If you are looking for an empirical “number of drills”, whatever that number is today, is not enough. Despite record production levels and the US being a top exporter, demand is not being met and we are too dependent on foreign oil.
Building more nuclear power stations, don't forget that.
There's a reason you have no clue as to a number or amount that would be the right amount, because there isn't any and you know it.
It won't need to if they just get out of the way and allow some of the new, much safer designs to be built. It should not take decades and billions of dollars to dig the first hole for a power plant.
Look at the prices. Look at how those prices are at risk of increasing at the whim of OPEC in the unstable Middle East. That may sit will with you but not me.
Endless environmental impact studies, endless bureaucratic red tape, needless fear of outdated technology that isn't even in play anymore, ignorant, purple haired college students picketing any planned projects. I am astonished that you are pretending to not know how much time and money it takes to build a nuclear power station. As a result, we're forced to keep running old ones at high capacity well past their expiration dates instead of getting newer, safer technology.
Did you miss the bureaucratic red tape so you could focus only on the one thing you think you can demolish? I didn't even mention the mountain of regulatory hoops they have to jump through.
All I'm saying is there are a lot of things the government can do to promote the building of new nuclear power stations and reduce the strain on the power grid as demand inevitably grows higher. You seem to disagree with that. With what specifically do you disagree?
They can cap the number and duration of required environmental impact studies. They can cut some of the regulatory hoops that have to be jumped through and streamline the process. They can cut the cost of licensing. There are any number of things that government can do.
That's too bad and just shows that you're trying to participate in a discussion about which you don't know (or want to admit you know) much at all.
You said he would, I did not. Keep that in mind when I remind you of such. We do know already that TRUMP! attacks regulatory red tape. Hopefully, he will do so again.
Take away all the picketing college students and you still have serious problems with nuclear power.
I'm going with nuclear because of the extremely strong case that carbon emissions are heating up the planet and we don't like that <possibly insert sarcastic emoji here>. Or is the case not really that strong? If it's not, NG is a good way forward because it's a lot cleaner than coal and oil.
Well yeah, absolutely. But Harris didn't run on that. Sorta the opposite. And that's what dems wanted.
