[CT]

Very familiar with this "levelized" cost methodology. It is half-way sound. But then the left or liberals start adding on or discounting costs, so-called "externalities" and everything goes to hell. Not only that, you get these wack jobs that see these adjusted costs trying to tell you, you just don't understand.

I understand that coal creates pollution. And pollution and CO2 get 'priced.' But when will they price foreign oil at 80% of our supply vs. when it was (and could be) 20% of our supply?

[Marine_Uncle]

From the CO2 standpoint their all wrong. No one has ever shown and been approved by the whole "modern" science that CO2 can in any way raise the global temperatures of the earth. From a dirty coal emission regarding most particulates, we already have by law the particulate collection systems in place for most all coal burning electrical power generation plants.... grant you some say in Virginia are not included....but mostly nation wide this has been in place for a number of years. And that includes things like Sulfuric Acid emissions. The only factor remaining on the environmentalist agenda, correct me if I am miss informed, is the issue with what level on average a coal burning electric power plant produces in the very minute quantities of mercury, measured in parts per billion.
This whole issue on coal has been treated out of hand, and given free reign by the EPA and their drivers on the left, and goodie enviro groups to hog tie the industry.
So be careful with the Carbon Dioxide part of the equation relating to burning coal for electrical production.
Mercury in the minute amounts emitted, yes can be a valid issue, but then we get into the current go around, where some show the EPA standards are not being violated, verse those that claim no matter how small the emissions, they are a health risk. I don't know for sure if I sort of addressed your comments. Sorry if I did not.