‘Nuclear option’
In the AJC today they had an editorial about the use of nuclear energy. Do you support nuclear energy to meet our needs and help get off Middle East oil dependency?
AJC-The machinations of the state Public Service Commission generally strike most Georgians as too bureaucratic and boring. But now that the regulatory agency has approved a strategic energy plan that includes the possiblity of building a pair of nuclear reactors that could have a profound affect on our environment and economy, it’s time to pay very close attention.
Georgia Power, the state’s largest electrical utility, is eyeing the “nuclear option” to accommodate the state’s projected growth and its ravenous appetite for energy. Company officials here claimed the best way to meet that growing demand is to add two new nuclear generating units at Plant Vogtle, one of its existing nuclear facilities, in Waynesboro near Augusta.
Try sticking uranium in your gas tank . . .
Using uranium to power a city leaves a lot more gas to put in your gas tank. greater supply plus less demand equals less cost to fill your tank, too.
Come now folks….let’s be realistic. The left won’t agree to any of the following:
1. New refineries.
2. Drilling in ANWR.
3. Drilling closer than 50 miles to the shore ANYWHERE.
4. Nuclear Poweplant construction.
5. Anything that harms the “speckled frog.”
6. Anything even perceived to cause that dreaded “global warming.”
7. Power generating windmills anywhere in eyeshot (that’s roughly 1000 miles) of the Kennedy Compound in Massachusetts.
On that note, I’ll leave you with a short riddle;
Question: What ends a gradual warmimg trend?
Answer Winter!
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – Let’s reign in the spending.
I agree, Sgt Mac – and all that is a huge problem concerning our energy supplies and independence.
I think it’s rather convenient for the oil companies to blame the bottleneck in refinery production on environmentalists.
Bill
Excellent point! Now here’s a “business” question for you that answers the point.
Oil companies haven’t expanded refining capacity in decades. No new refineries, and only limited expansion of existing capability.
Given that the public is willing to pay more and more for gasoline, why should they increase refining capacity? They’re making record profits, so from a strict “business” position, they’re doing what any for profit company should do – establish a plan that assures them of profits for the forseeable future.
Also, the left refuses to let them explore or drill just about anywhere (see my post above), so exploration costs more and more as they need to go deeper and deeper to tap possible supplies.
I don’t blame the oil companies. If I were a share holder I’d congratulate them on their business accumen. I blame the tree-huggers who think speckled frogs and spotted owls are more important than people.
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – Let’s drill in ANWR!
Sgtmac
Of course it’s their right as businesses to limit supply. It’s also our right as consumers to point out this common tendency in a number of different industries. And “activism” by consumers who “selfishly followed their own self interest” (see Adam Smith) prevented Shell from shutting down a refinery in California. But frankly I don’t believe in a “hands off” approach to large multinational oil companies, especially when they lie about the peak oil hypothesis, and receive corporate welfare, and influence Congress and foreign policy.
Bill
I don’t disagree with your point. I’m only saying that they’ve worked within the guidelines permitted by the U.S. Government. Further, I suspect they’ll continue to do exactly as they’ve been doing until such time as Governmental regulations are removed and they’re permitted to explore in areas currently off limits.
As for corporate welfare, you are correct.
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – It’s time to reign in fiscal spending!