But looking to the future, with no hydroelectric dams being built, no nuclear energy plants being constructed, little oil exploration and a pass on a major pipeline, it seems that what's left is wind, solar and natural gas. Wind is not viable because of lack of storage and it will take years before it will be, same with solar. (Of course much of the possibility is hyped to encourage crony capitalism with government money).
Therefore, will less genuine competition, natural gas will gradually rise. It looks now like an excellent long term investment.
2. Incoming sources.
EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected - Forbes
Obama's War on Coal Will Only Get Worse if He Is Re-Elected - On Energy (usnews.com)Ozone Rule:
As reported in the New York Times last year, President Obama admitted that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” of tightening the ozone standard would harm jobs and the economy … but he still pointed to the fact that it will be reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.
By EPA’s own projections, it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,” which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities. Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures.
The Times concluded: “The full retreat on the smog standard was the first and most important environmental decision of the presidential campaign season that is now fully underway. An examination of that decision, based on interviews with lobbyists on both sides, former officials and policy makers at the upper reaches of the White House and the E.P.A., illustrates the new calculus on political and policy shifts as the White House sharpens its focus on the president’s re-election.”
Harsher energy regulations seen in Obama's second term | Reuters•New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired power plants. These regulations ban new coal-fired power plants that do not capture carbon dioxide emissions—and none can. Existing plants don't have to comply right away under the rule, but EPA fixes them with the next regulation, MATS.
•Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). This regulation, formerly called the Utility MACT rule, mandates a reduction in mercury and other emissions from power plants. According to EPA's own optimistic assumptions, the cost of this regulation is $10 billion a year, but the benefits from reducing mercury and air toxics is only $6 million a year (and that is likely overstating the benefits). Existing plants may be treated as "new plants" if they make these changes, and then be forced to meet the carbon dioxide emissions standards of the previous rule (EPA assures that this isn't the case, however, EPA does not have a strong legal case to make that argument). The combination of the two regulations could mean no coal plants, period.
Its not just what regulations are on the books but how they are interpretted and enforced by the head of the EPA. They have some leeway in regulatory changes. It depends on how they will use it.Energy producers braced for tighter regulation in President Barack Obama's second term, with coal companies expecting more emissions restrictions and drillers anticipating less access to federal land even as his platform promotes energy independence.
Opponents already believe Obama has waged a "war on coal" through the administration's push for stricter regulation of greenhouse gas emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency.
"Four more years of President Obama translates into additional pressure on the coal industry from the EPA and numerous environmental groups," energy investment bank Simmons & Co said in a note to investors on Wednesday.
Analysts at ClearView Energy Partners in Washington expect Obama to "continue prosecuting energy policy through regulation and administrative action, with only the courts as a check on that agenda."
Miners criticize Obama for not living up to a 2008 promise to develop clean coal technology, arguing that his policies actually preclude the construction of any new coal plants.
Shares of U.S. coal companies plunged on Wednesday. Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources ended trade down more than 12 percent, while Peabody Energy closed 9.6 percent lower.
Eric Green, senior managing partner at Penn Capital Management, which owns coal stocks, said the sell-off was "100 percent related to election results."
Alpha Natural Resources Chief Executive Kevin Crutchfield argued that the United States, with the world's largest coal reserves, should use what it has. "We would hope the administration remains true to its campaign promise to support coal as an indispensable part of our nation's energy mix," he said.
"I don't like your sources, here's some that agree with me."
One of you will end up here next!