But KBasa's note, which you were quoting, was comparing the cost of the war and the cost of getting off the oil addiction. Just because you don't feel they're related, and you don't feel that the political aspect of choosing an energy policy are important (see below), doesn't mean that everyone feels that way.
While I agree completely with your statement, it is a political obstacle that shows no sign at all of being solved. You are dismissing the part that makes it extremely unlikely that Yucca Mountain will ever open as the nation's nuclear waste repository.
Again, this is true but ignores the fact that nuclear power scares people. People who weren't born when 3 mile island had it's problem and when Chernobyl blew its top, are afraid of the word nuclear, even if the designs for those plants are not at all what the current state of the art is today. As an engineering type it pains me to say this, but just because it is now technically much safer and easier to deal with, doesn't mean that the population is going to go for it. Unlike prisons, NOBODY wants a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
Read closer . . . I did not say "small", I said "smaller".
Probably not worth the effort it takes to write this, but how do you define "price gouge", and what evidence (or even inuendo and rumor) do you have that this is not caused by basic "supply and demand", and speculation in the oil commodities markets?
No consumer likes higher prices, but it's kind of important to correctly understand WHY prices are high before you go off and develop a "solution" . . . assuming you really want to find a solution and not just make political points.
PS: What started the investigations was when price per barrel decreased, and the price of gas stayed the same. The industry indicated that oil price is a very small component of the price of gasoline. Gas cost is driven by the refineries.
