BASF to acquire enzyme company Verenium
Ricardo and Clean Air Power to partner on dual-fuel engines

EPA proposes CO2 emission standards for new fossil fuel-fired power plants

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed Clean Air Act standards to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants (electric utility generating units, EGUs). For purposes of this rule, fossil fuel-fired EGUs include utility boilers, IGCC units and certain natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbine EGUs that generate electricity for sale and are larger than 25 megawatts (MW). In addition, EPA said it is working with state, tribal, and local governments, industry and labor leaders, non-profits, and others to establish CO2 standards for existing power plants.

The proposed rulemaking establishes separate standards for natural gas and coal plants. The proposed limits for natural gas units are based on the performance of modern natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units. New large (>850 mmBtu/h) natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour, while new small (≤850mmBtu/h) natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.

The proposed limits for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) units (i.e., coal units) are based on the performance of a new efficient coal unit implementing partial carbon capture and storage (CCS).

EPA is proposing two limits for these units, depending on the compliance period that best suits the unit. These limits require capture of only a portion of the CO2 from the new unit.

  • 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross over a 12-operating month period; or

  • 1,000-1,050 lb CO2/MWh over an 84-operating month (7-year) period.

The longer compliance period option provides flexibility by allowing sources to phase in the use of partial CCS. The owner/operator can use some or all of the initial 84-operating month period to optimize the system. EPA is soliciting comment on what the standard should be within the proposed range.

According to the DOE/NETL estimates EPA cited in the proposed rulemaking, a new efficient subcritical pulverized coal (PC) unit firing bituminous coal currently would emit approximately 1,800 lb CO2/MWh; a new supercritical PC (SCPC) unit using bituminous coal would emit nearly 1,700 lb CO2/MWh, and a new IGCC unit would emit about 1,450 lb CO2/MWh.

The rule does not apply to any existing EGUs; units undergoing modifications or to reconstructed units; liquid oil-fired stationary combustion turbine EGUs; new EGUs that do not burn fossil fuels (e.g., those that burn biomass only); or low capacity factor EGUs that sell less than 1/3 of their power to the grid.

EPA said that the current and planned implementation of CCS projects, combined with the widespread availability and capacity of geological storage sites, makes it clear that the technology is feasible.

Background. In the decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the Supreme Court determined that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and EPA must determine if they threaten public health and welfare.

In December 2009, the EPA Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare; one year later, EPA announced a proposed settlement agreement to issue rules that would address GHG pollution from certain fossil fuel-fired EGUs.

In 2012, EPA issued a proposed standard for EGUs. (Earlier post.) That proposal established an output-based limit of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt‐hour. With the issuance of the new proposed rulemaking, EPA is withdrawing its earlier proposal.

Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, together accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. While the United States has limits in place for arsenic, mercury and lead pollution that power plants can emit, currently, there are no national limits on the amount of CO2 new power plants can emit.

Currently, nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduceCO2 emissions. In addition, more than 25 states have set energy efficiency targets, and more than 35 have set renewable energy targets.

The agency is seeking comment and information on the proposed rulemaking, including holding a public hearing.


when has a nuclear plant ever been built without federal loan guarantees?

Up until the combined assault of effective regulatory prohibition and sky-high interest rates forced the abandonment of many plants under construction in the 80's, none had such guarantees; that's why bondholders took losses in projects like WPPS, not the FedGov.  Those guarantees are demanded today so that the government has skin in the game and the prohibitionists will have to answer for financial losses if they do it again.

are you going to tell me that I couldn't build a renewable energy plant with storage sufficient to provide--say--25% of its rated capacity through the night for baseload for $4,000-$6,000 per kilowatt?

Are you saying you can?  It's up to you to prove it.  I await your demonstration.

At $1/W(peak), PV panels will cost you at least $4000/kW (optimistic 25% capacity factor) before you get them installed.  Most any battery you can come up with is going to have better economics if it displaces petroleum than if it time-shifts electric power, so if it isn't already making inroads in the plug-in vehicle market, you've probably mis-gauged something.

Kit P

“Is that good enough for you?”

No! You have to provide an example of where it is practical. College professors teach lots of interesting stuff that is not the least it practical.

“PV can be integrated into almost every building surface”

I think people who say things like this do not understand the scale if energy demand. In any case solar is not very practical most places. If California wants to demonstrate saolar let me know when it gets past the hobby stage.

“waste is handled”

It for more than 50 years without a problem.

“station blackout threat”


A point I like o make is every point that people like Sean make has been answered hundreds of times and the information is readily available to those who keep an open mind.

“Kit P, when has a nuclear plant ever been built without federal loan guarantees?”

Every commercial nuke in the US was built without federal loan guarantees including one presently under construction. All nuke plants have insurance for accidents including TMI. It sounds like Sean is confusing nuclear power with nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

“I couldn't build”

Maybe you could build it but you will not be able to keep it working very long. Let me know when you prove your concept. Just for the record the folks at RMI do not produce power on BS position papers.

Roger Pham

Catalysts for electrolyzer and FC are getting cheaper. Latest article on GCC announced that a new catalyst to replace Platinum can be produced at 1/10 the cost. New idea sponsored by US Naval Research Laboratory uses CO2 from sea water (140x the concentration of CO2 in the air) to combine with H2 to make hydrocarbon fuel.

Imagine solar PV collectors in the US Southwest desert transmit electricity to coastal areas of the Gulf and West coast to make synthetic methane for seasonal energy storage that can be used with existing NG infrastructure, AND liquid fuel to displace petroleum use. Using solar PV at below $1/W to feed directly into electrolyzers allows direct current to be used, eliminating the expensive steps of power conversion from DC to AC, especially grid-tie inverter that will allow unprecedented low cost of solar energy that is very dependable in the desert environment.

This will allow the EPA to ratchet down the CO2 emission limit of power plants as well as in any other HC-combustion devices, as CO2-neutral synthetic methane use will be up, and give the incentive for the use of synthetic methane vs. NG as the result of tightening of EPA regulation, eventually down to zero CO2 emission in due time. This can happen with the blessings of the power that be that is in real control of the government right now.

Since waste desert lands in US SouthWest Desert region has plenty of sunshine, as well as access to sea water from the Gulf of Mexico and West Coast, it looks like the US can produce synthetic methane and liquid fuel here at home til the end of time!...So, then, what will be the need for the US Naval Fleet Carrier, once all the oil and gas that we will ever need can be synthesized here at home ?

Declare War on Global Warming and Climate Change in order to use the vast $700 Billion yearly US defense budget and we will have plenty of money to build vast arrays of solar colectors and H2 electrolyzers and CO2 extrator plants from sea water. Climate catastrophies have claimed US lives and properties perhaps on par or exceeding with what foreign terrorists allegedly have done that justified multiple US war declarations abroad!
All existing defense contractors and the oil and gas industry, and all major players who have benefited from US Wars, will be invited to participate in this massive quasi "military" buildup, in order to facilitate Congressional Approval and Appropriation.

No need to go to war with small defenseless dictatorships, nor risking provoking WW3 with other world powers, just so as to justify this $700 B defense budgets yearly, while saving lives and limbs and the sanity of our US Servicemen and women, and the environment, and our future generations, at the same time! No need to drill oil in pristine Artic or at several miles deep under the sea and risking major environmental catastrophies.

With the appeasement for peace from the US's former "axis of evil" nations, it looks like there is little choice now but to declare war on GW and Climate Change!

Roger Pham

I must hasten to add that when $400 billions from the defense budget (leaving $300 billion to maintain ships, planes and tanks etc.) is used to construct all the infrastructures for synthetic methane and liquid fuel, the result is that the prices for these synthetic fuels can be placed below that of fossil fuel. The reason is that these synthetic fuel infrastructures and the resulting fuels will be owned by the government, which will then be able to price the synthetic fuels below that of fossil fuels and still get return on the dollar for the production of synthetic fuels using a majority of the defense budget. This will go a long way in restoring the budget deficit and adding to the federal gov.'s revenue. Synthetic fuels will make money, while planes, tanks, guns, ships, and wages for military personnel etc... that are built and paid but aren't doing anything economically won't give any return on the money spent!

Roger Pham

Major emphasis to the above is that the $400 billions is YEARLY money to be spent, not a one-time deal! Thus, over a ten-year War on GW, there will be 4 TRILLIONS USD devoted to the production of synthetic fuels and green energy! Imagine what that kind of money will be able to do! Better yet, these 4 Trillions will give 30 years of synthetic fuel revenues for the US government that will help significanly boost the economy by avoiding tax increases while able to pay down on the huge debt. Other countries will follow suit, and imagine what this will do to to human's effort to halt global warming. Lead by example! Lead by promoting peaceful cooperation in economic and humanitarian developments, NOT by wars!


You don't have to be a treehugger to want green energy. For example, the Tea Party Patriots are now biting the hand that fed them.

And the Koch brothers are not happy;

Roger Pham

Actually, I'd predict that the gov. will sell off these synthetic fuel infrastructures to the oil and gas industry for a song, who will then continue to make huge profits from the sale of synthetic fuels, like they are doing now with fossil fuels! Hey, even that scenario will be infinitely better than the status quo! The budget deficit will continue...but the Fed will continue to print out paper money to fuel the deficits...! As long as we are capable of producing our own fuels and our own foods, who care?

Kit P

“Imagine solar PV collectors…”

Imagine Roger figuring out that nuclear can produce all the power the world needs at lower ghg emissions than PV. And it works today. Imagine Roger figuring out PV does not work and it is just a scam. The nuclear industry likes to brag about high capacity factors while the PV industry likes to talk about how much junk they sell.

Imagine that Roger figure the fundamental design problems wit6h PV. Solar has very low energy density. Therefore a large footprint in a very harsh environment.

LCA shows that making thing last longer, assuming low emission, reduces the environmental impact. Put warning label on a PV panel warning ‘exposure to sunlight will damage the PV panel’.

“Declare War on Global Warming and Climate Change…”

Better declare war on all those poor people in China, India, and Brazil. China already consumes three times as much coal as the US.

“Climate catastrophies have claimed US lives.. ”

Image Roger figuring out the climate has not changed for 60 million years. Glaciers retreat and advance. AGW is a theory about the future. It has not happened yet.

“No need to go to war with small defenseless dictatorships”

Do you mean like Nazis Germany or Japan? Roger may want to review the history of the world and think about that. Iran and North Korea are not small and defenseless. They do not play nice either. I am very happy that we have the military might to discourage these countries from becoming empires. I would also not like to have China or Russia as a neighbor.

I think all those who complain about ‘business as usual’ do not consider human nature. I am very happy that the US is the only super power. Yes, it is because I remember the evil empire and live in the US. I would think it is better for a Russian soldier too considering Putin is in charge.

Kit P

"You don't have to be a treehugger to want green energy."

What is 'green' about wind and solar?

Roger Pham

@Kit P,

"Imagine all the people...Joining for our cause...You may say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one...I hope someday you will join us..." and we all will be pros-pe-rous!!!

>>>"I would also not like to have China or Russia as a neighbor."

The Cuban, the Bolivian, the Venezuelan, the Brazillian et al would not like to have the USA as a neighbor. Have you ever wondered why?
On the other hand, the Syrian, the Iranian, the Russian and the Chinese are getting along just fine, and better than ever. They are making a solid pact of not having the West interferring with their internal affairs!

Wondering who represents the "evil empire"? Is it the one that respects other countries' sovereignty, or is it the one that constantly meddling on the internal affairs of other sovereign nations?

Kit P

“Have you ever wondered why?”

No, because it is not true. Judging from statements of some crack pot leaders they do not like the United States but Mexico and Canada are not too worried about a military attack from the US.

“are getting along just fine”

You are not serious?

“interferring with their internal affairs”

Roger may be confusing the State Department with the US Navy.

“Wondering who represents the "evil empire"?”

Maybe Roger is too young to remember the USSR. Tanks rolling in the streets is a little more than meddling.

It is really sad that people treat ghg or meddling with the same level of action as war where millions are killed. We do not need a war on climate change. Over whelming US military superiority has resulted an unprecedented level of peace if you measure peace by the numbers not dying during wars. If meddling is telling people that killing lots of people has consequences, then we should meddle away.

Roger Pham

@Kit P,
You, sir, have a lot of catching up to do WRT the science behind GW, especially "run away global warming" whereupon beyond a certain level of atmospheric CO2 will cause positive feedback causing the earth to heat up rapidly that will be beyond our control. This will be dangerous on par with total global nuclear exchange, though on a slower pace, but no less deadly!

Now, tell me, how necessary was the Vietnam war? (Communist China was 30 times larger than Vietnam, and America made peace with Communist China, then even handed them all the necessary technologies for modernization and taking away most of American jobs...) Kosovo bombing? the Afghanistan war? The Iraq war? (where was the WMD?) The Libbya bombing? And countless CIA coups to overthrow governments in Middle East, South America, Africa to set up puppet governments to obey the West's agendas? Just ask the Iranian about it!

Now, if you run a defense contracting company who depends on wars to have business...what would you do? You would finance people to run for US Congress (LBJ et al) then, promote wars of intervention to ensure that your company will get the lucrative contracts. Now, what if a consciencious president objected to further wars and CIA silent coups? You would have him killed! (JFK)

No matter how real GW is to you, there much stronger evidence for GW now than for WMD existence in Iraq that justified the Iraq war!

Roger Pham

Furthermore, Kit P, to give you a fast catching up on GW, your boss, Mr. Rex Tillotson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, admitted recently to GW and its dire consequences. He said that we must use technology to dealt with it and adapt to it. Look it up on You Tube in videos of the man himself. Listen to the boss, man!

Adapt to GW, we must, then, you heard the boss-man, by using the latest in making CO2-neutral synthetic fuel with all the infrastructure built using a part of the vast defense budget. Selling it to the public and the world, and making profits as usual! That's the ingenuity of it! No need to compromise on our way of life! No need to sacrifice anything in this war effort against GW, "go shopping"...just as GWB recommended during the Iraq war! More jobs for the common people and yet, still healthy profits for the big corporations!

But, the investments in our future war on GW stays at home to give a big boost to the American economy, unlike the money spent of Iraq and Afghanistan that was spent abroad, on foreign subcontractors, that did little to our economy at home! A vast increase in jobs at home means more tax revenues to the IRS and eliminate the intractable deficits to the tune of 1 trillion USD yearly.

Roger Pham

Sorry, the name is Rex Tillerson, not Tillotson. Look at the You Tube link following:



Kit P

“have a lot of catching up to do”

I think I am up to date on the junk science theories of CAGW and the more realistic models of AGW.

“Now, tell me, how necessary was the Vietnam war?”

What does that have to do with Roger’s current theory about the Middle East?

“America made peace with Communist China”

We were not at war with China.

Roger’s theory is to provide a long list of what about this what about that without bothering to study the issues. For example:

“the Afghanistan war?”

Do you mean the war where the USSR invaded without provocation to increase the size of its evil empire? Or do you meant the war that occurred after more than 3000 Americans were killed by terrorist training in Afghanistan. If I recall we afforded the government of Afghanistan ample opportunity to stop ‘meddling’ in the internal affairs of the US.

My point is that Roger makes up fiction to denigrate the country that allows him the free speech to say such things while pretending mass murders are serving the cause of peace.

“No matter how real GW is to you, there much stronger evidence for GW now than for WMD existence in Iraq that justified the Iraq war! ”

There is no evidence of AGW, it is just a theory about the future. Saddam Insane invaded two neighboring counties and committed numerous atrocities on his own people. Iraq had WMD programs. These issues were debated by leaders in many countries before military action. Did Saddam Insane step down?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons in response to Saddam Insane. Within the last few day the new leader of Iran spoke at the UN and did not deny the Holocaust, did not call for the nuclear destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. However, UN inspectors were not invited to Iran to see that equipment for making nuclear weapons have been dismantled.

“by making CO2-neutral synthetic fuel”

So why is it that those who want wage a war of AGW pick the silliest most impractical weapons? Proven practical choices like anaerobic digestion of animal waste and nuclear power are ignored. Biodiesel and corn ethanol are steps in the right direction but are rejected because they are not big enough steps.

Roger Pham

@Kit P,
You still have not seen the pattern of the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhower had warned us about. Why fought a war to stop communist in such an insignificant country like Vietnam, a backward country 1/30 the size of Communist China, when there were much better and peaceful ways to convert China away from communism? Because of the need to sell military contracts and hardwares.

Same pattern with Iraq. America supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds, and kept silent about it. America built up Saddam to counter Iran. Only when Saddam nationalized Iraq's petrol resources and did not demand dollars for petrol that he was removed. The UN team was in Iraq for years and found nothing of WMD. No evidence of connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bush and Co. needed huge war contracts no bid, cost-plus, very lucrative, for his sponsor(s), while putting America on credit card.

Afghanistan? Have you been keeping up with the 911 Truther movement, lately? The Taliban would not handed over Osama since we could not provide proof of his involvement in 911!

You are among millions who were conned by very skillful propaganda by the Main Stream Media (MSM) that were fully bought. I was also fooled for a while, until I started see the patterns and after looking at declassified documents, for example, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incidence...etc. The threat of communism was way overblown. Their industry didn't work, their weapons were inferior, and their social system didn't work...but the CIA kept mum so that the war effort continued to enrich the few while enslaving the mass with huge sufferings and death of millions of people in Vietnam, Iraq, etc...Agent Orange produced generations of birth defects and cancers...

You disagree with synthetic fuel?
You may be right! H2 and battery electricity is more efficient. But the Oil and Gas industry won't like it any other way, and since they control Congress, non-carbon alternative fuels won't see the light of the day. They have considerable investments in carbon-based feels, including all existing infrastructures. Without asking the Military Industrial Complex to join in the war effort against GW, we won't have the funding of many hundreds billions USD to build the necessary hardware.

Do see the ingenuity behind the new war plan now? This is a perfect time, that everybody want to make peace with America now. They have now caught-on to the pattern of the past 60-80 years. It's about time that you too, should catch on!

Roger Pham

>>>>>"Biodiesel and corn ethanol are steps in the right direction but are rejected because they are not big enough steps."

Corn ethanol and biodiesel take away valuable food sources for people and livestocks. They consume too much land and too much energy invested in proportion to the energy return, and too much water, and fertilizers, and pollution. Solar PV are 10 to 100x more efficient than photosynthesis (agriculture), meaning that Solar PV consumes 1/10 to 1/100 the land required, while requires no water nor any fertilizer nor any pollution, nor any maintenance for 20-30 years...etc...
Solar can use waste desert lands while agriculture cannot.

Kit P, you probably are brainwashed by false propaganda regarding solar and wind energy. Look it up for yourself and make your own calculation to see how effective solar and wind energy is. No wonder that solar and wind energy are the fastest growing and make the bulk of new electricity generation capacity.

Likewise, GW is a fact already recognized by the leaders of the Oil and Gas industry, and of the scientific establishment and even our government and our EPA etc... yet you haven't yet! They have access to centuries of data, tons of research results, and computer modeling, etc... while you have none!

Somebody have already done the homeworks for you! It's about time that you'll need to sit down and do some catching up. Do it! You'll enjoy it! Thanks for giving me the chance to share these info with you, and feel free with any further question.

Roger Pham

Nuclear energy although more expensive and takes a long time to build, is great for baseload electricity due to its constant nature. Certainly, nuclear energy will be invited to participate in the war against GW.

Solar and wind are intermittent sources, but are cheaper than nuclear and can be built up real fast, and as such, is great for the purpose of H2 production, in which constancy is not required.

Likewise, waste biomass will have a great role in the MidWest, and when incorporated with H2 from surplus wind energy from the same region, will offer low-cost synthetic fuels just like solar H2 + sea-water-CO2 in desert regions.

The Middle East countries will never be afraid of running out of oil and gas again, because they will be able to synthesize them on the surface lands in vast quantities equal to their previous oil and gas exports.

The participation of everyone is encouraged in order to maximize result, given the dire consequences of GW and insufficient activity. Once the USA is doing it, the rest of the world will follow suit, and they all can be our allies!

Kit P

“and feel free with any further question”

Roger is wrong. I did not have any questions, I was pointing out that the info that Roger was providing is wrong.

Roger has a belief system where telling a lie often enough will make it true.

“Nuclear energy although more expensive and takes a long time to build”

All power plants are expensive. Get over it! All power plants take time to build. We simple plan ahead and start building power plants so they are finished when needed.

In the US we get about 20% of our power from nuclear and in France they get 75%. If we had continued to build nuke plants at that rate we would enough nukes to provide 600% of the power we need. That would include BEV charging, ammonia, and synthetic methane with 300% left over.

“is great for baseload electricity due to its constant nature.”

It is also great for load following as demonstrated in France and for ship propulsion.

“Solar and wind are intermittent sources”

No, the problem is wind and solar does not work and has huge environmental impact. Politicians in the US and other countries are spending to prove me wrong. They will fail just as they have in the past. We are a rich and can afford silly experiments.

“Once the USA is doing it, the rest of the world will follow suit, and they all can be our allies!”

You do know we are building nuke plants in China? Almost all of the commercial nuke plants are based on US designs.

Roger Pham

Yes, nuclear energy can be load-following if the output can be used to produce H2 for other industrial usages such as in the synthesis of ammonia or petroleum refining, or for later use by FC in CHP. Yet, there has not been any commercial ship that uses nuclear propulsion.

You kept saying that solar and wind does not work, but real-life experiences prove otherwise. In Denmark, wind power provided 35% of domestic electricity supply in 2012, and the plan is to go to 50% by 2020. Denmark export surplus wind energy to Germany and Norway who have large hydroelectric capacity that can be throttled down, while imports hydro-electricity from the same neighbors when necessary. Wind energy provides over 10% of energy in Texas and many Mid-Western states, and many states have as much as over 20% wind energy.

Utility-scale solar PV farms are springing up like mushroom, due to the very low cost of solar PV panels, and are still declining.

China is not known for strong environmental value, and replacing coal with nuclear is a major improvement. Yet, wind and solar energy is growing very rapidly in China due to the low cost associated. Per Wikipedia, "China has identified wind power as a key growth component of the country's economy;[6] researchers from Harvard and Tsinghua University have found that China could meet all of their electricity demands from wind power through 2030.[7]"

Roger Pham

Current solar PV pricing is $0.50/W and is projected to decline to $0.36/W due to improve automation and economy of scale. Now, without the associated cost of inverter for grid compatibility when the solar PV output is used directly for H2 production, nor any additional cost for grid energy storage, we can see that the cost of H2 will be very low, perhaps competitive already with NG on energy basis. This will means that synthetic fuel derived from H2 will be more than competitive with petroleum.

For example, let's say that cost installed for solar PV without inverter is $0.8/W at output/yr of 2000Wh/W over 20 yrs. The cost of PV electricity will be 2 cents/ kWh. It takes 50 kWh to make 1kg of H2, so, only $1 per kg of raw energy cost. 1 kg of H2 is equal to 1 gallon of gasoline. In FCV at twice efficiency of HEV, this is equavalent to $0.50/gallon of gasoline. If this H2 is immediately used to produce synthetic fuels without associated cost of compression or distribution, then you can see that the synthetic fuel will not cost much. With increasing electrolytic efficiency, or if the heat of electrolysis can be use for other purposes, then the cost per kg of H2 will be even lower. By 2017, this cost will be even lower, and we will see that synthetic fuel and H2 will be even more economically competitive.

Roger Pham

Oops, forgot to post a link for the above assertion. Here it is:

Kit P


“In Denmark”

Do you live in Denmark? What would you say about car that does not run 66% of the time? I would say it does not work.

As I said wind and PV is being built because politicians think it is a good idea not because it is a good way to make power. Low cost is not a reason.

Some of our energy can come from wind and solar because fossil and nuclear make most of our power. So far wind and solar has not produced power on the scale that there would be a surplus to make transportation fuel. Nor will it happen because it will break faster than taxpayers will pay to fix it.

The comments to this entry are closed.