Wow. A decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated.
What this means is that 30 permits for new coal-fired power plants in the seven state directly regulated by the EPA's permitting process, plus projects on all Indian Reservations will immediately die because of this ruling.
Joanna Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who successfully argued the case, delivered this statement:
Today's decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.Here's the official statement from Sierra Club on the decision.
And here's the official ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board (PDF).
The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.
Follow Kevin Grandia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kgrandia
People so poor so destitute as to glean the rails of our nation to find coal a cook stove.
more research potential available still .
Steam propelled our nations commerce once. and can once more . mother earth hold many treasures.
Too many to list here.
Next time you click on a light, take a moment to think about where the coal comes from to power that switch. This EPA ruling is an exciting early signal that our excellent federal enviromental laws may once again be enforced. That's great news for the land, air, water, people and biota in coal country USA.
Government subsidies must be invoked to both start and maintain this new energy paradigm. These fly in the face of the drill baby drill Nineteenth Century technology crowd. Good! Tax credits for wind and solar energy have been extended. These need to be vastly enlarged to include direct subsidies for individuals and businesses to go solar.
High gasoline prices brought about by rampant non regulated speculation had the fortunate side effect of reducing gasoline consumption. Now with prices falling this consumption may increase. A painful solution to over consumption and funding for green tax subsidies is available for a politician with courage. A tax on gasoline large enough to reduce consumption can fund green energies. The monies would be sequestered from the general fund and restricted to rebates for individuals and businesses for green energy. You’d pay at the pump and get it back from wind generators or the solar panels on your roof. Eventually your plug in hybrid would largely free you from the pump. The by-product would be jobs.
The problem isn't that solar (or any other green alternative) is intrinsically and inevitably a poor substitute. It's more the case that the economies of scale aren't yet in place. If solar panels, wind turbines and other alternative equipment was being mass-produced, surely the economics would look very different.
It is not a solution.
One thing to remember about the coal plants that will be delayed is that they have primarily been working from energy growth forecasts that were based on economic growth forecasts that were based on the historical trends up through 2005.
Most folks would recognize and admit that these forecasts are not valid today.
Thus, the "new" coal plants that have been sidelined for lack of a proper regulation are not going to cause any kind of a resource imbalance in the near to mid term.
Right now, for the most part, they are an unneeded resource.
I hope they will all be built someday.
After we have developed the technology to operate them within the carbon-balance goals that we establish in the meantime.
The bigger fear to me is that the developing economies of the world will continue to take the coal from our country and burn it in the dirtiest plants in the world as a means of catching up to our standard of living.
We have the opportunity to develop the environmental regulations needed to control carbon and other GG emissions, and to engineer the solutions to clean coal development.
We should not waste either opportunity on the premise that if we can over-regulate this industry, then our coal will stay in the ground.
It will not.
Rotsa ruck.
I am sure one could argue this to Judges Alito, Scalia Roberts and Thomas maybe Kennedy and find fertile ground among those Federalist Society Tory swine...
.
And, well, DuganS1, if you can't, maybe it's time to get a job instead of wasting your time "blogging". What do you think?
Step three is to start shutting down coal plants. Step four is massive conversion of our transportation to clean power.
The waste is still a problem, but there is a solution. Vitrification traps waste inside of glass so it is unable to leak and contaminate ground water. The glass is then put into a stainless steel canister and welded shut, keeping it safe long enough for a few half-lives to pass and the waste to decompose into non-radiating metals. The only major problem left to address is the long-term storage of the glass canisters. I'm not a geologist so I can't speak for the viability of Yucca Mountain but the idea of it is valid, even if the particular site is not ideal.
In terms of safety, nuke plants have progressed in the 30 years since Three Mile Island to become very safe. You would not believe the amount of safety regulations and training that is involved on every level in the design and operations of any project related to nuclear materials.
continued below...
I'm designing the automated controls for a vitrification plant right now, and there is almost a pathological push for safety on the project. Every single meeting is begun with "Safety and Quality Messages" that reinforce our "Nuclear safety and quality culture." Every single design document is checked by a senior engineer before being submitted to be checked by a multi-discipline committee (mechanical, electrical, nuclear, nuclear safety, safety assurance), before it can be signed and then rechecked by the Environmental & Nuclear Safety group who must sign off every design. This is all overseen by the DOE who regularly audit us and add more and more safety and quality requirements.
There is still the problem that nuclear power requires a material that is mined. That is not a problem that can be solved, and is a big impetus for a move to wind and solar energy since they merely require air and light.