EPA to Tighten Rules for New Coal Plants

No later than this Friday, the EPA is required to put out a proposal with new requirements for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. While no one knows for sure what it's going to say, a rumor-consensus seems to be forming. Watch this video to find out what industry watchers expect to happen, and what companies are likely to be affected.

With all the pressures of our modern era, the face of energy is changing at breakneck speed. One home-run investing opportunity has been slipping under Wall Street's radar for months. But it won't stay hidden much longer. Forward-thinking energy players such as General Electric and Ford have already plowed sizable amounts of research capital into this little-known stock, because they know it holds the key to the explosive profit power of the coming "no choice fuel revolution." Luckily, there's still time for you to get on board if you act quickly. All the details are inside an exclusive report from The Motley Fool. Click here for the full story!

Read/Post Comments (8) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 7:39 AM, travisdist wrote:

    Won't allow new drilling permits. Against shale oil extraction. Oil refineries falling apart (becoming a threat to residence) because they aren't allowed to build new one. Fear mongering on nuclear power. Wind mills killing bird. Solar power is nothing but a money pit (for now). And now this? Way to kill economic recovery idiots.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Stevegarry22 wrote:

    At the rate odumbo and his fools in the federal government are going, it will soon cost $2500.00 per month to heat or cool a 1 bedroom apartment.

    How's that hope and change garbage working for you morons?

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 12:02 PM, JePonce wrote:

    If an agenda was to destroy a capitalist country there would be 3 key elements to the attack.

    First, deprive the economy of the energy necessary to meet growing needs;

    Second, drive up debt; Obama has contributed more to our National Taxpayer Debt than the combined contributions of all 43 past presidents;

    And, three, introduce government-owned health care as the crown jewel to the Cloward-Priven Strategy to bankrupt the country with huge Social Welfare programs; since 1963, when LBJ declared war on poverty, the feds have redistributed $39.9 trillion taxpayer dollars to entitlement and welfare programs.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 3:43 PM, rschantell wrote:

    Solar can be installed for much less these days but a few birds have their heads in the sand. If you can get a 7% return on investment in the first year it better than your goofy 401K or mutual fund. It is a whole lot better than money in a bank, or on a CD. Also note, ever time your utility rate goes up, so does your ROI. The status quo is the path to empty pockets.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 4:56 PM, agriserve wrote:

    EPA and it's people are a waste of taxpayers money.........put them all back on welfare were they belong. Employees of the EPA have never had a real job never had to make payroll ....never in their lives have they signed a check on the front........losers

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 7:04 PM, phillipzx3 wrote:

    " Oil refineries falling apart (becoming a threat to residence) because they aren't allowed to build new one. Fear mongering on nuclear power."

    New refineries aren't being built because they don't need them nor do they want to "waste" money building them. We export more gasoline than we consume, there's no need for more.

    Nuclear is one of THE most expensive ways to generate electricity known to man. Anyone that keeps harping on about nuclear power is ignorant of the facts. The only thing more costly, or stupid to use, is corn based ethanol.

    This is the order of our energy sources, greatest return per dollar, to last place...or most expensive with the lowest energy return on invested dollar (ERON).

    Hydro...~ 40 (it's the king of cheap energy)

    Wind.. ~20

    Coal ~18

    Conventional Oil ~16

    Ethanol from Sugarcane ~ 9

    Natural Gas ~7

    Solar ~6

    Biodiesel from Soy ~ 5.5

    Tar Sands ~ 5 (Keystone pipeline stuff)

    Nuclear ~ 5

    Heavy California Oil ~4

    Corn Ethanol ~ 1.4

    Common sense tells us nuclear, corn ethanol, heavy oil and tar sands are a waste of money. If not for the fact sun rays are free, solar would be too. But since the sun and the wind costs us nothing, it's placed higher on the chart.

    The data is from the April 2013 issue of "Scientific American" if anyone is interested.

    The article is called "The true cost of Fossil Fuels." Starts about page 40.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Albert0Knox wrote:

    Schlumberger is pronounced Slum-Ber-Jay.

  • Report this Comment On September 15, 2013, at 9:24 PM, damilkman wrote:

    Is nuclear costly because of unnecessary and arbitrary regulations or was it based on apples to apples cost? I already sense political bias with wind being listed so cheap. Wind power is so variable you have to have active standby. Smart grids only work in computer models. There is also the transmission cost as where the wind is collected is not where it is needed. Germany is finding this out the hard way. I doubt the Scientific American article figured that cost in. Because citizens do not want transmission lines in their back yard, the cost to transmit power to the industrial southwest is going to be much higher.

    I am not saying that Nuclear is the ultimate solution. Only in that anyone can distort the statistics. If Scientific American were really right my truck would run on wind. Not the case.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 2638038, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/12/2014 1:23:32 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...