EPA Puts the Nation's Electricity Supply at Risk

He’s being dishonest in his opinion piece. For instance he states:
“The EPA has just proposed a rule that will systematically sweep aside the nation’s existing coal and natural gas power plants.”

The truth is this rule he’s speaking of will force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using newer technology; not sweep them aside. The plants are given until 2038 to comply, and could be shut down if they fail to comply.

Since he’s being dishonest about his explanation of the rule then there’s no reason for me to believe he’s being honest about any of the rest of his opinion piece.

 

You’re making assumptions not based on fact.

 

And you are assuming the other big boys will play by the rules.

Do you think China, Russia, India, Brazil would follow the rules? Or much less agree to them?

 

This sounds similar to the lunatic right wing and fossil fuel industries outrage over the clean air act (massively effective) I’d be more concerned about the electric grid. Our utility companies refuse to invest in making it better and our Congress refuses to do anything about it.

 

Relevant how? And have you seen the sky in major Chinese cities? Do you remember what Los Angelos used to look like?

 

It sounds like there may be some exaggeration on the authors part as part of an agenda. I don’t know. I do think some goals to reduce fossil fuels on the grid are too aggressive. Carbon capture technology as I understand it is not well tested or efficient. If the goal is really to have better scrubbers for other emittents by 2038 I don’t have a big problem with that.

Here in DFW we are already getting daily air quality alerts and it isn’t even summer yet.

 

Technology isn’t stagnant and always improving, but according to MIT the capture rate right now is 90%. Going past that would require a much larger investment by power plants which could be offset through tax incentives and the implementation of a carbon tax on plants that refuse to comply.

 

"All I see is low expenses for energy in the left picture and terrible restrictions and high costs on the right" - Terry Jarret (OP author)*



*Translation by citygatorTranslate

 

I’m for moving towards renewables.

And yes I’ve seen old pictures of LA.

My argument is about accords that encompass all the big polluters and what I think they would do and not do. We cannot clean up the earth by ourselves and we all know that.

I like that as I drive around I see solar panels on houses and electric cars on the street. Dig the wind farms and hydroelectric dams. Want more nuclear power plants.

Just don’t cause the shut down of coal or oil powered plants due to strict regulations before those can handle the demand.

 

Congress passed a law that empowered the Executive to make these calls.

 

EPA Proposes New Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants to Tackle the Climate Crisis and Protect Public Health | US EPA

 

That's very yesterday, naive and purely textualist.

Everyone knows that the structure of our laws is to make the Supreme Court the omnipotent determinant of every aspect of our society, and the ultimate setter of all standards.

 

Hmmm….

Proposed rule, starts 2030, doesn’t apply to plants scheduled for shutdown anyway, a million loopholes for scale, alternative fuels, etc., and even plants that would be affected have another eight years to ride dirty.

Even if implemented by the letter, in seven years most of the details here will be meaningless. Fuel mix, tech advances, political swings, etc. seven years from now will look like a different spacetime continuum.

Plus SCOTUS has already written the opinion shooting this to Uranus.

This will never happen, at least per regulation.

 

I think the proposal goes too far but keep in mind that it is a proposed rule. Before a proposed rule becomes a final rule and has the effect of law it has to be published in the Federal Register after publication as a proposed rule, interested parties have anywhere from 60 days to 120 days to submit comments followed by a period in which the agency reviews the comments. Just a guess but the chances are the if and when the rule is published in final form as a regulation it will be less than extreme than proposed version.

 

Your question is apt but reversed: WE are jumping off the bridge and China is laughing as we head down

 

Remember when everyone predicted that all the bars and restaurants would go out of business by banning smoking? Seems relevant.

Clean air and water matter, I mean those fish from TB in the 60’s had an incredible shelf life, right?

Safe nuclear waste storage? Not even close and dramatically expensive.

Lots of small steps in energy vs that one silver bullet. But the grid, well I guess someone needs to manage it, because right now it is a pothole filled road way. Profits taken but no redundancy, because well, stock dividends.

Ymmv, go Gators

 

This rule is to reduce particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxide. Has nothing to do with Climate Change (CO2) or NG or Coal per se. Its to reduce particulate in emissions that cause respiratory distress and environmental issues.

The only thing this will do is make NG and Coal plants more expensive, which will be passed on to the consumer.

 

I highly doubt that. Don't know the specifics, but that sounds more like the legal justification pursuant to the regulatory empowerment scheme. But even if it just cuts respiratory diseases, what's wrong with that? The statistics are pretty undeniable that there are tons of avoidable deaths from excess particulates. Saying that it will do nothing but raise prices, without considering the lives saved, is a pretty narrow and indefensible focus.

 

Because it neglects the health effects of higher energy costs. Nothing is free, and the effects of not having A/C or heat because one cannot afford it is a factor.