From: "Robert Comer" 

Refining capacity is also one we have to look at *now*.

> I, for one, would like to see more "nucular" power  intentional>.  The frenzy over problems, IMO, is grossly over-estimated.
> The only serious/major plant problem is the Chernobyl meltdown, and that
> was fatally flawed design, and blatant disregard for safety.  I believe
> France is getting 80+ percent of their power from nuclear power now.

Ohhh, I absolutely hate it when people pronounce it that way, it's like
fingernails on a chock to my ears...   (I agree btw, we should be building
as many modern chalkboard power plants as we can.)

- Bob Comer




"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:430f1154{at}w3.nls.net...
> Increases on the production side will have little effect, till we add
> additional refining capacity to the mix.  Our refineries run at near 100%
> capacity all the time, heck we're even importing refined gasoline to fill
> the demand.  Pumping more out of the ground, to replace foreign supplied
> crude won't materially help the "crunch".  It MIGHT allow
more crude to
> flow to the expanding Chinese market though, but I would expect that newly
> pumped crude to flow at current market prices.  Heck, having all of our
> reserves at the "ready to pump" point, could be advantageous, when the
> middle east pumps dry, we could step in an become the new oil power (yea,
> right)....
>
> Demand has to go down.  Shelley and I are now car-pooling several days a
> week, keeping the Ford Windstar parked, and driving in the 96 Miata (28
> MPG), which is nice, both the ride, companion in the car, and good gas
> mileage.
>
> Maybe it's also time to "slow us down" again.  I was never fond of the
> "Double Nickel" speed limit, but interstate speeds have
gotten WAY out of
> hand again.  Heck, if you go 5 MPH OVER the speed limit, you still get run
> over.
>
> I don't think there is any short term solution, but we're not really
> looking at serious long term ones, either.
>
> I, for one, would like to see more "nucular" power  intentional>.  The frenzy over problems, IMO, is grossly over-estimated.
> The only serious/major plant problem is the Chernobyl meltdown, and that
> was fatally flawed design, and blatant disregard for safety.  I believe
> France is getting 80+ percent of their power from nuclear power now.
>
> --
>
> Glenn M.
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:430dfb88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> They should go into effect at all until the democraps get on board with
>> ANWR
>> and other increases on the production side.
>>
>> Gary
>>
>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>> news:430dc161{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Not to go into effect immediately, it's a start, not a
"good" start.
>>>
>>> - Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>>> news:jnaqg19qb6mvfuosrgra3gh7uk7bqhpm7l{at}4ax.com...
>>> > Looks like the administration is going to toughen, at
least somenwat,
>>> > economy standards on SUVs and light trucks.  It's a good start at
>>> > addressing the demand side of the equation.
>>> >
>>> > http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002957.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5