New EPA coal regs = $180 billion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Yeah, my angle is that making points supposedly based upon economics (which could be arguable, really just stinginess and lack of regard for anything) is as criminal as any Sierra Club price fixing pipe dream.


What is clean air?


You know darn well that it isnt the mercury, soot and acid that goes up when coal is burned.

It is sonewhrre between the polar lovers on the one side that call billowing black smoke clean air, and those who barfly want to see human respiration occurring.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

You know darn well that it isnt the mercury, soot and acid that goes up when coal is burned.

It is sonewhrre between the polar lovers on the one side that call billowing black smoke clean air, and those who barfly want to see human respiration occurring.


Yes, but it must be rigidly defined with cause if anyone is going to intelligently talk about the "affects on society" and the cost that society should pay for "clean air".

"Somewhere between" is an entirely arbitrary concept, and one that the government is fully applying in this case.

Truly laboratory "clean air" has never existed anywhere on the planet. This mean there is no such thing as perfection. Which means air can always be made, in the eyes of regulators, "more clean".

If someone pushing for "clean air" can't define what they want, how is anything but a completely arbitrary policy supposed to be drafted and enforced?
 
If anything is rigidly defined, you fight is as either a hoax, or junk science (unless perpetrated by a company for profit).

You do not accept that any restriction on industry is valid, so it's no point arguing where the line is...you will not accept the validity of any line,anywhere, unless it's "Do as thou shalt is the whole of the law".
 
Quote:
so it's no point arguing where the line is

Quite the opposite. I am specifically asking where the line is, and more importantly, WHY the line should be there.

This is the entire point and no one seems to be able to answer. How is a rational and effective policy supposed to be drafted?

This should be the most basic information that a "clean air" advocate should posses, and yet, it cannot be answered.
 
Last edited:
What's the air blown faeces level that you would allow in your castle window in tempestopia ?

Quantitavely, and please provide incontrovertible scientific proof for those levels.

It's your castle, your property rights...what's your limit ?
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
What's the air blown faeces level that you would allow in your castle window in tempestopia ?

Quantitavely, and please provide incontrovertible scientific proof for those levels.

It's your castle, your property rights...what's your limit ?

Nice try, but I am not the one backing the actions of the EPA. There is, however a power plant engineer and chemical engineer that are supporting the EPA....
 
That's the problem with YOUR black and white world tempest.

I'm not an advocate, but by arguing with you, you can argue (falsely) that I am.

When arguing with greenies , I'm a slash and burn environmental vandal.

To be more left than you does not make one a liberal
 
A small victory for the besieged coal industry:

US judge strikes down EPA water rules for coal mines

Quote:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its powers by setting up water-quality criteria for coal mining operations in Appalachia, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington ruled that the EPA infringed on the authority given to state regulators by federal clean- water and surface-mining laws. A coal mining industry coalition sued the EPA and Administrator Lisa Jackson, and the lawsuit was joined by West Virginia and Kentucky.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
That's the problem with YOUR black and white world tempest.

The regulations that the government is enforcing are black and white.... Do what we want or close down.

I have tried to look for information on the cost benefit of what the EPA is doing. I have found none.

And the massive blackouts in India are a classic case of government incompetence and the fallacy of central planning:
Quote:
The state still dominates power production, with private-sector producers accounting for only 27 percent of generation capacity. “The power ministry has made this industry financially unviable and until they set it free, it will continue to run into problems like these massive blackouts,” says Rohit Singh, an analyst with IDBI Capital Market Services. The government mandates that state-owned Coal India sell to local power producers at a discount of about 75 percent, but the company, which controls about 80 percent of the market, hasn’t kept pace with the growth of the power sector. Michael Parker, an analyst in Hong Kong with Sanford Bernstein, puts the shortfall at 60 million tons of coal a year. For India’s power producers, there are few alternatives to Coal India; with the rupee’s 26 percent slide against the dollar over the past 12 months, importing isn’t really an option.

Coal India’s struggle to keep up with demand stems in part from government restrictions on new mining. Many coal deposits lie in forested regions in eastern India, whose inhabitants want the forest to remain untouched and where Maoist rebels are active. Several years ago the government implemented a “go/no go” policy restricting new mining. The government ended the policy recently, but the coal industry is still feeling the impact, says Salil Garg, director of energy and utilities for Fitch Ratings India.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...e-population#p1
Quote:
Retroactive taxation and cumbersome licensing procedures have discouraged foreign investors at a time when India badly needs jobs for the millions of young people entering the workforce annually.


India has added significant coal-fired generating capacity in the last year, analysts said, but much of it is unused because transmission lines can't handle the added load. Meanwhile, government-influenced pricing driven more by politics than the market often leaves suppliers unwilling to meet demand.


State officials accused one another of exceeding their allocated share of power. Analysts said a weak central government is at times so worried about the next state or national election and so wary of offending small allies that it balks at decisions with a clear national benefit.


Problems in the power sector mirror those elsewhere in the government and the economy. A series of corruption scandals has allegedly cost the treasury tens of billions of dollars. It's estimated that as much as 30% of India's food spoils before it reaches the consumer, as millions of citizens go hungry, but reforms of the retail, storage and distribution system have stalled.

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle...-in-a-new-light

Government is the problem.
 
Quote:
Now businesses fear a coal shortage. India hoped to produce 660 million tons of coal this year, but officials say it is likely to fall short of that target by 139 million tons because of new regulations and delays in granting licenses, which include pollution controls. Dozens of power plants under construction across India, amounting to more than $22 billion in investment, will sit idle next year because of the coal shortage, officials say.

Quote:
“It takes about seven years for us to get environment and forest approvals to start mining in India. Can we afford to wait that long?” said U. Kumar, a coal adviser to the Confederation of Indian Industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia...PzKK_story.html

Sept. 11, 2011 All fully predictable and nothing was done about it by the planners.
 
I'm not going to comment too much since I have been banned from this section of the forum twice for pointing out the truth.

I haven't been to this section of the forum in a long, long time and I find it hard to believe there are those that STILL believe there is an oil shortage and worse yet, that it's somehow a problem that the "oil companies" are making a profit when it's the banks that are making profit out of nothing because they own the oil companies as well as the currency we buy the oil with.

I always wondered how Hitler did it and now I know. The methods are just far more modernized. Tempest, you're wasting your time. Trying to argue with the CO2/oil shortage/ global warming people will just age you quicker. Take a Valerian capsule and relax.

You'll never get them to accept reality. It's a religion with the anti-oil gang. The facts and reality simply don't matter.

After all, they gave us ethanol that ruins fuel mileage and increases pollution while starving people around the world to death. Do you think you can really talk sense into any of these people? It was good for those on the insider trading scandals though. We pay more for gas now and get less for our money while THEY cash in!

I only wish I was one of those on the inside when they started the hoax with ethanol and the CO2 scare because right about now I could afford the $1 a gallon gas that costs almost $4 a gallon and I would have made millions on the investment!

In addition to affording the gas I could be driving a Ferrari every day on my profits just like those that perpetrated the scam do.
 
Last edited:
Court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution

Quote:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a 2-1 decision that the Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its mandate with the rule, which was to limit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants in 28 mostly Eastern states and Texas...

Power groups, which had argued that they could not meet the timeframe or bear the financial burden of installing costly new equipment, welcomed the court's decision. The EPA had estimated it would cost $800 million annually from 2014.

"The court was clear in finding that EPA had overstepped its legal authority in developing the rule," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.
 
Lack of clear energy policy hurting utility companies

Quote:
“Our utility customers are sitting around worrying about the next regulatory issue. There’s no clarity right now,” Knight says. “They are rightfully moving slowly, and are cautious about making major long-term capital investments, and that has a direct impact on employment.”

“I spend a lot of time talking to power executives, and there is general uncertainty about the long-run arc of investment in the United States,” echoes Robert Stoddard, leader in the energy and environment practice at Charles River Associates. “Should they be retiring their older fleet and building new gas units, and if that’s happening, where are the gas pipelines going to come from and who is going to pay for them? Or should they be embracing renewables? But if they do that, are state utility commissions going to allow them to recover the costs?”
 
How about running steam turbines off all of the hot air in DC
lol.gif
 
Canadian carbon project aims to prove ‘clean coal’ works

Quote:
A technology that holds the hope for cleaner use of coal will be tested on a commercial scale for the first time in Canada next year, aiming to resolve big uncertainties about the vast amount of power it will need.

Saskatchewan Power Corp. (SaskPower) hopes that a US$1.24-billion refit of its 45-year-old Boundary Dam power plant to capture carbon dioxide emissions will make investors think twice about shifting to gas-fired plants from dirtier coal.
 
Originally Posted By: LTVibe

Canadian carbon project aims to prove ‘clean coal’ works

Quote:
A technology that holds the hope for cleaner use of coal will be tested on a commercial scale for the first time in Canada next year, aiming to resolve big uncertainties about the vast amount of power it will need.

Saskatchewan Power Corp. (SaskPower) hopes that a US$1.24-billion refit of its 45-year-old Boundary Dam power plant to capture carbon dioxide emissions will make investors think twice about shifting to gas-fired plants from dirtier coal.



27% loss of efficiency and higher energy prices... The Canadians are really getting a great bang for their $240 million bucks.
 
The one thing the initial report misses is the swappability of natural gas for coal.

While coal usage is projected to fall, relatively cheap natural gas will take its place at many previously-coal-fired plants.

So the job loss rate will not be as high as initially reported, nor the impact on energy utility bills.

As the Earth's temperature warms up, a rising threat will be operating temperatures of thermal power plants (coal, natural gas, nuclear). As ambient air temperature goes up, cooling demand (water) goes up, and efficiency of energy stations goes down. While the difference can be measured in fractions of a percent (not a lot), a 1% reduction in energy output means a loss of 25 billion kilowatt-hours per year.

A rising temperature would also mean more severe weather activity, such as prolonged droughts and heavy snowfall in the winter.

The biggest concern above all however is proximity of energy stations/refineries/and storage to the sea level. There are 328 natural gas, electric, and oil and gas facilities within 5 ft. of the current ocean levels - meaning exposure to hurricane and storm surge activity. The damage that can be induced to this energy infrastructure can easily exceed the cost of any governmental mandate or regulation. The U.S., and the rest of the world, will have a growing interest in curbing emissions over the next 100 years.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
27% loss of efficiency and higher energy prices... The Canadians are really getting a great bang for their $240 million bucks.


In this province, for better or worse, coal is king. Little has been done in regards to wind power here, and in the southern part of the province, hydroelectric power is not that prevalent. Of course, nuclear power frightens everyone. No technology can please everyone, unfortunately.
 
Quote:
As the Earth's temperature warms up, a rising threat will be operating temperatures of thermal power plants (coal, natural gas, nuclear). As ambient air temperature goes up, cooling demand (water) goes up, and efficiency of energy stations goes down. While the difference can be measured in fractions of a percent (not a lot), a 1% reduction in energy output means a loss of 25 billion kilowatt-hours per year.

A rising temperature would also mean more severe weather activity, such as prolonged droughts and heavy snowfall in the winter.



Extraordinay claims require extraordinary evidence and all that I see in this argument are ambigious statements.

It would be nice if terms like Rising threat, catastropic global warming, sea level rise, etc could be backed up by science, but all we get are these emotional platitudes.

One of the problems with the overly simplistic climate models is they do not contain all of the stabilizing feedback mechanisms that exist in nature. Solar heating of the surface is moderated by the weather, a feedback mechanism which, through the thermodynamics of water exchanges in the atmosphere, such as precipitation, carry off excess heating.

Let me throw out two big problems with climate modeling:

1. it is stated by the climate models the extra carbon dioxide supposedly causes a radiative energy imbalance in the upper atmosphere. What scientific proof is there that this happens. Well, there is none. It is purely theoretical, based on questionable models.

2. Chaos theory applies to weather, the stock market, and electrical circuits to name a few. The lack of accurate prediction comes from 2 factors:

a. sensitivity to initial conditions which are often not known,

b. numerous variables or environmental factors too numerous to model or those which are poorly understood, and in the case of climate modeling, precipitation and chaotic cloud physics.

While systems obey precise physical laws, their complexity is beyond comprehensive computer analysis.


Still highly disputed, yes disputed, is how sensitive the atmospheric energy balance is with respect to a rise in CO2.

Even short term weather predictions are far from exact, due to inherent chaos involved in weather.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top