Thoughts on the EPA Carbon Plan

[woodgeek]

Probably doomed to the Can, but let's see....

So, the long-awaited plan is to reduce the emission of CO2 from the US electricity sector by 30% relative to the 2005 peak, by 2030. Since we are already down 15% (in 10 years), the plan really mandates another 15% reduction over the next 15 years, or 1% a year.

Since electricity is less than 50% of US carbon emissions...the new EPA plan will reduce US emission by ~6% over the next 15 years.

I'll start:

—Yes, you could call it a 'War on Coal' if you want.
—No, I don't think you 'electric rates will necessarily skyrocket'
—The Chamber of Commerce says it'll cost $50B a year...
—the EPA estimates costs will be less than $10-25B a year, and health benefits will be >$50B a year
—Paul Krugman has already pointed out that even if you accept the inflated CoC number, its a 0.2% drag on the US economy....like Dr. Evil asking for 'one meeelion dollars'.

I think its a (small) no-brainer. But you have to start somewhere. And the impact of this is about the same as the fleet mpg improvements made in BO's first term. The EPA is 'doubling down'.

 

[TradEddie]

I haven't looked at the details since the politicians and vested interests will change those anyway, so the final product will likely be so watered down, it will achieve neither goal of reducing emissions or improving health.

Cynicism aside, technology and investment has allowed me to reduce my carbon footprint by about 20%, without sacrificing a single comfort, not one extra sweater needed and my cars have more bhp and get more mpg. There is no reason business can't do the same. I don't see even modest 'skyrocketing' electricity prices as a bad thing, it would encourage more conservation, and more alternative energy sources.

TE

 

[begreen]

There are many options and opportunities for reducing individual, commercial and governmental carbon footprints. As you have pointed out, a lot of these changes are pretty painless. All it takes is mobilizing the collective will of the people. Easy to do in a nation with a common background and heritage or in a nation of total govt. control. Hard to do in a vast multi-cultural nation like the US. This is ironic because in the land of the dollar there are lots of business opportunities and savings presented by this challenge. Unfortunately the problem is compounded by a few vested interests that don't want to lose their holdings at the top.

 

[peakbagger]

Just realize that EPA has stated in recent regulations that based on a flawed study in Mass, that burning biomass is not renewable, thus all of our woodstoves and boilers could become subject to regulatory action.

Hydro Quebec has already offered New England as much power as it wants from hydro dams to be built in far northern quebec, just sign a contract and run a few transmission lines and New England is all set. Of course we didn't have a lot of coal plant left.

 

[midwestcoast]

I see it as a really good step over-all. It might not have much of an effect in some states that are already moving to lower carbon sources for electricity, but in some other states where coal is still King this is a much needed push IMO.
The opposition will be there no matter what plan is presented IMO, so I'm glad to see they did take a step that should actually reduce emissions (if only moderately).
Not a radical plan, but one that should have a measurable impact.
Now to see if it survives to implementation...

 

[BrotherBart]

A bunch of the 40 year old inefficient plants are slated for decommissioning anyway. And the efficient ones are running around 50% capacity. More political football than anything.

 

[woodgeek]

Def a football....but if it all holds up, the EPA has the authority to alter the caps at will later, as new science comes in, or to push harder if costs come in a lot lower than expected, or in the face of a PV electric revolution.

And prob a decent card to be holding in international negotiations.

 

[begreen]

A bunch of the 40 year old inefficient plants are slated for decommissioning anyway. And the efficient ones are running around 50% capacity. More political football than anything.

That's the case in WA state. We are the most affected, slated for a 75% emissions reduction. But we only have one major coal plant and that is already scheduled to go offline in 2025. If however, Fed dollars become available for geothermal in the North Cascades I am all for it. We need to get momentum going and right now politics is the logjam.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

well i'll try.
you could try to build the most modern coal plant and it would never happen. even though most of our excess electrical needs last winter were covered by inefficient coal plants. once again the gov't which seems to run everything so well here*, has mandated the answer we all have to accept. as we use and mine less coal the third world will have less power and continue to burn dirtier fuels like dung. keep'em in the dark! only the rest of the world minus the progressives here and Europe will use dirty fuels. there will be no pressure for them to change. it would cause the price of our footwear to go beyond our reach.in the mean time they grow and in real terms the 1'st world shrinks (that's if you consider asia 2nd and 3rd world.
I say open the ash can leave it open for folks to vent. put this one there and let the people gas away. got to admit in political terms it was a fun place.

*just my opinion of the mods like the current administration and policies, rest of the folks seem to have an interesting mix

 

[woodgeek]

So, Doug, I guess you're not worried about increasing that 0.04% of the atmosphere??

On what do you base your assessment of other countries commitment to reducing CO2? We are the highest per capita emitters by far (except for small places like Qatar), and have 100 million people who think global warming is a lot of bunk, why can't they say we should go first?

 

[semipro]

Policies like these can only enhance development of truly sustainable energy sources. I think 3rd world countries will benefit overall. The tech developed here will ultimately benefit those elsewhere.

I think if most of us could put all doctors out of work tomorrow by preventing all disease we would. Likewise, a greater good is served by putting coal miners out of work. That is, unless, they can truly develop 'clean coal' which seems unlikely given what it takes to get it to the power plants.

I feel for those dependent upon coal for their livelihood but I also felt bad for those running video stores when Redbox and Netflix came along. You need to move on.

I agree with Doug on the Ash Can. I learned a lot there and miss the lively discussion. Oh well.

 

[begreen]

At least it is some movement outside of the DC gridlock. This and the raising of CARB standards are steps in the right direction. The per city costs of protection from rising sea levels will be staggering. Here are some mockups of the plan for NYC. Norfolk, VA has a plea out for 1 billion to temporarily remedy their current constant flooding.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/3/5776498/new-york-storm-flood-defense-funded-project-mockups
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-level-rise-swamps-norfolk-us-coasts/3893825/

 

[peakbagger]

Coal doesnt have to be "dead". There have been successful sequestration trials on coal plants. It just adds cost and about 10% of the power output is used on to run the sequestration system. Unfortunately in the Northeast there isnt the right geology for sequestration but in other areas of the country there is. CO2 can be used for oil field injection so if coal plant is close to a oil field they can pipe it over to the oil field.

Carbon Looping and IGCC are both coal friendly and can segregate carbon but the capital costs get it to the point where B&Ws mini nukes start to look affordable.

It all comes down to the cost of power, raise the price and folks will use less and companies will move to where it costs less. A lot of the rise of the southern economy is cheap power, started out with TVA and then coal took over. Natural gas can be cheaper in the short term but one of these days, like gasoline and diesel, the US will start exporting large volumes of LNG and the price of natural gas will rise to the world market cost so the coal power will cost less.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

how's the epa record on cost estimates? reported on fox some large electrical unions not happy with the epa moves on their workers plants. forethought and foresight not exactly the governments strong suite.

woodgeek put it out there, it's all about the belief that the .04% of the atmosphere is the problem. while that may come to pass , it might not come to pass. both sides in the discussion use might, if, maybe, ect. the gov't has taken it's side and we are stuck with it. when the epa stopped ddt(widespread overuse led to ban on all use) estimated deaths since are at 60,000,000 plus worldwide but yet proudly proclaims health benefits of their policy here. again no thought of what the overall consequence is with their actions. sounds familiar to overuse of antibiotics problems today, doesn't it.

?bg mentions sea level. are we ending an ice age. it didn't end 10,000 years ago, we are still in it. ice remains at both poles. history tells us that earth has been iceless to an ice cube to somewhere in between. earth flourishes in it's warm days, dinosaurs in Jurassic, roman and medieval warm, to today with record food production. cold on the other hand gave us the last ice age with mass extinctions, the dark ages and the little ice age. just some thioughts

 

[woodgeek]

On the previous cap and trade efforts, for acid rain, the final costs came in below the EPA estimates.

You and I have a different take on the 0.04% thing, Doug. To me that sounds like a lot, but it will have to wait for another post.

Life does indeed do great with warm climates, but rapid changes, acidic oceans and drowned cities are not so great.

 

[BrotherBart]

 

[begreen]

Unfortunately this fiction is not too far off the mark.
(broken link removed to http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-epa-regulations-would-force-power-plants-to-fi,36176/)

 

[Woodman37]

I work at a coal fired power plant and we have already lowered our carbon emissions by 21 percent since 2005. Clean coal has come a long way and we are still improving the process. I understand the need for newer cleaner electric production but I wouldn't throw coal away all together. We all remember how cold last winter was and if it wasn't for coal many of us would have been in te dark and cold this past January. I don't think we should be too quick to close the doors on our coal fired plants just yet. In an extreme cold or hot weather situation the grid can't handle the demand without our coal units running. Shutting all these plants down will bite us in the rear end sooner or later without a reliable source to replace all those megawatts.

 

[Doug MacIVER]

well two articles why we may not be ready to shutter these plants so quickly. the times article was posted on another thread earlier. this one makes one think like all the natgas in the world, what difference does it make http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...14-how-fuel-oil-saved-the-day-in-new-england/. long range forecasts already predict a replay of winter 2014? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/business/energy-environment/coal-to-the-rescue-this-time.html?_r=0

 

[TradEddie]

well two articles why we may not be ready to shutter these plants so quickly. the times article was posted on another thread earlier. this one makes one think like all the natgas in the world, what difference does it make http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...14-how-fuel-oil-saved-the-day-in-new-england/. long range forecasts already predict a replay of winter 2014? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/business/energy-environment/coal-to-the-rescue-this-time.html?_r=0

Did you even read the first one? Oil, not coal was the saving factor, and the limiting factor for NG was pipeline capacity, something the market can, and will resolve, especially when coal has to complete on a level playing field of actual cost. Nobody is shuttering coal plants "so quickly", only obsolete plants that need complete overhaul and where the investment needed to meet the same emissions requirements as other fuels is not financially viable.

TE

 

[woodgeek]

I work at a coal fired power plant and we have already lowered our carbon emissions by 21 percent since 2005. Clean coal has come a long way and we are still improving the process. I understand the need for newer cleaner electric production but I wouldn't throw coal away all together. We all remember how cold last winter was and if it wasn't for coal many of us would have been in te dark and cold this past January. I don't think we should be too quick to close the doors on our coal fired plants just yet. In an extreme cold or hot weather situation the grid can't handle the demand without our coal units running. Shutting all these plants down will bite us in the rear end sooner or later without a reliable source to replace all those megawatts.

Lots of different coal tech out there with different efficiency. If your plant is on the clean side, the new rules could allow it to continue running out its design lifetime, or to get the ROI for its investors. If the plant is older and more of a sunk cost, your mgmt and owners get to decide is it makes $$ sense to keep it.

Does your plant get cycled seasonally to meet varying loads? Does it get throttled on a daily cycle, or flat out? Can it throttle?

 

[begreen]

Did you even read the first one? Oil, not coal was the saving factor, and the limiting factor for NG was pipeline capacity, something the market can, and will resolve, especially when coal has to complete on a level playing field of actual cost. Nobody is shuttering coal plants "so quickly", only obsolete plants that need complete overhaul and where the investment needed to meet the same emissions requirements as other fuels is not financially viable.

Correct. The coal plant in WA is old tech and was already slated for shutdown. What is disappointing is that in spite of a lot of posturing and a lot of funding for clean coal tech a decade ago, there still have not been any new IGCC plants built in America since 1996.

Coal plants usually provide the background baseload capacity, while gas and oil plants meet the peak demands.

 

[Woodman37]

Lots of different coal tech out there with different efficiency. If your plant is on the clean side, the new rules could allow it to continue running out its design lifetime, or to get the ROI for its investors. If the plant is older and more of a sunk cost, your mgmt and owners get to decide is it makes $$ sense to keep it.

Does your plant get cycled seasonally to meet varying loads? Does it get throttled on a daily cycle, or flat out? Can it throttle?

our units are all 600 series and can run from 350 mw up to about 590mw net load. The unit loads are adjusted by the need for power. It is possible for all three units to run at different loads at the same time. Of course it is optimal to run all three at full load. All three units are equipped with SCR technology and also have jet bubbling reactor type scrubbers of which the by product is gypsum that we sell to make dry wall.

 

[woodgeek]

Oh well....there didn't seem to be much blowback from the pundits this week. A few half-hearted public announcements from the 'other side' about jobs.

Let's see. Could be because the whole idea is very popular with both sides, include 70% of GOP voters and 50% or Tea Partiers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...heyre-even-willing-to-pay-for-it/?tid=rssfeed

 

[jebatty]

Some re-tuning of the state goals might be appropriate. Article in the local paper today indicated that MN utilities, which have invested heavily in wind turbines in ND and in high efficiency NG turbines to meet variable demand, are not being given credit for those carbon reduction efforts under the proposal. The article states that ND is being given credit for the wind, even though the power is being delivered to MN, and with that change MN is being faulted because it is not using its NG turbines enough to meet the proposed criteria of the rule. On the other hand, since the wind is being credited to ND, ND better meets the proposed criteria, even though practically none of the wind is delivered to ND and ND electricity from coal % is much higher than MN.

That said, the major MN utilities generally support the proposed changes and indicate that they are well on the path to meeting or exceeding the goals of the proposed criteria and state law requirements on % of electricity from renewable and sustainable energy sources and substantial carbon reduction through wind, solar and high efficiency NG turbines.