From: "Robert Comer" 

> Doubt you can build one any quicker than that, same with nuclear plants,
> just takes time.

If you throw enough money you can build it quicker -- it's not as if they
have to come up with a whole new tech to do it...

>Maybe some of the mothballed plants could be re-activated, or finished and
>brought on line sooner.

Don't know in that business, but in the businesses I have known, it's
usually quicker to build and license something new, rather than to
reactivate something. (getting a license to do it is usually the hardest
part)

- Bob Comer


"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:430f2018$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Doubt you can build one any quicker than that, same with nuclear plants,
> just takes time.  Maybe some of the mothballed plants could be
> re-activated, or finished and brought on line sooner.
>
> --
>
> Glenn M.
> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
> news:430f1e28{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I hadn't heard that, it is good news -- but I want it quicker. 
>>
>> - Bob Comer 
>>
>>
>> "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
>> news:430f1c16{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> I'm also encouraged that there is someone in the Arizona/New Mexico area
>>> (I believe that's where it is), who is embarking on a new oil refinery,
>>> about 4-5 years out before it's online and running.  I suspect it will
>>> run near 100% capacity as soon as they can move production levels that
>>> high as well. Will probably be more efficient than the current old aging
>>> plants are, as well.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Glenn M.
>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>> news:430f18e5{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> 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