil compared to the world value of gold, the idea that cheap oil is gone is really a myth. In fact, it has hardly increased since the 1940s! What has happened is that our wonderful politicians think that it was a nice idea to be able to print & borrow as much money as possible. Therefore, the value of our dollar tanks and the price of everything goes up. I'm not saying that we should return to the gold standard as there are problems with that, but we need to make sure that Congress is fiscally responsible. Otherwise, we're going to face a huge economic crash that will be far worse than the Great Depression and this time, we'll have our huge deficits on top of everything else.

I'm not saying we can be self sufficient right now but we can be if we develop off shore drilling, more domestic sites and tap into shale oil such as the formations in Colorado and Utah as well as the Bakken formation.  We must take these steps for the short term (30 or so years) while other industries develop.  Nuclear needs to be implemented much more ASAP as well. 

I agree !  Also wind power.  I'm afraid that all of the efforts made in the last few decades to help and maintain our environment are just going to be cast aside to save a few pennies on gas !  Not to mention the nation could be fueled completely on hemp oil !

Industrial Hemp being illegal is something I'll never understand.

Yes, just imagine how much quality doobage would be ruined if there was pollen floating all over the place from industrial hemp that won't get a fly high.

Solar and wind get us what, 3% of our energy?  With hundreds of billions invested and massive land use we might, might get to 10-15%.  What if it's cloudy, what if not wind?  Our solution is right under our noses with Nuclear.  There is a reason the French get over 75% from Nuclear and have so much they sell overage to Spain.  China and India are building nuclear.  They will have cheap labor and cheap power in 5 years. 

Start drilling.

I got into an argument with a Police Officer on another forum who didn't know that Industrial Hemp can't get one high and it eliminates the THC in nearby MJ plants with THC.

Absoutely we need a combination of sources in the long term.  Short term expanded drilling and nuclear are going to be our best bets.  Great point about wind being useless in areas not having wind.  It goes the same for solar in certain places of Alaska where it's dark for long streches of time.  Energy solutions should be left up to states, and there's a Constitutional basis for that as well.  We have enough coal here in PA to provide enormous amounts of energy.  I think the Ethanol mistake is becoming more apparent with the floods unfolding out in the midwest.  All those subsidies to Ethanol artificial limited the corn crop as it was, making everything from cereal to meat more expensive, and now with a large portion of the crops that are still left standing earmarked for ethanol the impact is that much worse.  Crop dieases, weather patterns, etc, are much riskier and have a much larger chance of failing for energy needs, especially ones that also serve as substinance.  Even worse, with an already critically over budget government, FEMA responses are going to be terrible in the Midwest, and we've been so over taxed, and have seen our market so mainpulated by government intervention that the amount of money we'd be able to give to charities to help out those poor people is even more diminished. 

Here's our candidate:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c6fFRN8MrmQ&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c6fFRN8MrmQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You tube on energy policy

I agree. A combination is very important. Nuclear scales up very well and is efficient in that area, but not good for small areas. Solar & wind fill that very nicely.

Man, I hope you taped that.  Ignorance is bliss

nuclear, solar, wind....but what about hydrogen?

Hydrogen would a great fuel source as well.  Honda is rolling out their vehicle towards the end of this year in California and we have hydrogen technologies being developed here in PA as well.   Clean coal should also be used.  The only way to break the back of our dependence on foreign oil is to develop oil and other fuels here as well.  Solar will be key for us long-term.  We will still need oil for many, many years and need to be pragmatic on this.  Better to develop our own sources.  It will greatly help us become self sufficient as well as strengthen the dollar.

I think that it was somewhere around 5,000 nuclear power plants that we'd need to have in order cut our petroleum use in half. It was also stated that at that rate, we'd deplete the availability of fissible material to the point that we'd be stuck in the same situation (or worse) that we're in now. Nuclear is not a long-term solution.

The American southwest gets a lot of direct sunlight with appx. 90 percent sunny days. I've heard estimates that in order to supply all of our energy needs, with current solar technology, we'd have to cover an area the size of the State of California in order to do it. Of course, this is entirely unnecessary. We can supplement with nuclear, clean-coal, natural gas, geothermal, wind, and wave.

I think the issue with solar's low output is that the solar cell itself is only 12% efficient, meaning that out of all of the Sun's energy that hits the cells, the panel can only convert 12% of that to electricity. So once solar's efficiency gets better, we can begin deploying them into the southwestern areas.

Wind has improved dramatically. When most people think of wind, they think of the big 3 bladed ones. Those are going away eventually. We've developed vertical axis wind turbines that goes into the 50% efficiency range which is close to the max. amount (59%, see Betz's Law). The only problem is that vertical axis windmills need to be maintained more often as they undergo more stress.

Nuclear is nice right now, but in 10 years, all of that demand & inflation will shoot the price of uranium sky high While it seems attractive now, it's not so much in the future. Plus, nuclear plants survive on government funding (lots of subsides), so more nuke plants would just add to more short-term spending.

Foobar,

These are all great points.  You've obviously read a bit on the topic.  Can you provide any links for additional reading for some us less knowledgeable types?

David Jahn

Nuclear is nice right now, but in 10 years, all of that demand & inflation will shoot the price of uranium sky high While it seems attractive now, it's not so much in the future. Plus, nuclear plants survive on government funding (lots of subsides), so more nuke plants would just add to more short-term spending.

This isn't the whole story, nor is it totally accurate.  (20 years ago I worked for Westinghouse and I follow that industry and would even consider going back there. Westinghouse, now part of Toshiba, is embarking on a hiring frenzy to staff up for a large demand for plants.  They don't build them, but they do design and supply many critical components. They are well-aware of the price of things and the likely future price of things.)

First, the cost of nuclear-generated electric power is largely insensitive to the uranium price.  Uranium can triple in price and the cost of nuclear power to the end consumer won't triple.  The biggest part of the cost is the cost of the plant itself. I'm not sure what a plant would cost now, but $1 billion to $5 billion would be a guess. 

Let's consider the uranium. A typical nuke plant might have 230,000 pounds of uranium oxide in its core.  At $100/lb for the uranium, let's say that's $23 million. (Last I heard the price was something like $120/lb, but stick to $100/lb to make the numbers easier.) That 230,000 pounds is replaced in stages, but it will all be cycled out in three 18-month refuel periods.  On an annual basis, that's about $5 million worth of uranium per year.  Let's say I'm off my a factor of 10 and it's $50 million per year.  That's a lot, but it's still a fraction of the depreciation on a $5 billion total.

Second, yes there are some subsidies, but there are extremely high regulatory costs. Yes, there were limits to what a utility can be sued for (I'm not sure of the limit today), but environmental lawsuits were the other side of the coin.  I can't say it's a wash, but government intruded to provide safety, to provide public confidence, to provide a viable business, etc. etc. etc.  It seemed like every time it intruded, it had to intrude again to adjust for its last intrusion.  I can't believe that those intrusions led to a freer market in energy or to cheaper energy costs.

Mark

I'm all for all option, especially nuclear, I think it is essential to our nation's future, as is natural gas, oil, solar, wind, hydrogen, etc.   Regional solutions are the much better option though, but I think we have reached a point where the "not in my back yard" mentality are destroying this nation with the following respect.  We all KNOW we need more oil and natural gas in the short run as we move forward, but even with electric lines people protest their creation, people protest drilling, they've protested putting windmills offshore because it "devalues the scenery" and sadly, this is in party because of small, but extremely vocal minority.  It seems as though the majority will of the nation is being ignored and is starting to cripple the nation as we move to more and more P.C. standard operation, are affraid to offend or anger some people, while ignoring the will of the people and the market.  So I guess my question is, how do we really move past this?  How do we go out and convince people to drop this mentality or face the devestating after effects?

There is also a huge movement toward conservation in the commercial and residential construction industry.

In the book "Unstoppable Global Warming....Every 1,500 years" they had a quote that the greatest invention in the last 100 years was insulation.

ASHRAE just increased the minimum required insulation in commercial buildings from an R-15 to R-20.

There are many states following Massachusetts lead in requiring the use of Air & Vapor Barriers in commercial buildings.  The U.S. DOE estimates that up to 40% of a buildings energy costs are due to air infiltration.