Why would we shut coal plants before replacing them with other fuel plants? (generation, weapon)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can go over these numbers in the first link, this is under the co benefits section and related to the reduction of PM. It has nothing to do with mercury reduction, PM is already regulated by the EPA.
Having said that I'll tell you how they arrive at these numbers since no one has on their death certificate "died from particulate matter". They use a method called linear dose assessment and as noted in the EPA documentation there is great deal of uncertainty with these estimates. Every particle is consider equally as dangerous regardless of the amount of exposure. To analogize we first need some hard data so we do a study where 10 people have fallen off a 20 foot ladder and five of them die, using that data it is assumed that for every 200 feet a population is to fall 5 will die. If 20 people fall off a 10 foot ladder 5 will still die, if 200 people fall off a 1 foot ladder 5 still die, if millions fall off a crack in the sidewalk 5 still die.
I'm not an expert on how they compile these figures. And it's not likely you are either. I go by what experts in science tell me. And the EPA is certainly less biased than the coal industry is.
You seem to have more information than I do in this matter, but are you getting your information from your company's lobbying department?
It will be likely not so much wrong, as it will be one sided or incomplete.
I'm not an expert on how they compile these figures.
Padcrasher that is how they arrive at those figures, you can research it all you want.
Quote:
You seem to have more information than I do in this matter, but are you getting your information from your company's lobbying department?
Everything I've cited is from the EPA, as far as my company's lobbying department let me get him on the line......
Hello padcrasher this is thecolman's lobbying department......... LOL. thecoalman's Great Grandfather started a coal delivery business with a horse and wagon, a century later he ran he that business for 15 years delivering coal to peoples homes; the oil man, the mail man, the coal man. Since "retiring" his only financial interest in coal is small web site for people interested in using coal for heat, any regulations driving the cost of energy up will in fact be a financial benefit to himself.
If you care to Google the name the "thecoalman" what you'll find is results going back a decade on sites that have no relationship to coal.
I suspect the utilities concerned are closing these plants because they are worn out, need major boiler repairs or are just too inefficient to make a profit. Some of these are museum pieces that shoud have been replaced decades ago. By using the EPA as reason the utility managers have an excuse, besides their mismamagement, to tell the stockholders they will have to spend more money to stay in business. These sacred cows are out of milk.
As far as electricity costs are concerned the Ohio River valley has a pretty good deal. Here in NH the local utility charges 16 cents a KW-HR.
Mary Landrieu needs to be given the boot by Democrats. She votes exactly like a Republican.
If you joined these GOP knuckle draggers in voting to make the air dirtier for US citizens you need be with them.
I swear Louisiana has the most corrupt politicians.
Great example of Dems v GOP.
95% of them voted to make your air dirtier, 95% of Dems stood up for the air you breath.
I'm sorry, this is not a personal attack, just an objective statement of fact: this is the biggest bunch of horsepucky that has ever appeared on an internet forum.
NOBODY voted to make the air dirtier, NOBODY wants dirtier air. These are lies.
Do you know the difference between maintaining the significant environmental progress we have already made, and layering on new mandates now that will break the country?
America's electrical utilities have not ordered a new coal fired power plant since the late 1990s The reason is there is a cheaper clearner alternative called natural gas which doesn't need scrubbers and has a cheaper less carbon intensive fuel stock. If the estimates of gas in shale deposits pans out by 2030 there might be no need for any coal fired power plants to be operated in the USA. This one techical change would meet our current Kyoto greenhouse gas targets and would actually be more profitable for our electic power generators!
The idea of shutting coal plants because they pollute too much is assinine. We will have a massive shortage of electricity and tremendous increase in electric costs. Why not build new natural gas plants or nuclear plants first? Or why not build better scrubbers for the coal? Does Obama want us back in the stone age without electricity?
No, he wants to make his special interest groups even richer by forcing America to buy alternative energy sources, whether they want them or not. (and at a highly inflated cost, I might add).
It's easy to see where the GOP stands on this issue: With the power companies, naturally, as they always have and damn The People. Profit is greater priority than anything else.
Case in point: Back in 2006, TXU tried to "fast track" the switch-over of 3 natural gas fired units to coal near Savoy, TX. Knowing even back then that tighter regulations on the burning of coal were coming because Congress authorized it years ago, they still wanted to do it and the administration of Rick Perry was behind them all the way.
Fortunately, the citizens of Fannin County, TX shot it down and prevented them switching to coal. In response, TXU had a hissy fit and threatened to just shut down 2 of the 3 generating units and put some Fannin County workers out of a job as punishment for daring to oppose the GOP/Big Energy cabal. I assume they did.
Then, we have the current issue here in Texas of a supposed lack of generating capacity. The Public Utilities Commission, all of whose Commissioners were appointed by Rick Perry and confirmed by the Republican dominated Legislature, is alarmed that Texas won't have enough generating capacity to meet future needs. That's probably so as Texas is not a part of the national energy grid and has a limited ability to buy outside power (the last time we had to do so, it was bought from....Mexico!)
Ignoring the question of how great a crisis it is if TXU was allowed to shut down two generating units a few years ago, guess what the PUC's proposed "solution" is? Why, to pad the pockets of Big Energy to "incentivize" them to build more capacity! They're suggesting a possible 30-50% increase in electricity rates to make it profitable for Big Energy to build more plants! It's not like they're going broke now, you know. They're actually rolling in cash and, like any business, will do whatever they need to do to meet customer demand and still make a profit, but that's not good enough for their GOP "regulators." They want to give them MORE profit off the backs of our people, in effect relieving Big Energy from having to pay for increased capacity and allowing them to pocket the excess profits. And that doesn't even address the question of why we just don't tie into the national grid.
The point is that whenever you see an "issue" created by Big Energy and their fellow conspirators in the GOP, you can bet your last buck that their motivation is more and more and more profit at your expense.
Higher demand means higher profis for companies that meet standards. Higher profits means that it will attract new business owners to the the field of energy production.
So its a way of pushing for new, cleaner ways of producing coal, but it will drive up the profitability of renewables, and other fossil sources like, natural gas, which we have plenty of and is as cheap or cheaper than coal.
The idea of shutting coal plants because they pollute too much is assinine. We will have a massive shortage of electricity and tremendous increase in electric costs. Why not build new natural gas plants or nuclear plants first? Or why not build better scrubbers for the coal? Does Obama want us back in the stone age without electricity?
it is simple. the goal of the EPA right now is to drive up the cost of energy so people will treat it like a luxery item.
America's electrical utilities have not ordered a new coal fired power plant since the late 1990s The reason is there is a cheaper clearner alternative called natural gas which doesn't need scrubbers and has a cheaper less carbon intensive fuel stock. If the estimates of gas in shale deposits pans out by 2030 there might be no need for any coal fired power plants to be operated in the USA. This one techical change would meet our current Kyoto greenhouse gas targets and would actually be more profitable for our electic power generators!
Oh, You, with your common sense and factual knowledge. Who let you in here?
Anyone who has ever lived near or worked in a coal power plant knows that there is no such thing as "clean coal." The particulant matter released from coal plants is health issue even with so called "scrubbers." Natural gas is a much more economical, and not to mention cleaner bridge to future greener alternatives than coal.
The only people that are upset by this are coal miners, the companies that make money by blowing up mountain tops in West Virginia, and the members of the Republican Perpetual Outrage Squad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd
It is simple. the goal of the EPA right now is to drive up the cost of energy so people will treat it like a luxery item.
Sorry, but the natural gas boom and pretty much proven that wrong. But if there's one resource we should be doing that with, it's water.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
