Decius wrote:

] These are businesses, not planners. They always choose the
] cheapest supply. Like I said, some coal development is
] inevitable. The question seems to be what are the costs in
] terms of pollution.

In the sense that we have this mix of public and private utilities, I consider them all "planners."

] It might make sense to move to a more directly managed system
] where there is an absolute total quantity of allowable
] emmisions and everyone has to buy in, including people who
] bring new coal plants online. If the market is managed
] properly it would create an economic disincentive to
] developments like this which might offset other cost
] advantages, without requiring that people use particular
] solutions. It also allows us to think about pollution
] management in an systemic way instead of having local
] political debates on a plant by plant basis.

A good idea, but who manages it? Government, private, or quasi-governmental agency? We definately should be looking at it more holistically though. Kind of like all the gas blends we use in the US. Very inefficient to do that, from the physical side of production as well as all the red tape.

RE: America’s New Coal Rush