Obama is never wrong. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop when Obamas infallibility is decreed.

Kim, Chavez and now Obama. After the announcement of infallibility will come Socialism.

If he is so unsure of how to store waste safely, why doesn't he go talk to France. They have used nuclear for years, and I can't think of too many French nuclear waste problems.

Obama has bought into the anti nuclear crowd. The problem isn't that we don't know how or can't store the waste safely, it is that nobody wants the stuff stored where they live or in their state. The problem isn't safety but more of a "NIMBY" problem.

Oh and as for plant safety-the Navy has managed to run nuclear powered ships without any problems. Maybe Obama should talk to some of the people who maintain and run our nuclear navy.

But basically I don't think Obama understands cap-and-trade. A feature of cap-and-trade is not the bankrupting of new plants, but the shutting down of inefficient plants.

Our efforts to manage this problem should not be reckless or simplistic with regard to the realities of migrating to newer technologies. The dislocations of both human and monetary capital in such an activity are huge. Whether Obama was referring to new or old plants is almost irrelevant. Threatening to "bankrupt" power providers who don't share a his simple worldview (because they obviously understand and must deal with the economic problems involved) demonstrates the naivete and obvious inexperience that his critics have poited out since his candidacy was announced.

In 1980 I wrote up a study titled "Sulfur Fixation During Coal Gasification." The thrust of the study was to examine the thermodynamics and kinetics of reducing sulfur emissions in fluidized bed boilers by dissolving sulfur in the iron that naturally occurs in coal. I thought I was saving the world. Then cold, hard economic realities and practicalities set in. Of course, I was only 20.

At the age of 47, Obama should know better than to be spouting off about "bankrupting" industries facing complex problems.

Strike 1 for the man who is not yet ready.

The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

The electric company is now asking to increase rates about 10% in order to pass the cost on to the consumer.

Which follows from established rate doctrine. No big deal here, at least that the electric company is doing it.

I wouldn't say that the comment is taken out of context, but if you read the whole thing it is clear that he meant to say that if you build one with old technology. He simply mis-spoke.

Ahhh, the "he just mispoke" defense. Yes he might have meant that, but then again maybe he didn't. It isn't at all clear, IMO.

Keep in mind that the idea itself isn't bad; CO2 is an externality of coal power, and this attempts to factor that in to the real costs of coal power while letting the market decide rather than simply implementing an across-the-board carbon tax.

Well yes and no. The number of carbon credits/amount of emissions is determined by the government. In a sense it is like a tax. A cap-&-trade system would allow efficient firms to sell to inefficient firms, and those that just can't cover the costs--i.e. spend too much on emission credits, they shut down. So it combines the notion of a tax with the efficiency of the market...provided you get the right amount of credits to begin with. That last assumption is the hard part and could be a political hot potato.

With this type of rational analysis is it any wonder that the republicans have created the mess that we are in.

Better having Republicans than feudalists such as yourself Spencer.

Sheesh.

Still, it's okay. Obama is only going to take out of the other guy's side of the bucket. Our side in A-ok.

With this type of rational analysis is it any wonder that the republicans have created the mess that we are in.

If only there weren't any Republicans...