NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7102

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 3.5 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: sci.energy
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!rsiatl!jgd
From: [e-mail] (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of C
Message-ID: <w=[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:58:51 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <xa#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 62

[e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:

>Then your response.  Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of it.
>You complain about FDR, yet you worked for the TVA - an FDR creation -
>clearly, you have benefitted from FDR's legacy.

All of us make mistakes.

>You complain that
>we shouldn't have a national energy policy, yet you are very pro-nuke,
>and no nukes would exist without a national energy policy.

Sure there would be.  The government just happened to get there first.
I like to think that had the government NOT gotten there first, most
of the grief the industry (in whatever form it constituted itself)
suffers through today would not be there.  I feel fairly confident that
had the government NOT gotten to nuclear first, we would not have the
bomb albatross hanging around our necks.

>You change
>the topic to socialism, when a national energy policy has nothing to
>do with socialism, and in fact "we" can have a national energy policy
>and it would cost no one a dime - it would simply be a guide for
>regulatory agencies, research bodies and the like as to what to pursue,
>so that government bodies work efficiently toward a common goal and
>not at crossed purposes, and also so that industry knows what to expect
>from government and can make long-term decisions in accordance with
>that.

Stand back and listen to yourself, Richard.  You're so much immersed in
the problem you can't see it.  The mere existance of federal regulatory bodies
in most cases represents the problem to me, a private citizen who has
more than half his wealth stolen from him each year to partially fund
this juggernaut.

>The goal of a national energy policy is to cost people less
>both for government invlovement in energy and in terms of energy
>delivered from the company to the consumer.  It also would address
>issues of national and economic security.  For example, a sound national
>energy policy should make our country immune to the whims of OPEC.

You really believe that, don't you?  The things the federal government
has done that has reduced my costs I can count on one hand and have
fingers left.  I challenge you list ANYTHING in the current policy
proposals that will reduce my costs.  A gas tax?  Mandatory
efficiency ratings?  A higher CAFE that does nothing except jack up the
cost of cars?

Regarding OPEC, you're living in another decade on that one.  I suspect
the cruise missile and the smart bomb have taught all sides in that
region a lesson not shortly forgotten.  Even if that is not true, consider
this comment made by a radio commentator:  "Complaining about foreign oil
is like complaining about the opportunity to spend someone else's money
while keeping yours in the bank for future use.  It make no sense."

John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to
[e-mail]                        | [e-mail] for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.