If you needed another reason to oppose President Obama’s and his fellow Democrat’s Cap-and-Trade bill, try reading the latest report from the non-profit group that advises the Electric Industry on things like energy conversation and alternative methods of producing power.

The best case scenario for reducing CO2 creating by the production of power will result in an 80% increase in the cost of electricity.  The best case scenario assumes that technology for Carbon sequestration will be technically feasible and that the Nation will build 45 new Nuclear Power plants.

The best case scenario includes the country building 45 Nuclear Power Plants when it hasn’t built one since Three Mile Island had its melt-down?  This is not a realistic assumption.  As for the Carbon sequestration, the assumptions on that are unreliable.  The group has no real way to determine what technology will be available in the future, or how much it will cost to use.

It get’s worse for “Best Case”.  An 80% increase in cost is not trivial.  I just opened my July Utility bill.  The electric bill was $160.  This is fairly typical for a month of electricity during the Summer (June through September).  At $150 per month over 4 months, we pay $600 for electricity during Summer.  Most of that for the air-conditioner.  An 80% hike for those months amounts to $480.  That’s $480 for four months of electricity.   This doesn’t cover the other 8 months.

Then there’s the cost increase if the best case doesn’t occur.  Without Nuclear Power Plants and carbon sequestration, cost due to the Cap-and-trade plan will increase by 210%.

That is a tripling of electric costs.

And the problem is that this scenario is far more likely.  Washington and local Governments aren’t likely to grow a set and start standing up to those standing in the way of building new Nuclear Power Plants.  No Nuclear plants means we must rely on carbon producing plants in order to create new power.  But Washington plans to cap the amount of carbon created in this country.  That means no new carbon-creating plants.

Another assumption in the “Best Case” scenario that is highly unlikely is the ability to lower overall electric consumption through conservation methods.  I’m all for lowering the amount of energy people consume, but it’s unlikely that overall consumption will go down.  If nothing else, population growth will result in more energy being consumed in this country.

The only way you can guarantee the amount of electricity consumed will go down is to ration it.  Rolling Black-outs anyone?