Replies

Surprised this hasn't been posted.

Lando

Neither proposal will satisfy critics who call for non-solutions and blame those who disagree. They want the spotlight, not answers. That's pandering, not policy

Thanks for a most excellent does of sanity on this topic.

Somehow I missed that Bush proposed to site refineries, nuclear plants and Liquefied Natural Gas plants on closed military bases. Good.

No new nuclear plant was built in the last 20 (or 30?) years, and none was planned through 2020. Only replacement units were allowed. No reason why we can't do better.

http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Electricity,Global_Map_of_Nuclear_Power_Plants

Statistics issued by the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency indicate that in 1999 436 nuclear power plants operated in 32 countries around the world. Included in this number were 104 plants operating in 30 states in the U.S.
While the U.S. can boast about having the most nuclear power plants, electrical power from this plants provides less than 20% of all power supplied in the U.S. Other countries are much more dependent on nuclear than the U.S. The next figure ranks the per capita supply of nuclear power for the top 15 nuclear power generating countries. For 1999 nuclear energy represented about 75% of total electricity production in France, 58% in Belgium, 47% in Sweden, 43% in South Korea, 38% in Hungary, 36% in Switzerland, 31% in Germany, 36% in Japan, 33% in Finland, 30% in Spain, 29% in the United Kingdom, 20% in the Czech Republic, 19% in the United States,13% in Canada, 5% in Mexico, and 4% in the Netherlands.

More from this PRO-NUCLEAR site: http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=Electricity,Benefits_^_Effects

Safety:
The nuclear power plant accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine are well known; however, despite these incidents, nuclear power has a remarkable record. About 16% of electricity generated around the world comes from nuclear power, and in the last forty years of this production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan, or South Korea. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the year 2000, the nuclear industry's safety accident rate-which tracks the number of accidents that result in lost work time, restricted work or fatalities-was 0.26 per 200,000 worker-hours. By comparison, the accident rate for U.S. private industry was 3.1 per 200,000 worker-hours in 1998 (the most recent year such data was available).
Economics and Reliability:
Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production. Nuclear fuel costs (as a function of power generation potential) represent only a fraction of the cost of fossil fuels. Including capital and non-fuel operating costs, the cost of operating a nuclear power plant is roughly equivalent to fossil fuels. Recently, the average electricity production cost for nuclear energy was recognized as the cheapest source of electricity. In 1999, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 2.07 cents, for oil 3.24 cents, and for gas 3.52 cents. Costs for solar and wind are still well beyond that considered to be competitive to the public.
The cost of regulation and industry oversight of nuclear power generation is substantially more than that of other power generation sources; however, improvements in reliability and operational and maintenance efficiencies have contributed to reducing those costs. Currently, nuclear power plant capacity factors average over 75%. This is competitive with those of fossil fired plants. Most plants are designed to operate in a base load configuration; that is, they run at full power regardless of the demand on electricity. Nuclear power plants are particularly well suited for this purpose since they are designed to produce large quantities of power and can sustain operation for up to two years without refueling.

"The politicians' desire to do (or say) something prevails over logic and information"

This applies to all issues in the news not just the matter of oil price increases. Pushing the panic button for all and sundry, is the typical political and MSM response because for them, the immediacy of their 'response' equates with 'accuracy of response'. Sorry to say, there IS a difference between how quickly a response is made and the qualitative credibility of responses. The recent reporting of the storms in the South is a perfect example, if one is needed after the way the MSM and political types responded to election information and especially election night news in the last national election.

But critics apparently see no connection between damage, shortages and price increases, so they want "solutions." Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) wants the Federal Trade Commission to investigate so-called "price gouging." Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is introducing a bill to tax energy companies' profits. The state of Hawaii has already instituted price controls on energy and other states are considering similar measures.

I can't stand these people. I just can't stand them.

Fortunately, President Bush and the Republicans may be about to do something good (for a change): loosen environmental regulations on the oil industry. Imagine: we could see offshore drilling in Florida, and maybe even new refineries being built.

Good common sense article on oil.