Question, though (0.00 / 0)

This is fantastic, but does this only apply to new coal plants? Are old coal plants grandfathered in? If so, won't this mean they will be free to continue using the old plants-- or could this loophole possibly even create an economic incentive to use the older, dirtier plants rather than building newer, cleaner ones?

---

by: mcc @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 18:39:12 PM CST

A good question, disagree with your conclusion (4.00 / 1)

Building new cleaner coal plants will not necessarily mean that dirty old ones will be torn down; demand is increasing for electricity every day.  Hopefully this will create an economic incentive to invest more in true renewables.

Looks to me like this only applies to new plants, during the permitting process.

And now the larger question: exactly when DO we tear down disgusting old coal plants?

---

by: TValley @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 19:09:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

probably only to new plants (4.00 / 1)

Still, the first step is to stop C02 emissions from increasing every year -- this is great for that goal. Obviously we have to eventually start reducing C02 emissions, rather than simply slowing the growth of emissions, but that will almost certainly require a price on carbon, which would force those old, dirty coal plants to clean up or become a giant money sink for the utilities.  

---

by: Tim Sackton @ Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 19:53:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure this is "fantastic"! (0.00 / 0)

This is exactly like the FISA ruling! A common sense statement by the courts to "clean up your act and comply with the law." And what was Congress' attitude the minute the right-wing squealed? They rushed in NOT to confirm the Court ruling, but to give RETROACTIVE immunity to legalize every single illegal thing the telecoms had done!

Well the coal industry is VASTLY more powerful than the telecoms. They control American power and all they have to do is to flex their muscle a bit by threatening "a series of rolling blackouts as a result of this ruling" and we're likely to see some MASSIVELY retrogressive legislation.

Reality: coal CANNOT be made "clean" in major parts of the country because it would take BILLIONS of dollars to build pipelines wherever local geology doesn't favor pumping CO2 into the ground. Unfortunately the Southeast is NOT geologically favorable to storing CO2, and they have the most coal fired power-plants.

The storage problem is no more solved than the nuclear waste problem. The industry can't even TEST deep storage because they are afraid of massive "Bhopal." sized disaster with CO2 killing thousands of people by leaking out of the ground into people's basements, asphyxiating entire families. They will need governmental immunity before they can even begin to test deep storage technology.

How many people will want their homes to sit on top of vast CO2 gas deposits, knowing that the gas is colorless, tasteless, invisible and if it leaks it can kill their family. Same NIMBY problem as with Nuclear waste storage in Nevada.

It will be decades before the entire system can be built, if ever. Meanwhile, what Congress is likely to do is "amend" the Clean Air Act to allow pollution to continue "in the meanwhile."

It's a 21st century version of "all deliberate speed" which the coal industry will interpret as "never in hell over our dead bodies!"  

---

by: Cugel @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:12:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not Exactly (4.00 / 2)

The EAB doesn't exactly mean what you think it does.  What the EAB ruled was not that the EPA had to require Best Available Control Technology ("BACT") for carbon dioxide.  This is what would be required if it is determined that carbon dioxide is a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

What the EAB ruled was that EPA Region 8 would have to suspend its approval of the coal burning plant pending Region 8's reconsideration of whether carbon dioxide is indeed a regulated pollutant.

In approving the power plant, Region 8 had determined that carbon dioxide is NOT a regulated air pollutant.  The EAB went through Region 8's reasoning and shot down each reason Region 8 gave for carbon dioxide NOT being a regulated pollutant.  

But the EAB itself refused to make the determination that carbon dioxide is a regulated pollutant.  Instead, it remanded the matter to Region 8, ordering Region 8 to reconsider.  It is possible that Region 8 will find another, more acceptable rationale for concluding that carbon dioxide is a regulated pollutant.

In any event, this pushes that determination back to a time when there will be a new administration in charge of the EPA.

---

by: kaleidescope @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 00:06:01 AM CST

good points (4.00 / 1)

If I understand all of this correctly, the other relevant--highly relevant--factor is the court decision, a legal (not administrative) judgment, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration has steadfastly attempted to ignore that court decision.

(You can find lots of links and excerpts of coverage of this story at this link.)


They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

---

by: WVaBlue @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:37:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Whole Idea of Carbon Sequestration (4.00 / 1)

is just preposterous.  Even if you found a way to remove the carbon dioxide, the risks of mass asphyxiation due to accidental devolution of the stored gas would be too great.

---

by: bob h @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:37:10 AM CST

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Yeesh, why do we even talk about this?  There are so many better options so much closer to implementation for so much less money.

---

by: TValley @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Reasons why "Clean Coal" is Necessary! (0.00 / 0)

Even if it's far from the most desirable alternative.

1. The Coal Industry is MUCH too powerful to simply say "your day is done -- we're going to abandon coal." Don't expect them to just roll over any more than the oil lobby has done since the 1970s on the issue of alternative energy.

If we have to fight them tooth and nail it will take decades of hopeless rearguard actions. And we simply don't have the time. We've wasted 30 years ignoring this problem and we're on the very edge of disaster. We need solutions NOW, not 30 years from now after the entire coal industry has been beaten into submission!

2. Hundreds of Billions of dollars in existing coal-fired powerplants are already invested. There's HUGE investment in existing infrastructure and endless demands for more not less electricity. What are we to do with all these existing plants? Tear them down?

Convert to "wind-power" or geo-thermal or solar-powered electricity? All those will HELP but aren't enough!

3. Even if you could switch instantly to alternative energy, how much would it cost? How ready are consumers to be taxed by higher energy bills to clean up the environment? People will believe any lie, if it means avoiding a higher energy bill when money and jobs are tight (which they always are in this capitalist economy -- by design to keep labor costs low).

4. Even if the U.S. switched over painlessly today, it wouldn't matter if China continues to build dozens of dirty coal-fired power plants all the time! China like the U.S. has vast deposits of coal, but very little oil. They AREN'T going to stop building coal power plants. They MIGHT accept "clean coal" technology if we can develop it and sell it to them.

For all these reasons and many more, "clean coal" is simply a necessity.

I am under NO illusions that it's the cheapest or best solution, but we are already dependent on coal for over 1/2 of our energy production and there's simply no way to switch that off in time. Thus, no matter how crappy, clean coal is ESSENTIAL, almost regardless of cost.

---

by: Cugel @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, to go through it (0.00 / 0)

Firstly, "clean coal technology" does not exist, and nothing close to it will exist for decades.  Take that as a premise before you start making any other arguments.

To address your points:

1. The coal lobby is powerful and so moving off of coal will take too long.  Are you saying that investing government money in coal will somehow make them less powerful?  And 30 years, the number you pulled out of thin air, is not far off from industry estimates on how long carbon sequestering or other imaginary technologies would take to develop.

2. We already have coal plants.  Yes, that's true.  And yes, we should eventually tear them down and replace them with renewables.  And that will never happen if we keep investing in coal.

3. How much would it cost?  Well, the point is, if subsidized properly, renewables will be cheaper than fossil fuels.

4. China is building coal plants.  True.  But they would stop if renewables were cheaper.

Instead of investing in an obsolete energy form (ultimately based on a finite resource) why not invest in a job-creating limitless energy infrastructure?

---

by: TValley @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 13:13:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And is it just me (0.00 / 0)

Or do your two comments in this thread completely contradict each other?

---

by: TValley @ Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 13:14:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]