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.
Ed_B says:
March 28, 2012 at 5:31 am
How about building the plants in Mexico and importing the electricty and exporting the jobs?
Already happening in California. About 1/3 of power is imported from outside the state. The CA Energy Commission should be stripped of power. They are true believers in centralized state command and control economy. Never will happen. The Gov, Jerry Brown created the CEC back in 1975.
States generating power almost exclusively with coal have electricity prices well below average. Going after coal necessarily raises power prices. What little industry we have left may start looking for a new home.
Abundant inexpensive and reliable power is needed to reboot our economy. That goal is achievable.
Frank K,
Not quite, its merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target.
Burning coal on average produces 208 pounds of CO2 per MMBTU’s.
So we end up with a maximum allowing budget of 4.8 MMBtu’s/MWh if we burn coal with carbon Capture.(1000/2.08)
At 100% efficiency is takes 3.4 BTU’s to product 1 watt. So far so good 4.8/3.4 gives us 1.4 MWh with a 1000 lb CO2 budget at 100% efficiency. At 71% efficiency we end up with our 1 MWh/1000 pounds of CO2 if we burn coal.
There is no such thing as a 71% efficient thermal plant in actual operation. Maybe in a lab somewhere.
Update to my previous comment
‘with carbon capture should be ‘without’.
I don’t believe it is hyperbole to say that this rule would “unplug ultimately half the grid.” Half the grid is coal fired and there won’t be any new plants under this rule, fhus “ultimately”… As Mark Steyn keeps reminding us, demographics is destiny.
We’re not talking about a long time either. Many of the existing plants are already old. Neither can anything be done to reduce the amount of CO2 released except by sequestration, which besides being absurd (sequestering plant food) is at present infeasible.
The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the EPA’s characterization of CO2 as “pollution” showed a remarkable scientific illiteracy, but the basis for allowing this was still in that case very clearly the claimed global warming danger from CO2. Thus the apparent withdrawal of the global warming rationale still vitiates the EPA’s position. They can’t say that it is “pollution” even if we are no longer concerned about greenhouse effects.
Of course the Obamatons are only pretending that their alternative energy goals are no longer about CO2 (supposedly we are to put all of our eggs in these non-floating baskets in order to save the economy), but it is the administration’s public position that ought to weigh with the courts.
John@EF says:
March 28, 2012 at 7:36 am
Frank K. says:
Will it cause energy prices to go up?
No. Natural gas is cheaper.
—
OK. Let’s get fracking!
Some fracking news…
New Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing
Feb. 16, 2012
VANCOUVER, British Columbia Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released Thursday by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
First it starts with the new plants, then it trickles down to existing plants.
This rule is unnecessary for many reasons, starting with the bogus science. Next, natural gas is a plentiful and economical and companies are going to naturally prefer to build them instead. The real threat, mentioned above, is that this will soon be used to close existing plants leading to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing power rates throughout much of the country.
Not to worry, however, as Secretary Chu’s backing of green companies run by Obama bundlers and the families of Democrat politicians will soon lead to… expensive, intermittent power that can never replace the coal plants. Hmmm…
~More Soylent Green!
Is this what the Mayans understood as the end of the fifth sun? In any case it seems to be confined to the US, or at least this illness has spread mostly to english speaking countries.
Gosh, you are doomed! This is a Jackson´s Thriller! 🙂
Alec Rawls says:
“Many of the existing plants are already old. Neither can anything be done to reduce the amount of CO2 released except by sequestration, which besides being absurd (sequestering plant food) is at present infeasible.”
Great. Retire them and replace with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.
Obama and the rest of his appointees need to “Carter-ized”; (They need to be one termed.)
Random Information on Energy
An Interesting Government Paper on Coal fired energy: Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production
Energy Information Administration listed 594 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. in 2009, down from 645 coal-fired power plants in 2001. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it is not economical to retrofit existing coal plants with carbon capture technology.
There seems to be a <a href="http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/Indonesia2008.pdf"30-40 year lifespan for a coal-fired power plant.
So as the USA continues to close down and not replace older coal powered plants China is opening another coal-fired power plant every week to 10 days. and China currently has 13 nuclear power plants with varied capacities. According to state-run Beijing Review, China at present has approved 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw.
Notice the USA has ONE new nuclear plant approved and it will be on line by 2020 if the NIMBYs do not delay it.
Please. Can’t we bring our entire government up on charges of treason and hang the whole bunch of rent seekers in DC?? Pretty Please?
burnside says:
March 28, 2012 at 4:48 am
“Technology is equal to scrubbing waste co2 from coal power-generation and capturing it in closed-loop pyrolysis. An unintended consequence of this rule may be to force this particular type of cogeneration on the industry.”
There is so much wrong with what you say I guess you should start chemistry 101 all over again.
Coal IS clean, except that it produces more plant food than natural gas. The small amounts of other pollutants it produces are not harmful at all. It is also cheap, and it diversifies our energy supply. To shift to massive consumption of natural gas is crazy. Gas should be used for home heating, cooking etc. Coal should ultimately be replaced with nukes, where the supply really is essentially inexhaustible. In the meantime, coal is great. Where the market displaces coal with gas, okay, but price volatility is going to limit that. It is only because of the unscientific barriers to coal that the switch is so dramatic now.
harrywr2 says:
March 28, 2012 at 8:11 am
“There is no such thing as a 71% efficient thermal plant in actual operation. Maybe in a lab somewhere.”
A planned hypermodern huge coal plant in Germany, in NRW, called Datteln 4, 1000 GW, would achieve 45% (Gas and Steam cogeneration). Courts, Red-Green NRW government and local green NIMBY foot soldiers and the last cohorts of anti CO2 warmists are trying to block it and will probably succeed.
What do you expect when the Marxist news media propagandizes a population, brainwashed by Marxist designed public education, causes a bunch of 60’s radicals, who hate the US, hate Western Civilization, and hate freedom to gain control of all institutions in the country?
BTW, one does not need to run around waving a red flag shouting “Workers of the world unite!” to be a Marxist. If a person thinks with a Marxist world view, they are a Marxist.
DirkH says:
March 28, 2012 at 8:59 am
“A planned hypermodern huge coal plant in Germany, in NRW, called Datteln 4, 1000 GW, would achieve 45% (Gas and Steam cogeneration). ”
Typo: 1000 MW, not GW, of course.
Nerd says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:06 am
I am trying to recall where I read about how natural gas business is lobbying Obama administration to come up with new rules against coal plants. I guess Obama is helping his buddies get richer…
Perhaps you were think of this web site: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01
hUGH, since you are a true believer, this will surely be the last we hear from you. If you are sincere, you must unplug from the power and the internet, sell your electronics and live in an entirely self-sustaining shack in the woods where you use no fossil fuels, consume nothing produced with fossil fuels, or nothing transported using fossil fuels. You must also pledge to never reproduce, or if you have already done so, never do so again, hUGH.
Otherwise, hUGH, you’re not part of the answer, you’re just part of the problem.
TDBraun says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:14 am
I don’t like this rule either, or the rationale for it, but this essay is rather hyperbolic. Obama doesn’t seek to “unplug half the grid” but just to set standards for new coal-electric plants which effectively discourage new ones. Not quite the same thing.
_________________________________
A case of boiling the frog slowly, but boiling it just the same.
http://www.seobook.com/images/Boiling-Frogs.jpg
You got a blog yet?
Somewhere where some of your ‘arguments’ can be de-constructed without soiling Anthony’s place?
On second thought, never mind. I’ll start one …
.
The deconstruction of America proceeds apace.
For those of us wanting to do something we can put comments on the Federal Register.
Farmers managed to shout down the USDA and the proposed NAIS (National Animal ID) a few years ago in this way.
In hunting around the internet I found this:
In addition to anti-coal lobbying by the gas industry, there is also green crony capitalism involved in subsidizing gas. The big recent news here was Obama’s attempt to subsidize natural gas infrastructure for his leftist billionaire buddy Soros. Heritage has the story:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/
“George Soros, a billionaire investor and major backer of President Obama, stands to reap a windfall from legislation promoting natural gas-powered vehicles. The White House unveiled a proposal on Thursday that would do just that.”
T. Boone Pickens, another billionaire natural gas mogul, was in with Soros on this. The legislation failed.
Alec, we are already shifting towards natural gas and away from coal. In part this is due to market forces — natural gas is cheap and abundant (and so is coal, as you know). In part, it’s because of the regulatory environment, or fear of new regulations like this one.
We have plenty of natural gas and coal. But coal doesn’t burn as cleanly nor can it be mined and processed as cleanly as natural gas.
I do agree that we should make more use of nuclear power. Another potential use of natural gas — gas-to-liquid technology can let us use natural gas in place of oil for gasoline. I believe GTL is cheaper than than coal-to-liquid (CTL), but if we have as much oil in this country as I believe we do, we may not need either of these.
RockyRoad says:
March 28, 2012 at 6:16 am
So it has finally happened–the favorite bumper sticker we mining engineering students used to display on our briefcases..
http://www.cafepress.com/+ban_mining_let_the_bastards_freeze_in_the_dark,460543641
______________________________
You can add the ” Don’t cuss a farmer with your mouth full” to the other side.
Farm wars has free “No Farms No Food” can’t find the other one anymore.
I normally don’t reply all that much or leave 2 replies but I couldn’t resist. Obviously CO2 is now considered a pollutant and I wondered whether mouth-to-mouth resuscitation should now be outlawed because the person receiving it will also be receiving that dangerous pollutant from the resuscitators breath. In researching this I came across the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which appears to be affiliated with the Department of Energy. They have a website for ‘Frequently Asked Global Change Questions.’ One of the questions is: ‘Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?’ Answer: ‘No.’ Wow. This is how Wasington uses our tax money to educate us. It’s nice to know they think us plebeians are this stupid. I’m sure glad the ‘all knowing’ Obama’s in charge.