"Energy Costs Will Necessarily Skyrocket"

[Iaintliein]

Eighteen X:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1vdALNXOI

[Guest123018-4]

Cant build nukes,cant build coal, cant build hydro, , natural gas prices fluctuate too much, sure dont want to burn oil. I suppose in the end we will just have to wait till the sun shines and the wind blows. Texas is looking at rolling blackouts in just a few years.

[i'va biggen]

well mc barker you could run two sticks together,there is a place on the Missouri river (Itan) has a nice power plant ,and has been added too it.Hydro? no coal fired. there are new nucular plants being built now.

[JD Barleycorn]

They have decided to start building nuclear plants but haven't done it yet. It takes about 10 years to complete a nuke plant which is how long they say it takes to bring an oil well online (which isn't true). So isn't it a bit hypocritical to start one thing that takes ten years and not do the other thing which they also claim takes ten years (drilling for oil in ANWR). Still I will believe the nukes happening when they actually happen.
Iatan may be coaled fired but they are trying to take the price of coal higher through penalties and regulations. Just another campaign promise seeing fruition.

[Texas Contrarian]

1-Minute Video Clip

Fortunately, cap-and-trade was killed stone dead a couple of years ago.

As envisioned by its political supporters four years ago, it would have created a whole new class of Capitol Hill power barons, bureaucrats, lawyers, and traders who would all have been able to enjoy the new system's succulent teats.

Back in 2008, Jason Furman reportedly told a few senate staffers that once cap-and-trade got cranked up, it could raise as much as $300 billion annually.

Nothing like trying to sneak a huge tax increase on the middle class and working poor through the back door and in the middle of the night while nobody's looking!

[Guest123018-4]

Was the EPA directed to determine that CO2 was a p0ollutant?

[CuteOldGuy]

Crap. Now I'm "waiting to exhale."

[i'va biggen]

trees love co2

[Guest123018-4]

But does the EPA?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by ekim008

trees love co2

there are trees that expel co2, I know bizarre. they're in the smokey mountain range.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

They have decided to start building nuclear plants but haven't done it yet. It takes about 10 years to complete a nuke plant which is how long they say it takes to bring an oil well online (which isn't true). So isn't it a bit hypocritical to start one thing that takes ten years and not do the other thing which they also claim takes ten years (drilling for oil in ANWR). Still I will believe the nukes happening when they actually happen.
Iatan may be coaled fired but they are trying to take the price of coal higher through penalties and regulations. Just another campaign promise seeing fruition.

building nuke reactors in 10 years is ridiculous and that is due to excessive onerous and unecessary regulations and makes building one very costly. a reactor built in Canada or France or japan would be done in 4-5 years.

[i'va biggen]

yah but the ones in Japan have a tendency to flood on occasion

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Was the EPA directed to determine that CO2 was a p0ollutant?

The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA was allowed to treat CO2 as a pollutant in on April 2, 2007. If it had been a day earlier, everyone would have thought they were kidding. Unfortunately, they weren't.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

[i'va biggen]

maybe it was just bad breath