Picken's $700 Billion Plan

[SkiFishFly]

I disagree. It will make little difference. A drop in a very big bucket. I don't know why you guys won't put any numbers with this ********************tt.

You are free to disagree. You are wrong though.

 

[Poahi]

Those who oppose new sources of oil generally complain it 'takes too long' or 'isn't enough' to curb prices. Yet at the same time, they are the same people who believe high prices are a good thing. Pick a position - only one please.

 

[blueridge71]

Expanded nuclear should be a part of any energy plan but this notion floating around that it's "proven and profitable" technology is a stretch. Nuclear has been heavily subsidized for R&D(and we're not talking about the manhattan project), operating costs, and has liability caps in place. The liability caps mean that if a plant goes all Chernobyl the plant is only responsible for a limited amount of damages no matter how bad the carnage. This saves hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in insurance payments over time.

If wind and solar had been as heavily subsidized as nuclear we might already have "proven and profitable" technology by now.

How about France? They get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power and have never had an accident. Chernobyl was a Russian plant that was nowhere near meeting western safety standards.

 

[Smarta$$]

Show me the republican estimates of how much lower oil and gas would be if we produce the 1 million barrels a day from ANWR.

Also, show me the estimates of how much oil and gas will go down when we add 1 million barrels a day from the OCS.

I didn't think so.

None of the oil men or the republicans (I am not sure if there is a difference between them) have quantified the savings. At all.

1-2 million barrels a day added to world supply is less than 2-3% increase. It is very small. 3% of 4.00 dollars a gallon is .12 cents. Add in alittle for speculation, lets say double, .24 cents. Holy cow, look at all the money I just saved.

Give me a break. Oil men in the whitehouse, a war that drives up demand and destabilizes the region, a trade policy that grows the third world like a weed and increases their demand for oil? Yeah its the Dems.


Put another way, So the US is the only country not increasing its drilling. And because of that, the WHOLE world is paying ALLOT more for oil. But there supposedly is SO much oil out there. So our little failure to add 2-3% of world production is causing the shole world to pay record oil prices. Keep in mind, that every other country is free to drill, drill, drill as much as they want and anywhere they want outside of the US, yet still our 2-3% is the cause?

Get real. Use some common sense.

 

[Smarta$$]

Also, like I said before, W himself said recently in a speach that oil from ANWR would "likely" reduce the price of oil.

The oil man president himself didn't even guarantee that ANWR would lower the price of oil.

How about you borrow me a thousand dollars and I will "likely" pay you back. Tell me when the check is in the mail.

 

[Poahi]

The oil man president himself didn't even guarantee that ANWR would lower the price of oil.

Here's some common sense.

1. Politicians don't guarantee oil prices.
2. There is no single tactic that is going to reduce oil prices.
3. The liberal strategy of keeping oil prices high is going to cause:

A. The airline industry to collapse;
B. A global depression;
C. The loss of life of people liberals are supposed champion.


If you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Mr.B]

Here's some common sense.

1. Politicians don't guarantee oil prices.
2. There is no single tactic that is going to reduce oil prices.
3. The liberal strategy of keeping oil prices high is going to cause:

A. The airline industry to collapse;
B. A global depression;
C. The loss of life of people liberals are supposed champion.


If you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

It's fairly simple. Use what infrastructures and technology that are already in place...

1. Nuclear power for the grid (produce hydrogen at night...like the FRENCH)
2. Natural gas for the cars (plenty of it/cheap/clean)
3. Kerosene for the jets.

You can thank me later.

 

[Smarta$$]

What are the estimates of what ANWR would lower prices?

How about OCS?

 

[SWA GUY]

What are the estimates of what ANWR would lower prices?

How about OCS?

Keep stomping your feet and shouting "NO!", Daddy will keep you safe. There, there the gubmint will take care of you cradle to grave.

You have clearly heard about 15 seconds of misinformation about the oil business and know it all, just like the press.

 

[myrows]

How about France? They get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power and have never had an accident. Chernobyl was a Russian plant that was nowhere near meeting western safety standards.

The point wasn't that both France and the US have safety concerns to the degree that Chernobyl did. The point is that no matter how safe they are they still get liabilty caps which save them hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance payments. Still a form of subsidy.
I personally don't mind subsidizing nuclear energy. I do mind people who claim that nuclear has proven profitable without generous subsidies. If it's okay to subsidize nuclear why not wind and solar?