Replies

I'm not that familiar with all the past actions to know what's going on. Based on that excerpt from the LA Times, it looked like there was some major maneuvering and/or manipulation going on. I can't figure out the main objective or how this game is being played. They are obviously limiting the supply side and/or putting targeted sources out of business. There actions will therefore increase prices... is that to make the cost of alternative energy sources appear more cost competitive (comparatively)? Or, is it to remove them as a competitor? Or, is it just to force alternative sources, regardless of price? And then, I looked at where this coal plant is located and figured it could also be motivated by a desire to get bailed out of this particular enterprise and develop the land for other purposes. It certainly does not look like a coherent energy policy or strategy.

As I recall, there were only two places that had clean burning coal. One was the monument Clinton made and the other was owned by the Riadys who gave him all that campaign cash. With Arnold's connections with the Kennedy's, I'm going to have to get out my tinfoil hat.