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.

Comments

No winners economically

[Langalf]

I think you can be sure no matter how this plays out, power is going to be more expensive. In addition, if the coal-fired plants are removed from the equation before replacement sources of power are in place, there will be power shortages.

Re:No winners economically

[Jane Q. Public]

If you ignore external costs, yes.

Those "external costs" are unproven and in fact highly questionable. You don't get to just assume they are there, any more than others may assume they're not. Prove the case if you want us to take you seriously.

Many economists have said that even if those external costs are all true, that's still not the real question here. The real question is: how much will mitigation cost in proportion to how much good it does, and versus how much harm it causes. Because make no mistake: there will be harm.

If electricity will be priced below market equilibrium, yes.

"Market"??? Either you're a fool or you think we are. This isn't "market". This is government fiat. It would remove any remaining pretense of free market.

Re:No winners economically

[AmiMoJo]

the truth is use of fossil fuel has increased human lifespan, health, and driven civilization forward, far outweighing the downsides.

False dichotomy. Had we fully understood the consequences of so much fossil fuel use from the start we could have developed cleaner alternatives early on, and still had all of the benefits.