Shut down power plants, increase the cost, while pushing the electric car (versus, money)

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Thank you. It would be rather stupid to keep rarely used power plants when their production can be shifted and efficiency improved.

The costs are associated with the plants they are keeping.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Was there a question?

Yes, but since you are having such a hard time following along with the topic of the thread, I'll requote it for you..

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Provide me with one regualtion in any industry anywhere in this country that has not increased costs.

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Poor them, silly me.

More babble response with nothing of substance. I'll give you another shot.. They are spending billions, which will increase costs for the consumer, why on gods earth woudl this be "silly them" We're discussing THE CONSUMER COSTS.. My 10 year old could follow along better

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Looking past your habitual/obligatory remarks: AEP closed three power plants, in Texas, in 2002.

And? They close down plants that are no longer efficient to open up more efficient plants, whats your point?

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Just like the idea that regulations are the only reason costs increase and the only reason plants are shut down, it must regulations then?

If these 5 plants were inefficient, they would be closing them down, not putting billions of dollars into them to meet the demands of regulators

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Hey, if you like snake-oil salesmen, don't hate it when others don't join your bandwagon.

More typical rambling because you are having such a hard time dealing with the thread.. I'd be embarassed because it really isnt that tough to follow.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Lame question considering costs will and have increased with or without regulations.

Are you serious? You can't comprehend the difference between additional costs due to regualtions and those brought on by inflation or other factors?

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The costs are associated with the plants they are keeping.

Have they closed inefficient plants before this particular regulation you're blaming for it?

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Are you serious? You can't comprehend the difference between additional costs due to regualtions and those brought on by inflation or other factors?

No, I can't. How do you? Please educate, complete with factual data to support your "comprehension" of the cost structure.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by pghquest

American Patriot Journal » Blog Archive » Dark Ages: EPA Regulations Forces Closing of 5 Power Plants

In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA’s regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years.

The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

Well yeah, but Obama did promise to destroy coal power and that the cost of electricity would necessarily increase from killing coal. He couldn't get the Congress to do it for him so he went to EPA to get at the consumers. I wonder how cold we will have to get next winter to satisfy him and his.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

Have they closed inefficient plants before this particular regulation you're blaming for it?

There is a HUGE difference between closing a plant thats inefficient, and closing one that isnt

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

No, I can't.

Thats all you had to say, now we understand why you are having such difficulty with the thread.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

We should transition all coal power plants over to nuclear power plants ASAP.

How many years would that take, your ASAP? I wonder what would happen in Texas with their 18 or 19 coal fired plants.

BTW, who do you think should pay for your nuclear plants? It will end up being the taxpaying consumers, you know.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by burdell

I don't see any claim by AEP that the EPA regs won't have a beneficial impact on the environment so their claim is what? That they should be allowed free rein to pollute as they please? All in the name of their bottom line?

Open your baby blues and see AEP talking about the fact that they are spending quite a lot trying to get caught up with EPA regulations and all of a sudden up comes a new set on top of the others.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

There is a HUGE difference between closing a plant thats inefficient, and closing one that isnt

And the five are among the efficient plants? Makes me curious about your idea of efficiency.

Thats all you had to say, now we understand why you are having such difficulty with the thread.

Your obligatory remarks never cease to deliver amusement.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by momonkey

So we got the EPA running around making business decisions for businesses which will be very costly and the libs don't see why that's a problem.

I just got through posting on a lib thread b*thching about businesses sitting on their money instead of expanding and hiring people.

Why is it that libs cannot connect the dots?

That connecting of dots would be dangerous for them to maintain their anti-corporation thoughts.

Yesterday I heard a small business man say that he and his wife have 47 full time employees and would like to expand but Obamacare says that once a business has 50 employees they have to extend healthcare or pay the fine. As they are now they won't have to do either. i wonder how many thousands of small businesses are being held back by various bits of Obama legislation.