New EPA coal regs = $180 billion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
My car analogy assumed vehicles from the '80s and '90s, not the '60s.


Why did you make THAT assumption ?

On what basis ?

The two plants that you are drawing attention to are same manufacturing era as the Pinto, and designed probably 10 years before that.


My analogy was not necessarily about the age of plants and vehicles, but rather the compliance of plants and vehicles of any age to the most recent EPA regulations.

If the EPA were to force the removal from service all vehicles that did not meet the most recent standards, that would probably mean most all vehicles manufactured in the '80s and '90s, and every vehicle made prior to 1980.
 
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...
 
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
My car analogy assumed vehicles from the '80s and '90s, not the '60s.


Why did you make THAT assumption ?

On what basis ?

The two plants that you are drawing attention to are same manufacturing era as the Pinto, and designed probably 10 years before that.


Late 90's vehicles sold here are OBD II, has the standard changed since??

My analogy was not necessarily about the age of plants and vehicles, but rather the compliance of plants and vehicles of any age to the most recent EPA regulations.

If the EPA were to force the removal from service all vehicles that did not meet the most recent standards, that would probably mean most all vehicles manufactured in the '80s and '90s, and every vehicle made prior to 1980.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...


The issue is about compliance, not age.

Not all newer vehicles meet the latest emission standards, and possibly not all newer coal plants meet the latest standards either. It does not matter to the EPA whether a non-compliant plant was built in 1950 or 1990. They have to become compliant, or removed from service.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...


In my state, the three companies I'm aware of (Progress Energy, Florida Power & Light, Orlando Utilities Commission) have not had any problems upgrading or replacing older facilities. Most of these upgrades occurred before the tighter regulations, probably due to the fact that these companies are in good financial condition (not surprising, considering the rates they charge customers are among the highest in the USA).

I'm not in favor of running old, 'dirty' plants forever. And I don't know exactly why other companies have not been as successful as the ones in my state. But I do believe the EPA has been overzealous in enforcing rules, and enacting expensive regulations that some believe don't make significant reductions in emissions.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, what was your "argumentalogy" then ???

Back to YOUR point...how many Pintos, Novas' and classic '50s chevs do you drive past every day ?

They have all outlived their economic lives, and the owners aren't relying on, and don't get tax deductions and sunk depreciation to keep them operating.

Why shouldn't the owners of 1960s power stations have to upgrade their systems to something remotely resembling modern ?

They aren't being shut down, just like the Pintos aren't being forced off the road...your own link demonstrates that the owners chose to shut them down, in the face of assistance, while the free market owners of the pintos have moved on to more recent and more efficient (and safe) plant...



LOL is right. Both yours and my governments heavily subsidize the construction of new cars. They want new cars. Now, how many governmental obstructions does a new power plant incur? There is NO free market in regards to power generation in anyway shape or form.

They keep the old plants because that's all they can have! Our government is on record as wanting to bankrupt coal power plants.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Last I checked, acid rain and mercury in the air does indeed mean a lower standard of living.

Would I pay 20% more to not have this? Yes. Perhaps because I made something for myself and CAN afford it. Not my problem if others cant, right? Im willing to vote with my wallet, free market, right?

Youre free to get an extra injection of H2SO4 and Hg into your veins if you like it... Or go live in Shanghai and see how you like it.

Easy to cite analogy and make big claims from behind a computer.

People will take a dump in their drinking water if they have a chance to do what is easy and cheap. I assume that includes you?

Then I take it that you would be happy to shut down all coal power plants, today...globally?
Can you afford that?

And again, there is NO free market with regards to power generation anywhere in the country. The lines are owned by the government, where and what kind of plant can be constructed is heavily regulated, prices that can be charged, emissions....

Every single aspect of the industry is regulated to the hilt, and that is the problem.

As is clearly obvious, there is great risk in bulding these things due to mass uncertainty in what the government will do to you in the future. Just because one builds a "clean" power plant (by current arbitrary definition) today, offers no guarantee that future arbitrary definitions will be the same. Very risky when building something that is supposed to last 25+ years.

Car manufactures only have to build products that conform to current regs, not regs 25 years from now. Meanwhile, the government grants 20 year guaranteed pricing to less efficient "alternative" energy sources that it arbitrarily decides is "better".

This is a major reason why power generation is in such a sad state.



What is the cost to others of these emissions? Without being able to quantify how "destructive" or "deleterious" any particular level of emission is, then determining whether or not these plants should be shut down is impossible.
What do you consider to be "clean air"?
 
What is the trade off in the drastically reduced living standard of higher power prices, vs. the current emissions of current power plants?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Gosh, since October of 2011 and only one member gets this?

Putting more people on unemployment and food stamps isn't helping things much. Thanks EPA!


So are you claiming that the grid, which is stiff, is going to have 36GW or whatever less generating capacity online?

So the whole grid will go down, right?

I highly doubt it. Because those "good" businesses are then going to have lots of angry consumers on their hands.

But as shannow said (and IMO similar to the medical indstry), many-times depreciated gear is being kept online in the name of "efficiency", because there is no care or concern.

Again, people will take a dump in their drinking water if it is cheap and convenient. You can claim it is sentencing people to lost jobs and whatever else, but last I checked, unemployment is already at 20%, and as much as you want to blame the EPA, they arent the reason.

Id be all for staged implementation... But if the "strategists" didnt see the whole pollution thing coming like a freight train from the early 1990s until today (20 years forewarning?) then they must be complete idiots. In fact, I think the acid rain thing was prevalent LONG before the 90s.

More like the reality is that these "good" businesses werent trying to avoid government regulation and whatever, but rather were trusting in their ability to lobby it the other way. Forward thinking? Strategy? Nope, none of that.

Wonder how many jobs would have been created implementing the new controls in a phased approach, versus the few high-priced ones for lobbyists to kill the whole thing?


I just think that in the middle of the worst recession in decades it is utter idiocy to force anyone to close down. As stated above this 'regime' is on record as wanting to FORCE old tech out of business.

I'll grant you that their mgmt is deficient, and of course they lobby. That's another topic!

The tech exists to make coal clean. They are probably wanting a handout like everyone else gets! Why shouldn't they expect one?
 
The math is simple, really. If your goal is to operate a power plant legally, it's cheaper to buy negative publicity and pay lobbyists than it is to pay engineers and tradesmen.
 
And you can work WITH the regulators to achieve outcomes, but it takes more effort and brainpower than throwing a puff piece in Faux news "the regulators are be shutting us down".

It's interesting watching from the outside a local tourist railway, that has recently been shut down by the regulators.

They are in the media complaining that they are being shut down "over 150 pieces of paper that weren't filled out"....sounds great on the radio, get's the public wild on Facebook and letters to the editor.

The 150 pieces of paper just happen to be a non-existant safety management system...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And you can work WITH the regulators to achieve outcomes...

If the ultimate goal of the regulators is the extinction of the coal industry, then your ability to work together successfully is extremely limited, if not impossible.
 
In my experience government regulations do not come with any leeway.

So 'working with them' is unlikely, especially when their agenda is alternative power or "green" systems. They would just as soon shut the whole lot of them down as they believe we would then be more agreeable to implement their cronies schemes with govt funding!
 
Your own link stated that the EPA were prepared to work with the utility, and that the utility decided to close down for their own reasons.

How is that "forced", or "agenda" ??
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Your own link stated that the EPA were prepared to work with the utility, and that the utility decided to close down for their own reasons.

How is that "forced", or "agenda" ??

Working with utilities was not the original goal.

One of my previous posts about this was removed because it was too political, so you'll have to google the words below for info on the original agenda:

if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Your own link stated that the EPA were prepared to work with the utility, and that the utility decided to close down for their own reasons.

How is that "forced", or "agenda" ??


It's plainly there for anyone to see.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Your own link stated that the EPA were prepared to work with the utility, and that the utility decided to close down for their own reasons.

How is that "forced", or "agenda" ??


These are existing plants, not new. They were operating just fine under existing regulations. It is the EPA changing the arbitrary definition what "clean air" is. What is "working with the EPA" under these conditions, when they are changing the game?

These owners have every incentive to close these plants as complying with regulations is a moving target. If they spend the money now, what is the guarantee that they won't be out of compliance in a few years with new regs?

This is how government regulations kill an economy and the regulators know it. They are fully aware of what will happen under these new regs and yet they continue. The motive is clear.

Someday there might an individual mandate for car owners to update their cars to the ever changing "clean air" regs and then the general populace will find out what "big energy" has had to deal with for decades.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top