Slashdot Mirror
The EPA Carbon Plan: Coal Loses, But Who Wins?
Lasrick writes: Mark Cooper with one of the best explanations of some of the most pressing details on the new EPA rule change: 'The claims and counterclaims about EPA's proposed carbon pollution standards have filled the air: It will boost nuclear. It will expand renewables. It promotes energy efficiency. It will kill coal. It changes everything. It accomplishes almost nothing.' Cooper notes that although it's clear that coal is the big loser in the rule change, the rule itself doesn't really pick winners in terms of offering sweet deals for any particular technology; however, it seems that nuclear is also a loser in this formulation, because 'Assuming that states generally adhere to the prime directive of public utility resource acquisition—choosing the lowest-cost approach—the proposed rule will not alter the dismal prospects of nuclear power...' Nuclear power does seem to be struggling with economic burdens and a reluctance from taxpayers to pay continuing subsides in areas such as storage and cleanup. It seems that nuclear is another loser in the new EPA rule change.
The cost of air pollution is up to $1,600 per person annually according to Cal State Fullerton.
That's the same thing monopolies claim when they are broken up.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Ever wonder why AGW gets nothing but lip service?
Because most people (including I suspect a number of the proponents of the theory, particularly on the political side) think the threat of AGW is exaggerated.