At one level, the Obama administration desrves
lots of credit for having the courage to set a standard of 1000 pounds
of CO2 emissions for every 1 MHW of electricity generated either from
coal or from natural gas. But a deeper level of analysis
immediately reveals the weak foundations of the above policy. The first
weakness is the fact that the standard is ti apply only to new power
plants. The second weakness is that power plants have seven years within
which to attain the standard. But , in my mind, the real fundamental
weakness is the fact that we seem to insist that we want to have our
cake and eat it too.
Why not reduce the need for energy instead of producing through CCS ( carbon capture and storage) which is a process that is energy intensive, unproven and produces energy by using energy. The seuestration is no longer in oceans since scientists have concluded that would affect the acidification of the oceans and so currently the plans are to use coal capture the CO2 and inject into deep geological foundations at a huge cost in terms of energy and into formations that could leak the captured gases back into the atmosphere. We will do anything as long as it does not address the root issue that we need to consume less, produce less and thus use less energy!!!
Why not reduce the need for energy instead of producing through CCS ( carbon capture and storage) which is a process that is energy intensive, unproven and produces energy by using energy. The seuestration is no longer in oceans since scientists have concluded that would affect the acidification of the oceans and so currently the plans are to use coal capture the CO2 and inject into deep geological foundations at a huge cost in terms of energy and into formations that could leak the captured gases back into the atmosphere. We will do anything as long as it does not address the root issue that we need to consume less, produce less and thus use less energy!!!
********************************************************************************************
U.S. sets first curbs on power plant carbon emissions
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Friday announced first-ever regulations setting strict limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be generated by any new U.S. power plant, which quickly sparked a backlash from supporters of the coal industry and are certain to face legal challenges.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's long-awaited guidelines would make it near impossible to build coal plants without using technology to capture carbon emissions that foes say is unproven and uneconomic.
The rules, a revision of a previous attempt by the EPA to create emissions standards for fossil fuel plants, are the first step in President Barack Obama's climate change package, announced in June.
The revised rule contained a few surprises after the agency held extensive discussions with industry and environmental groups, raising concerns by industry that the EPA's new restrictions on existing power plants, due to be unveiled next year, will be tough.
But the regulations announced on Friday cover only new plants. Under the proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh.
New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh but would be given "operational flexibility" to achieve those levels, the agency said.
The most efficient coal plants currently in operation emit at a rate of at least 1,800 pounds of CO2 per MWh.
In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington on Friday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed the rationale behind the new rules, and defended Obama's climate plan, which opponents say amounts to a "war on coal."
"There needs to be a certain pathway forward for coal to be successful," she said, adding that "setting fair Clean Air Act standards does not cause the sky to fall."
Still, stocks of coal mining companies fell on Friday and most are down more than 25 percent for the year to date. Alpha Natural Resources Inc fell 6.2 percent to close at $6.22 on Friday. Peabody Energy Corp closed 3.1 percent lower at $18.16 and Arch Coal Inc dropped 5 percent to $4.74.
"Today's announcement ... is direct evidence that this Administration is trying to hold the coal industry to impossible standards," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from the coal-producing state of West Virginia.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million businesses, said the EPA's strategies "will write off our huge, secure, affordable coal resources."
In her first major speech since being confirmed to the EPA's top job in July, McCarthy described her commitment to cleaner air in sometimes emotional terms, focused on the impact of pollution on public health.
"It's not just the elderly who suffer from air pollution. So do children - especially children in lower income and urban communities," she said. "If your child doesn't need an inhaler, then you are one very lucky parent."
UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY?
Under the new rules, any new coal plant built in the United States would need to install technology to capture its carbon waste, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).
That technology, which aims to prevent the release of large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere, is controversial because it is currently not yet operational on a commercial scale, an issue likely to be central to legal challenges to the EPA.
By giving coal plants seven years, rather than the 30 years proposed in 2012, to achieve an emissions rate below 1,100 lbs per MWh, the EPA is showing that it has full confidence in the nascent CCS technology.
"We now have enough information and confidence to say that a CCS option with coal meets the test of being the best system of emission reduction," David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air Program, told Reuters.
The EPA previously issued a version of the rule last year but made changes to address potential legal weaknesses and to factor in more than 2 million public comments.
The EPA will launch a fresh public comment period after Friday's announcement.
It is due to issue a proposal to address emissions from existing power plants - which account for nearly a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions - by June 2014.
McCarthy, the EPA boss, said on Friday that people should not look at the proposal for new plants and then assume that the future rule for the existing fleet will be similar.
Canada, whose emissions policies are in focus as it waits for a U.S. decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas, applauded the U.S. action on power plants. Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Minister, noted in a statement that Canada has already banned construction of new coal-fired electricity plants that use traditional technology.
(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Ros Krasny, Eric Beech, Marguerita Choy and Matthew Lewis)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Friday announced first-ever regulations setting strict limits on the amount of carbon pollution that can be generated by any new U.S. power plant, which quickly sparked a backlash from supporters of the coal industry and are certain to face legal challenges.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's long-awaited guidelines would make it near impossible to build coal plants without using technology to capture carbon emissions that foes say is unproven and uneconomic.
The rules, a revision of a previous attempt by the EPA to create emissions standards for fossil fuel plants, are the first step in President Barack Obama's climate change package, announced in June.
The revised rule contained a few surprises after the agency held extensive discussions with industry and environmental groups, raising concerns by industry that the EPA's new restrictions on existing power plants, due to be unveiled next year, will be tough.
But the regulations announced on Friday cover only new plants. Under the proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh.
New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh but would be given "operational flexibility" to achieve those levels, the agency said.
The most efficient coal plants currently in operation emit at a rate of at least 1,800 pounds of CO2 per MWh.
In a speech at the National Press Club in Washington on Friday, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed the rationale behind the new rules, and defended Obama's climate plan, which opponents say amounts to a "war on coal."
"There needs to be a certain pathway forward for coal to be successful," she said, adding that "setting fair Clean Air Act standards does not cause the sky to fall."
Still, stocks of coal mining companies fell on Friday and most are down more than 25 percent for the year to date. Alpha Natural Resources Inc fell 6.2 percent to close at $6.22 on Friday. Peabody Energy Corp closed 3.1 percent lower at $18.16 and Arch Coal Inc dropped 5 percent to $4.74.
"Today's announcement ... is direct evidence that this Administration is trying to hold the coal industry to impossible standards," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from the coal-producing state of West Virginia.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million businesses, said the EPA's strategies "will write off our huge, secure, affordable coal resources."
In her first major speech since being confirmed to the EPA's top job in July, McCarthy described her commitment to cleaner air in sometimes emotional terms, focused on the impact of pollution on public health.
"It's not just the elderly who suffer from air pollution. So do children - especially children in lower income and urban communities," she said. "If your child doesn't need an inhaler, then you are one very lucky parent."
UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY?
Under the new rules, any new coal plant built in the United States would need to install technology to capture its carbon waste, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).
That technology, which aims to prevent the release of large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere, is controversial because it is currently not yet operational on a commercial scale, an issue likely to be central to legal challenges to the EPA.
By giving coal plants seven years, rather than the 30 years proposed in 2012, to achieve an emissions rate below 1,100 lbs per MWh, the EPA is showing that it has full confidence in the nascent CCS technology.
"We now have enough information and confidence to say that a CCS option with coal meets the test of being the best system of emission reduction," David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air Program, told Reuters.
The EPA previously issued a version of the rule last year but made changes to address potential legal weaknesses and to factor in more than 2 million public comments.
The EPA will launch a fresh public comment period after Friday's announcement.
It is due to issue a proposal to address emissions from existing power plants - which account for nearly a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions - by June 2014.
McCarthy, the EPA boss, said on Friday that people should not look at the proposal for new plants and then assume that the future rule for the existing fleet will be similar.
Canada, whose emissions policies are in focus as it waits for a U.S. decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas, applauded the U.S. action on power plants. Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Minister, noted in a statement that Canada has already banned construction of new coal-fired electricity plants that use traditional technology.
(Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Ros Krasny, Eric Beech, Marguerita Choy and Matthew Lewis)
This article displays the United States at its finest. I am glad that Obama was able to pass and hopefully enforce the rule that 1000 pounds of CO2 emissions for every 1 Megawatt hours must be the maximum produced either from coal or natural gas. However, this only pertains to new coal and natural gas plants that are being built. The old plants have up to 7 years to achieve this. Think about 7 years from now if we are producing the same amount of carbon as today. We will begin to start seeing some significant change in the weather and seasonal temperature. Canada has already banned the old technology used in our current power plants and the Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, noted that “Canada has already banned construction of new coal-fired electricity plants that use traditional technology.” I feel that we need to make bolder statements and I agree with you professor when you said we believe we can have our cake and eat it too. This type of motto just doesn’t work yet in America we think we can be sustainable while keeping this up. This doesn’t work and we can clearly see that if we look back at the last 15 years and look at how different the weather was. We need to scrap the carbon capture and storage (CCS) concept and learn to address the root issue. We need to set standards on how much individuals and businesses consume so that we will not be emitting at the current rate we are now. We also need to produce less. If we combine consuming and producing less, we can easily cut half of the CO2 emissions being emitted today. We need to reduce the need for energy whether that be by building smaller homes or increasing the cost of electricity so that we will be more cautious about keeping the lights on. Something along this nature needs to be done we need to focus less on CCS and more of how to as a population consume less. If we cannot solve this critical issue there will be a very dim future for grandchildren and great grandchildren. As we talked about in the last article if we are gradually moving closer to a 6th great extinction and hopefully by producing and consuming less we can prolong the extinction from happening. We need groups to spread this message so that our population can really see how to solve this crisis. We need everyone to consume less so the future will be brighter for all.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Brodeur
Pace Pleasantville
That was pretty well said. WE do need to look at the root issues. If we are going at this rate we will just end up in a very bad situation in the future.
DeleteI really struggle with this notion we should "force" people to do anything. Not because i'm unconcerned with the future results, but because there should be other solutions than simply demanding people pay more for electricity. Several semesters ago I took Green Economics with Professor Karam, during that semester we studied a variety of alternative forms of energy, such as solar, geothermal, wind and others. The idea the government or anyone should indicate how large a home I should build simply because they are worried about my energy output is ludicrous to me. New technologies offering a reduced footprint on the earth and environment would seem to be the perfect way to satisfy everyone.... they would offer new areas of job growth while responsibly protecting our planet and future.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that allowing current plants to take up to seven years to implement the new requirements is laughable. When new regulations are set in place, the the plants should only have as long is necessary to order and install the new parts and procedures. As long as procrastination is allowed it will encourage people to be lethargic down the line about sustainability.
I think President Obama is taking a step in the right direction to regulate carbon pollution created by power plants. There are always going to be opponents from the other side that disagree with the actions that are taken for environmentalism, but this climate change package is something greatly needed in the United States. By having this technology in place that will capture carbon emissions that coal plants release will greatly improve the nation’s excessive amount of carbon emission released. We cannot just keep building coal plants that release carbon emissions and not expect negative outcomes in the future due to the country’s negligence and disregard for the environment and future generations. There needs to be restrictions in place such as this new climate change package. In order to have clean air, there needs to be sacrifices made. These restrictions in the long run will make an impact on public health and it’s especially unfortunate that the release of carbon emissions affects many children and elderly in low income and urban communities the most. This technology that will capture carbon waste aims to prevent the release of large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere and even though it is not yet proven, the EPA is showing signs of full confidence in the CCS technology. There are severe health effects caused by burning coal and the World Health Organization estimated that coal pollution shortens almost 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide. With these facts, we need to take actions such as these. Canada has already banned construction of new coal plants that use the traditional technology. Although this technology I believe will help, at the end of the day we as a society need to consume, produce, and use less energy.
ReplyDeleteJane Han
I am surprised that this regulation was able to be passed, but I am not surprised that it receives so much backlash. People are more interested in continuing the fuel/energy wasting lives they lead now than to change their ways and ensure a better outcome. I agree with Dr. Karam's view that we should reduce the need for energy by producing less but in a society that thrives on over-consumption I no longer believe it is possible to curb this type of behavior. In this country people believe that controlling CO2 output to some degree is infringing on a "right" they have.
ReplyDeleteSomething puzzling is that most people seem to take the viewpoint : "It's our right to kill the planet... as long as the coal industry thrives." How is it that business and what we perceive to be our needs become more important that ensuring our long term capabilities. The technology discussed in the article (CCS) will capture carbon and trap it as opposed to allowing it to release them into the air, though still questionable to some it shows signs of being reliable according to the EPA. Even if this is the new way to help reduce our carbon footprint on this planet, this will not be a solution to the real problem which is that our society needs to re-evaluate what is truly important.
It is great to see someone at the federal level who is pursuing to clean up the mistakes of our past. For too long we have perpetuated this system that is no longer sustainable as more nations come online over the next century. Now that this measure has been put forward the next is to observe the results over the next 7 years. We have to remain mindful of the difference between intentions and results. No matter how well intentioned a plan, legislation, etc is, it is only worth as much as it actually achieves. This legislation also only applies to new plants which is not that extreme of a measure as regulating all existing and future plants with CCS technology.
ReplyDeleteThese new regulations may help the environment (starting 7 years from now) by curbing CO2 emissions from coal power plants, but I'm worried as to what the economic impact will be. No doubt installing this technology on these power plants will be expensive for energy companies and it will bite into producer surplus. The problem I see here is that since many of these companies have regional monopolies (e.g. Con Ed and LIPA), meaning their customers have no real alternatives to them, I can't help but feel that we, the consumers, will end up footing the bill on this one. I doubt an energy company would bite the bullet and decrease their margins rather than spiking their rates in response to this.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has more coal than any other single country. Half of the electricity we use is produced from coal. Because it is affordable, businesses and people use it as energy source. By putting restriction on the amount of CO2 emitted, coal industry will need to upgrade their technology. Of course, this additional cost will be later passed down to consumers. As energy cost increases, businesses overhead will go up and final product will be more expensive. This will reduce the consumption in USA because people will be able to afford less. But I believe this will only happen to middle and lower class people. Wealthy people who over consume more than any other type of people, will not need to change their behavior since energy cost is not a big portion of their income. Although new regulation might help with the environment issue, it will not reduce consumption and middle and lower class will suffer once again. Maybe higher energy cost will give new businesses (like solar power) better advantage.
ReplyDeleteThe other point article makes is that the new technology is unproven and uneconomical. At this point we can just speculate if the new regulation will be successful or if it will have devastated result s later on when all captured CO2 will somehow make it to the atmosphere. I believe coal industries should be responsible for cleaning the environment and not let the people deal with it. It is ironic that all the coal industries are built in the area where people don’t earn as much. I also just read in the New York times that NYC has the cleaner air that it had in the past 50 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/nyregion/new-yorks-air-is-cleanest-in-50-years-survey-finds.html?_r=0
Liba Harvan
Government’s number one responsibility, I’ve always thought, is protecting the health and safety of our people. This is a choice to reduce the amounts of pollution into our atmosphere and into the bodies of our people is a good one. The American people should have the US government to protect them from harmful pollutants from coal plants. There is a opportunity for the public to source out alternative energy or to be not so wasteful.
ReplyDeleteWe are our worst enemies it seem. Despite Obama taking a step in the right direction, its still not enough. This country is always about the bottom dollar and i'm pretty sure the backlash was expected. People seem to only be concern with their selfish needs more than making this country more environmental safer for the future generation. I also agree that global limits is a contradiction. It is like saying, i will fix the country as long as it doesn't hurt my income. Society is just concern with wealth. The pollution that is emitted by the coal companies effect the people whom makes the most money the least. For this reason they will fight tooth and nail to overturn any law that effect there bottom dollar.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great topic. A lot of companies should be looking at ways to reduce emissions and should be regulated even more then they already are. This article states that one third of our greenhouse gases comes from these power plants. We have the right idea by setting stronger regulations in place. We need to get other countries to become more stern with their regulations also. I often see how bad smog is in other countries and it is sickening to see that people have to live their life in those conditions. It also is amazing that people raise their children in these areas and they end up with asthma or other health complications.
ReplyDeleteI think the article hits a very important point that the coal industry has begun to not only effect the world's climate change (among other environmental issues) but also those whom it operates for. Despite the fact that there is new policy being authorized I still believe that until corporations are seen as entities and not people in the eyes of government political advancement towards a sustainable planet will not commence. As a world it is hard to see such a policy pass globally. The issue with this article is not that the policy fails to think of future American families but that it fails to see that the impact of policy must happen on a local, nationally and global scale in order to have a full affect.
ReplyDeleteI really did enjoy reading about this topic. Many companies and business today should always keep in mind on ways they can reduce the emission that they are producing on a daily basics. The fact that a third of greenhouse gases are generated from power plants is alarming in my opinion. We need to work on coming up with ways that can help us be more efficient in regulating the amount of pollution we are contributing. This is not something that the United States are offenders of, the entire world needs to come up with a plan before its too late. The US Government needs to start stepping in and look for ways in which they can work with companies to eliminate producing so much greenhouse gases.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like with the way technology is skyrocketing in the United States, the harder it is to avoid pollution. Although technology is advancing, it is doing so at the cost of many other factors, the biggest being our environment and our health. Those who do reside in less fortunate communities are definitely at higher risk of being highly effected by these conditions. I do agree with the fact that we must have more of an awareness of the damage which air pollution is causing and must reduce it. The United States seems to always be put in the lime light when it comes to such offenses but that's only because it is a superpower, hence the diversity, which consists of global citizens. Therefore, as much as people are coming over here to progress, they're also participating in the emission.
ReplyDeleteGabriella Matsotso
I think that it is a good that there is a concern to decrease carbon pollution, and that Obama is trying to regulate the industry more. Although if the most efficient plant produces 1800 pounds and the government wants to regulate it at 1100 pounds in seven years seems alittle much. The methods of doing this are expensive and not proven. This being said costs of energy will continue to rise. Also with technology always advancing pollution will still continue. I agree that carbon pollution should be limited if its starting to cause such problems but maybe in different way that would be more effective. I think that more research should go into finding methods that would make it cost efficient to be more environmentally friendly.
ReplyDeleteWith the new plan enforcing Co2 emissions to be set to a maximum of 1000lbs per every 1 MHW of electricity produced within 7 years rather than the proposed 30 year target we can really see the U.S. government trying to set a precedent for environmental regulations. As the coal industry rapidly tries to adopt this set of rules we will see if it actually happens. Although 7 years is a much shorter time frame than 30 years but a lot can happen in those 7 years. Apparently the technology required to meet the target emissions is unavailable for large factories so unless we see that technology become usable there may be a provision introduced to either extend the target date of this new law or some other adaptation changing the requirements.
ReplyDeleteNicholas Maier.