Come on now. The US currently accounts for 3% of the world's supply of oil. Even if we managed to double production (which is moot because it's impossible) that would only be another 3%. As ridiculously optimistic as that scenario is, it's not likely to have much effect on prices even if it could be realized. Other countries (notably Saudi Arabia and other Arabian peninsula countries) have enough elasticity that they can easily compensate by reducing their production. If we are ever to find relief we have to rely on other countries to increase their production enough to swamp those that can control their output. Given that 80% of the supply is controlled by nationalized companies, what are the chances of that?

Domestic drilling will not reduce oil prices. However, domestic drilling will reduce imports. So will demand destruction. The latter can have essentially permanent effects. Without them the former will only be temporary. Moreover, demand destruction in the form of more fuel efficient vehicles, hybrids, and electric vehicles, perhaps combined with third generation biofuels generated from algae and/or organic waste, can be distributed essentially world-wide. To the extent that we're on the cutting edge of that the rest of the world would have to buy our technologies and hire our technicians. And the market is HUGE. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. And it's not like it's escaped the notice of the rest of the world. We used to be the undisputed world leaders in wind and solar. Now we have to import a great deal of it. That can change, but only if we get with the program.

So, what's an AP-1000 plant going for these days? About $6.36/W or so. Not including transmission lines (for these Florida plants that's estimated to be about $3 billion of the total $17 billion price tag). And perhaps more importantly, that doesn't include cost overruns. Cost overruns are more the exception than the rule in the nuclear industry. And the fact that there are significant bottlenecks in the supply of key components doesn't bode well in that regard.

Because of these and other factors the reality is: nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.

So even if you use the lower cost estimate ($10 billion/pair of 1.1 GW plants, or $5 billion each), and assume no cost overruns, that represents $4 billion in subsidies each. You want to build 100 of them? Then prepare for taxpayers to have to shell out $400 billion — minimum. Not including transmission. I suspect that's one reason why McCain doesn't talk about costs.

100 nuclear plants (at 1.1 GW each) represents about 20% of the current grid. As I mentioned in a previous comment on another thread, the DOE estimates the cost of replacing 20% of the grid with wind (about 300 GW nameplate capacity — 3 times more than nuclear because wind's capacity factor is about 3 times lower) is on the order of $200 billion — including transmission. And that cost is offset by about $150 billion in fuel savings — or more if prices go up.

Considering that, why on earth would anyone favor nuclear if wind is an option? Similar logic could be applied to solar as well, although some of the details would differ.

The fact is, though, that wind and solar aren't available everywhere in the US. It is perhaps true that the problem could be solved with a considerably more robust transmission network, but that would take a long time and would likely be a legal and regulatory nightmare even under the best of circumstances. Then again, as you pointed out, legal and regulatory issues relating to nuclear plants can be equally nightmarish.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that nuclear power may make sense when other forms of non-fossil power are not feasible. This part of the argument is a little more nuanced, because it requires the assumption that fossil fuel prices will rise substantially over the next 30 years. Wind and solar already look to be on course to achieve grid parity even if coal and gas prices don't rise at all. Ever. Nuclear probably never will. For nuclear to make sense relative to coal and gas on a strictly cost basis, the latter would have to rise substantially in years to come. In other words, what happened in the last 30 years to fossil fuel prices would have to happen again in the next 30 years. If fossil fuels remained nuclear's only competitor I'd say that would be a no-brainer. But now there are other options — wind, solar, and whatever else. As they become more common they will almost certainly have a negative pressure on fossil fuel prices — particularly coal.

There are other concerns other than cost of course — e.g., the environment, both in terms of “traditional” pollutants and GHGs. So on those grounds, and unless (or until) a viable and cost-effective carbon capture and storage technique is perfected, nuclear works for me when other, cheaper and cleaner alternatives are not readily available. I suspect, however, that over the next two decades the locations where nuclear makes sense is likely to contract quite a bit. Anyway, there is another good thing about nuclear… a reasonable number of the principal components of the AP-1000 design are manufactured right here in the good ole' USA.

You do realize that those advocating drilling are doing so in the hopes that we can bring the prices down for the short term so that we are not all riding our bicycles to work like Barak Obama and his militant greenies want us to do.

You're not bringing down oil prices in 3 years or 30 with offshore drilling. McCain and the White House have already admitted as much. You know them as the militant oilies.

Japan Economy Probably Contracted, Bringing a Recession Closer

“The ECB is acknowledging the economic slowdown,'' said Matthew Sharratt, an economist at Bank of America in London.

See its just not the USA being hammered by these high gasoline prices. Its the world and we are headed into a worldwide recession if we dont get these prices under control. That means drilling. That means letting the other 55 companies drill for oil if the big 5 dont want too.

The world is being hammered by these prices. Its time to do what we can to get it back down to reasonable amounts.

Thats it? Hybrids? Electric cars? Those are going to bring oil prices down in 3 months or 5 years?

You do know dont you that if we start today and produce 2 million cars this year……3 million year 2, 4 million year 3, 5 million year 4 and 6 million year 5 that we have produced a whopping 20 million out of an estimated 250 million cars by the END OF FIVE YEARS?

You do realize that dont you? You do know that even if all the automakers make the effort that their is not enough batteries being made to make this many cars. That the assembly lines would have to be rebuilt.

You do realize that dont you?

You do realize that those advocating drilling are doing so in the hopes that we can bring the prices down for the short term so that we are not all riding our bicycles to work like Barak Obama and his militant greenies want us to do.

You do realize that it will take 30 years to replace all the gasoline vehicles with hybrids and battery powered cars and that by the time youve done that it will be time to replace them with something else?

You do realize that just because we can build hybrids and Electric cars doesnt mean that that will solve short term or even medium term gasoline prices dont you?

Or do you folks really believe that with the wave of a hand we can just start making 50 or 100 million new cars a year and in a couple years we can have the problem solved?

And there you go this sums up in a nutshell the militant attitude that the greenies have on oil drilling and petroleum in general.

Walk to work…………ride a bicycle……..or take the mass transit to work………oh wait I dont live in a big city……..I dont live in a city that has mass transit, I live in a city where the temperature drops to -30 below during the winter……….

Don't care……..thou shalt not burn anymore gas and we will replace your transportation with a bicycle……….how you get thru 3 foot snow drifts 10 miles to work is not my concern………but we will save the world from that evil oil.

It is messianic.

Well Im waiting to be enlightened, or has Obama not given you the 11th commandment yet?

The cost analysis of nuclear has been nearly impossible to calculate due to the misinformation and uncertainty.

Since there have been no nuclear plants built here in the past 30+ years, the costing models become heavily distorted. Plants built in the 60’s and 70’s were one-off designs and products of one-off production – a more expensive method could not be conceived.

Manufacturing the essential components of nuclear plants prior to the era of computer controlled machining was an exercise in money burning. Welds couldn’t be monitored as they were being made and instead of a 5-axis robot laying perfect beads the shaky hand of a hung-over welder did the best he could. Since a nuclear power plant is simply a collection of welded pipe and machined flanges, modern manufacturing methods (along with incredibly better quality control) would reduce costs substantially.

Legal fees and carrying costs for legal-based delays, projected from the experience of past plants, previously equaled construction costs. Indecision as to waste storage (like delaying Yucca Mountain) increased costs. Licensing and regulatory roadblocks all added to the total.

The remedy is a government/private industry partnership. Although as a true capitalist I realize that the government screws up everything they touch, it’s the only way this can move forward.

Plants need to be financed and owned by the federal government. The feds would also provide the nuclear material and dispose of it when necessary. Private industry would build, operate and distribute the power. Communities would need to vote for and compete to have a nuclear plant in their area. In return, discounted power would be available to those within certain radius of the facility on a descending scale based on proximity.

What is missing from the discussions about energy today is the fact that for our economy to grow, we need cheap, unlimited power. Want those jobs back from overseas? Provide all the power for next to nothing and watch heavy manufacturing flock back to the U.S. Want to make sure the poor don’t freeze in the winter or die of heat stroke in the summer? Be able to provide the power it takes.

The key to a better future isn’t reducing energy usage, it’s having more energy than we know what to do with.

If we're going to invest tax dollars to shift off of an oil based economy, then why shouldn't nuclear be part of the mix (particularly since we already have the know how and a lot of the barrier has been excessive regulation of that industry?)

I'm fine with nuclear as long as it's proven to be cost effective vs. the alternatives.

I think we can all agree that nuclear isn't ideal, that's why I would rather see the limited government subsidies going to something more ideal like wind or solar.

I don't get why you are harping on govt subsidies for nuclear power being a bad thing if you think Obama's proposals for investment in other alternative energy sources is a good idea. If we're going to invest tax dollars to shift off of an oil based economy, then why shouldn't nuclear be part of the mix (particularly since we already have the know how and a lot of the barrier has been excessive regulation of that industry?)

Nuclear is a great option right now.

But it will have to be heavily subsidized by government. It is in every single country where it's been successful. That's why it's surprising to hear conservatives sing nuclear's praises.

Conservatives are demonstrably better at military, foreign affairs, economics, domestic policy and energy.

And the last 8 years are proof!

* Wind power accounted for 35% of all new power sources in the US in 2007.
* Worldwide over $165 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2007.
* The DOE's NREL division estimates that it would cost the average homeowner about 50 cents a month over current prices to convert 20% of the national grid to wind power. If that is done the price is essentially locked in, because wind is free. Every indication is that doing the same thing with nuclear (which is what McCain is suggesting) would be much more expensive.
* There are currently about 150 applications for utility scale solar plants in the US alone.
* Nevada is planning to expand its geothermal resources to account for over 70% of its electrical power over the next 5-7 years.
* Virtually every major vehicle manufacturer is working full tilt to offer plug-in hybrids within 2-3 years. Some, such as Nissan, are planning to introduce fully electric vehicles in the same time frame. And of course there are smaller start-ups planning the same thing.
* Even big rig manufacturers (e.g. Peterbilt, Mitsubishi, Kenworth) are beginning to offer hybrids).
* The McKinsey Group and others have estimated that as much as 20-25% of domestic energy demand could be eliminated by energy efficiency technologies (e.g., grid leveling, changes in building standards, industrial and utility heat recovery, retrofitting existing buildings) — technologies which would be net economic positives over their useful lifetimes.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. This isn't a fantasy. The time is now. There's a HUGE amount of money to be made in this stuff, and the necessary investment is relatively small. All they need is a little help. Obama is talking about investing about $15 billion/year over a decade developing all sorts of renewables and energy efficiency technologies. That sounds about right to me. To the extent that the US occupies a leading role there are millions of domestic jobs at stake. Manufacturing opportunities. Intellectual capital to accumulate. And a serious reduction in the trade deficit. This is supposed to be the kind of thing America does best. In the 20th century it was large increases in manufacuring efficiency (assembly lines, etc.), by large increases in agricultural efficiencies (e.g., mechanizing farms, development of higher yield crops), by large increases in transportation efficiencies (e.g., the expansion of railroads and interstate highways), by large increases in information efficiencies (e.g., computers, communications satellites, the internet). All through that energy efficiency was largely ignored. Now it's time to concentrate on that. That is now the biggest, lowest hanging fruit available to increase production efficiency. And increasing production efficiency is how you boost GDP.

So what is it exactly that you don't understand?