They would however give up on all of the red tape and enviromental BS dished out by the anti nutcase wacko's. Every company big and small is under the gun of fees and regulations that have no set rules. If they spend $ millions on approved scrubbers they will change the rules before completion and cost mega $$ again.
Why build new power plants to have enough available power when you are going to have state run utilities anyway? Wasnt it Peelousy that wanted to regulate housing thermostat setting in Cala? At the very least she was an avid supporter.

But I have been sidetracked before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs

4:00 video is very forth telling on Obamas views on coal and nuclear. No added notes or distortions from the poster on youtube. Just Obama talking.
At 2:20 he says that they can build them but he WILL bankrupt them. Cap and trade carbon credits. He promises to punish them with carbon credits. So they can't build them with any hope to be profitable.

They scrap the plans to build after Obama became pres. and they gave him a few weeks to see how he will govern. I don't think there is any doubt that he is going to govern from the far left.
Since 2000 the earth hasn't increased one degree in temperature. It has actually decreased but that proves global warming too. I guess I need to be sent to a reeducation camp.
I don't understand how global warming is proved if the earth is cooling down.
Either way it is based on speculation from computer models that can be manipulated by input from man. Cook the books so to speak.

His anti nuclear argument is also false. France (since we look up to them so much) and the US have been storing rad waste for decades with no problem. Technology is improving in that area as well. Not building nukes because of storage problems is a very weak reason. No green house gasses from nukes.
More people have died in T. Kennedy's car than in a nuclear incident in the USA. But no nukes from Obama.

You can't destroy the power plant(coal & nuke) industry in the US and build electric cars, rails, transit systems as he wants to and have enough power to run them.
I'm not against his wind, solar, (renewable) energy direction but they can't support his infrastructure dreams, uh goals. Nor do I want to burn low grade coal. I don't believe in global warming but still do not want to be irresponsible with pollution.

He seems bent on change whether it's justified or not.

>That is what a powerplant is revenue for energy companies.<

A powerplant is also a plant that produces power :)
>All that happens is that the company will pass the expanded cost to the consumer. <
At some point the customer just can't afford it. See GM. Ford. Chrysler.

>They damn sure won't sacrifice any profit to do the right thing, that wouldn't be Capitalist. <

Capitalism and capitalists are evil. Got it!

i dont get it Kazakastan spends 130 million to build oil fields and the us trys to spend 200 million on condoms and birth controll!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What???????????????????????????
What is wrong with this country does our government have collective brain damage?
I think they do, when big O is given well thought out gifts of friendship(desk set made from a sunken slave ship and commision papers from another ship involved in freeing slaves) and he gives a 15 box set of DVDs, this man clearly has no respect for his position or a clue on how to behave as the leader of the once most powerful nation, and who is in his administration that set this up? didnt any1 say that its not appropriate?
WOW
WOW
WOW