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

Re:No winners economically

[drinkypoo]

any history book covering dawn of industrial age to present, coupled with life expectancy tables will do. wikipedia has some nice ones

You fail at reading comprehension. Perhaps Google can suggest some resources which might help you out? Try searching (with Google.com) for "reading comprehension drills". My first result is titled "FREE Reading Comprehension Printable Worksheets for Kids", which seems approximately appropriate for your current reading level. In the meantime, pay attention to the quoted text in comments, which will help you understand what they mean. I hope I have used small enough words for you. If "comprehension" is too complicated, try dictionary.com.

Your snide answer received a snide response. Will you now get upset? That would be predictable, thus boring.