On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 13:45:32 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:56:31 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:55:08 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:42:31 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:18:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 12:33:55 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.


CNG is a pretty attractive option that is not getting any traction at
all.

As previously described CNG has problems also... fracking.

I'd much rather see nuclear plants that are standardized (e.g.,
regulated design specs) and carefully monitored. Spent fuel is an
issue, but it's possible to do it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html


There are tens of thousands of "fracked" wells operating with
absolutely zero problems. This is a made for TV problem.

How many more wells do you think we should drill?

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/f...ylvania-201006

http://dmaview.newsvine.com/_news/20...ing-denouement

You don't want the EPA to even exist, so of course you don't want to
wait for their determination.

Maybe there is something on Pennsylvania that makes fracking a problem
there or it could just be the particular operator but compared to a
nuke accident or an oil spill this is trivial.

Or, maybe it's an industry-wide problem about to happen elsewhere. Do
you object to some research to find out or should we just drill baby
drill?


You can find problems with every form of energy production. You are
the one who gave me the list of nuclear accidents.
Compare the number of accidents to the number of reactors, the danger
posed by those accidents and get back to me about a few fracked wells
that cause a problem.

So, read again where I said standardization and regulation.

Then we can start comparing that to Exxon Valdez and BP or the never
ending wars in the middl;e east.

I thought 9/11 only cost $500M?

It cost Bin Laden less than a half million to do $2 trillion (your
number, probably low) in damage. That is a pretty good return on
investment. Imagine what they could do with a couple million (a small
ransom these days)

Imagine if you were a poor, illiterate fisherman, and suddenly came
into $10000... I bet the first thing you would do would be to plan a
sophisticated attack on the US. NOT