Guest post by Alec Rawls
The upcoming rule:
… will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Can this stand, after Obama’s big energy-policy tour last week included not a single mention CO2, greenhouse gases, climate or global warming?
EPA’s endangerment ruling on CO2 is being challenged in the courts right now. In particular, the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy Company, is challenging the ruling specifically on the grounds that EPA improperly relied on the IPCC’s bogus claims that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Obama’s retreat from any mention of CO2 or climate, never mind global warming, would seem to be an official admission that Peabody is right and the IPCC is wrong. How can global warming be important enough to warrant shutting down coal, by far the largest source of electricity in the country, if it is not important enough for the president to even mention during his big energy-policy extravaganza?
Obama did mention “clean energy” several times in his Nevada speech, but there is nothing unclean about CO2, certainly not that can hold up in court. CO2 is the beginning of the food chain, the essential nutrient from which all life on earth is constructed. Animals get their carbon building blocks from plants which get it from atmospheric or oceanic CO2 through photosynthesis, and current levels of CO2—about 0.039 percent of the atmosphere—are alarmingly close to the minimum required to sustain life.
From Lawrence Livermore Labs CO2 “fact sheet“:
Carbon dioxide is necessary to sustain life in concentrations of about 0.04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere …
The biosphere craves more of this healthful gas, not less.
The ONLY concern about CO2 is the idea that its greenhouse warming effect might be dangerous, and no such concern is being voiced by Obama. Apparently it is off the table, which ought to clear off all of his green energy plans as well, because their expressed rationale was the greenhouse threat from CO2. That is especially true with the EPA’s endangerment finding for CO2, which explicitly relies on the IPCC reports.
Oral arguments in the consolidated Peabody case took place at the end of February, but if the entire basis for the endangerment finding is no longer operative, the court ought to admit a motion to include that information. It will be a travesty if Obama is allowed to unplug ultimately half the grid on a rationale that he himself now considers too toxic to mention.
New coal plants with all the pollution controls for NOx,SO2, soot and all the other various pollutants are not all that cheap.
A new ‘state of the art’ coal plant costs in the neighborhood of $3 billion and a new nuclear plant costs around $5 billion.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf
Given the current low price of natural gas fuel in the US and the relatively high price of coal plants the EPA is just getting in front of something that is happening anyway.
New plant construction charts –
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
Obviously…Peabody coal would at least like the option of building ‘new coal’ plants to exist.
As usual, EPA standards are not designed to be reasonable. They are designed to accomplish a goal by setting standards that cannot be met. They want to kill coal, and then natural gas is next.
It’s amazing that we cannot get the EPA to understand that CO2 cannot and does not warm the climate and is plant food and not toxic in any way. We need more, not less.
Of course, that’s just wishful thinking as, just like the global warming scam, it has nothing to do with science or toxic gases or human safety. It is a political agenda designed to subdue and destroy the economy.
Natural gas is 40-50% hydrogen and coal is 0% hydrogen. It makes sense that natural gas would have half the carbon emissions—it’s simple chemistry.
I assume that the quote should be ‘1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour’, not ‘per megawatt’. The latter is pretty meaningless. Let’s say you have a plant producing 500 megawatts. It’s only allowed to produce 500,000 pounds of CO2…. over what timescale? Per day, per second, per month?
I always worry about pople taking part in this debate when they don’t know the difference between energy and power.
Hugh Pepper says:
“CO2 is obviously necessary for life, just as Oxygen is. But too much is bad. The ratio matters, especially when safe limits are dramatically exceeded.”
So what exactly is “too much” CO2?? Of course you will not answer that with a specific number, because you are a complete scientific illiterate. You make up your own bogus ‘facts’ and refuse to provide any citations. Because there are no credible references to support your pseudo-science opinions.
We are still waiting for you to produce your seven (7) papers putatively supporting Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick. Where are they, Hugh? In your deluded, wacko brain? They certainly do not exist in the real world.
“And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world”
You’re joking, right? Their “peer-reviewed studies” included anecdotal reports from mountain climbers in Switzerland and press releases/fund raising publications from the World Wildlife Fund.
“Second, coal plants emit sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, arsenic and many other pollutants.”
So? The risks from those emissions are swamped by the benefits of the power generated.
A bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it? “New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation”
Not quite, it’s merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target. Let’s dial down the extremism perhaps?
Send the EPA the last video of Roy Spencer.. Question. How much CO2 is needed to build to maintain, and after 15 or 20 years break down a windmill ? Who can do the math.
@ur momisugly EW-3 says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
This is getting beyond insane. Does anyone in this administration live in the real world?
Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?
====================================================
Does anyone in this administration live in the real world? — NO; They are already living in their fantasy Utopia.
Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?– YES; Because in their view the country, indeed the world, as it exists today is obsolete.
Smokey says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:57 am
Hugh Pepper says:
Smokey – people like Hugh Pepper love to decry “excess” CO2 and coal fired power plants from the comfort of their air conditioned offices and homes. Remember that it’s EASY being green as long as the lights come on when when you press the light switch…
To our trolls (like Hugh) – PLEASE STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS…RIGHT NOW…TODAY. That means – no gasoline for your auto, no electricity or heat derived from fossil fuels for your home or office. To do otherwise would of course be hypocritical, and we all know you wish to do the right thing.
fredb says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:05 am
A bit of an exaggeration, isnt it? New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation
Not quite, its merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target. Lets dial down the extremism perhaps?
—
OK Fred. Show us how to “achieve” it. Will it cause energy prices to go up? Can you afford it? Can everyone else (especially the poor and those who are out of work)?
Hugh Pepper said:
“…And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, signed off by every major Academy of Science in the world and finally the participating governments. Their findings are universally accepted, except a by a few, who, for their own mysterious reasons, refuse to be persuaded. I guess you’re one of those few ALec…”
O.M.G.
Nobody could actually be gullible enough to belive that.
I believe you’re spouting gibberish just to get a rise out of people.
That statement could be demolished line-by-line by anyone with a single brain cell.
Cheap energy is the key to helping the poor (along with everyone else as well) and bringing prosperity back to our country. New EPA regulations are driving a stake thru the heart of our economy, killing the poor and destroying the middle class. Obama and his catastrophic global warming cronies (Jackson and $8 a gallan gas Chu) have to go.
Hugh Pepper et.al. of the CO2-is-pollution trolls:
[SNIP: The management of this site gets really bent out of shape when anyone makes that kind of suggestion. We are just not going there. -REP]
Obama is a politician. A large portion of his base still believes in global warming and he doesn’t dare to alienate them. He needs the votes. The ship of state is being slowly turned. It will be a long time before they can frankly admit that CAGW is a crock but the day will come. In the mean time, actions speak louder than words.
As Steve from Rockwood points out, no new coal plants are being planned. The new rules will have no immediate effect, other than to convince his base that Obama is still with them. There’s plenty of time after the election to quietly emasculate or dump the CO2 limits.
As for Romney and whatever beliefs he has … He’s just an older, craftier politician. 😉
Frank K. says:
“Will it cause energy prices to go up?”
No. Natural gas is cheaper.
Carbon capture and store is expensive, dangerous and totally irrelevant with respect to having any meaningful impact on reducting global warming. Creating huge reservoirs of CO2 undergroiund in a localized area may eventually lead to death to those who reside over top of it when a leak develops. CO2 vents have already caused death to villages and animals in recent years. Need to go back to the EPA regulatiions in effect in 1980 as they were sufficient enough to protect the environment as well as allow for affordable energy production.
alcheson says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:32 am
“Cheap energy is the key to helping the poor (along with everyone else as well) and bringing prosperity back to our country.”
This is precisely what our trolls don’t understand. But they don’t care, just as long as they get paid their generous salaries (for whatever they do, likely some “research” nobody needs), the lights come on in their offices and homes, some delivers goods to their local stores (all done with the help of fossil fuels BTW).
Hugh Pepper – suggested reading is Donna LaFramboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”.
Second, see http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm and note that for humans high levels aren’t until greater than 1,000 ppm.
High is relative, and based on our current level of CO2, we are not near any dangerous levels other than being too low for plants to grow well.
When the car industry was faced with tailpipe percent emissions one of the things that they did was to add a compressor to the engine to inject clean air in to the exhaust manifold. This diluted the gasses in the exhaust system and lowered the tailpipe percent emissions to an acceptable level. This met the ‘letter of the law’
“will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced”
Use a coal boiler to drive a steam turbine to generate one megawatt, use that one megawatt of generated electricity to drive an electric motor, use the electric motor to drive a 900 kilowatt alternator. Ship out the power from the alternator.
The above processes generated 1.9 megawatts of electricity. It meets the ‘letter of the law’
Russ R. says:
March 28, 2012 at 5:56 am
The EPA has ruled in the past that significant upgrades, or even maintenance is sufficient to turn an “old” plant, into a “new” one.
David L. Hagen says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:39 am
Since oil won’t be running out for some 300 to 400 years, I don’t see any need to start panicing just yet.
Back in the early 70s, when I was doing pollution effects research at EPA, I testified as an expert witness for the state of Missouri vs Peabody Coal. The pollutants were SO2 and particulates. Missouri won. In this case, I agree with Peabody that CO2 is not a pollutant and I and many others would gladly testify for them. Legally, any regulation of CO2 should be put on hold until this case runs it’s course.
old44 says:
March 28, 2012 at 5:14 am
Two weeks before the next election, turn off all coal-fired power stations and give the American public a good hard look at their long bleak future.
________________________________________
You would not even have to turn them off just turn them down. Coal fired plants can be turned down to 20% of capacity.
The last thing we need in the USA is more head lines like this:
………..
A side issue is if we are denied the possibility of growth in energy and the resulting stifling of job growth, then we DARN WELL BETTER ship all the immigrants, legal and illegal home so we continue to have enough energy available for Americans. The current USA population is above 300 million, about 8% of that population is immigrants. Already a lot of decent US jobs are taken by H-1B Program immigrants and this is generating ill will among frustrated job hunters. The media of course is trying to fight the perception.
12 million-plus illegal aliens in America
DHS: ..an estimated 12.6 million LPRs lived in the United States on January 1, 2010. 8.1 million of those LPRs were eligible to naturalize.
Inner Workings of the H-1B Program
This type of rhetoric from the Whitehouse is not going to help smooth over the ill will.
What the heck ever happen to helping AMERICANS?
No I do not dislike immigrants. I consider them the cream of the crop from the entire world but this is no how the Average Joe is going to view the situation. Especially when HIS taxes and HIS government appears to be helps immigrants and not HIS family.
Steve from Rockwood says:
March 28, 2012 at 5:16 am
A Democrat was quoted as saying the ruling will not affect coal generation because no new coal generating stations are currently planned. He waffled a bit when he was cautioned that existing coal generation facilities will need to negotiate with the government (possibly to stay open by sequestering CO2).
I just don’t get the American political system. The EPA labels CO2 (and indirectly fossil fuels) as a pollutant while the President fast-tracks the Keystone pipeline (to raw crude into the US for refining).
______________________________________
That is simple. This allows the Oil companies to make a profit by refining the oil before shipping it to China.
When trying to understand politics ALWAYS Follow the Money.