Its really interesting that this thread started with the threat presented by nationalization of oil refineries.
It went on to the nuclear power industry, and the idea that we regulated it to death.
France was used as an example of how much better our nuclear industry could be.
Any idea who owns and built French nuclear power plants?
Any idea of how much of the French economy is socialist?
I worked for a state agency that was in direct competition with private industry. Some years we dominated the industry, some years we got beat up pretty well.
Government involvement is neither a guarantee of success, or of inefficiency. It depends on management, and the quality varies greatly.
The French were able to build nuclear plants because the government was the only agency willing to put up the huge initial investment required to build.
Businesses in the 80's had very little capital to work with, due to ridiculously high interest rates.
In the 90's, most investment went into very little in the way of hard assets. It instead went into intellectual properties, as that was where some very high rates of return were (think software).
In the meantime, GE and a few other companies did a lot of research, with government help, to try and find ways to improve nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants are now dramatically more efficient than they were.
Designs are being developed to improve safety, and to dramatically decrease up front costs.
Attempts are being made to standardize design, so something resembling mass production can occur. Previously, virtually every plant was different. It was like building prototype after prototype, without ever perfecting a design.
There is still no general agreement on what design would be best.
Yes, there was a terrific NIMBY movement. But simplistically saying that environmental regs were the reason nuclear wasn't developed is just plain wrong.
I have seen no evidence that we have oil reserves greater than the middle east. Give me a reference for that one.
We do have substantial reserves, but most are not economically recoverable, at least not now. Believe it, if they were, there wouldn't be so many areas leased by oil companies that are never exploited.
ANWAR is often held up as some miracle that would give us instant oil independence. Sorry, there just isn't that much oil there.
And in tapping it, we risk not only some wildlife, But possibly the Bering Sea, where 40% of the world's fishery now exists. I would rather leave that area as a last resort.
To state that the democrat position is all or nothing on fossil fuels is wrong. Most are looking for a mixed solution, and active research into carbon sequestration is a major plank for many.