From: MV (MV@dc9.tzo.com)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 17:53:44 PDT
I think the influence of the Greenies is overblown. The nukes died out
IMO because of some mistakes (3 mile Island,etc), which triggered
overburdening government regulation and the fact that there was an easy
way out - which was to go back to coal burning plants. We have more
coal than we know what to do with. Unforunately it is also some nasty
stuff.
If coal was not so readily available, or if the government eased the
unreasonable regulations facing new nuclear power plant construction,
Nukes would be making most of the electricity in this country. Until
that happens, Coal will be our source for electicity. We have something
like a 500 year supply of it at the current consumption rate.
Also, I believe that at around $3.00-$4.00/ gallon - the coversion of
coal to oil becomes economical. If price of oil continues to go up, I
predict some plants will be opening near the coal mines.
Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stephen Grammont wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
>> No, but it would reduce the cost of Natural Gas used for Electricity
>> Generation and thus the load on the NG/Propane market for other uses
>> including I think the refinery costs for conventional Crude Oil
>> Refined products. Lower Electricity costs would help as well on the
>> electric Car market.
>
>
> I disagree. There is a law of nature at work... unchecked demand will
> always rise to meet the level of supply, then exceed it. The solution
> is to lower demand, not raise supply. How do you think we got into this
> mess in the first place? Cheap oil.
>
>> I'm still under the impression that the Greenies stopping as many new
>> generation/refining plants as they have is also part of the cost
>> factor for the final end products at the meter/pump.
>
>
> It might be a small factor, but rampant demand is the driving force. It
> should be obvious that if you suddenly consume more you'll have to
> produce more. Like the halogen lamp craze of the early 1990s... in a
> few years it had undone nearly 2 decades of cost savings associated with
> lower lighting initiatives.
>
>> That's share holder value they're worried about.
>
>
> Not exactly. Share holder value is only a means to an end for the top
> decision makers of big companies. The end far too many of them are
> worried about is the amount of money available to go into their own
> pockets. Can't take home $100,000,000 in salary if your company has to
> make some tough choices about how it conducts business. Better to
> simply push it off for someone else to clean up later.
>
> But share holder value is certainly a problem too because the holders,
> i.e consumers, are as short sighted and greedy as the executives in
> charge of the companies themseves. They are the ones that put the
> crooks into CFO and CEO positions and said "I don't care what it takes,
> just get my stock portfolio blooming!". Unfortunately they forgot to
> specify that things should be done ethically and legally. No thought
> put into sustainability at all.
>
> Again, it all comes right back to the consumer.
>
> Steve
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:53 PDT