New EPA coal regs = $180 billion

[motorguy222]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Loaded??!? Lol.

Your standards may not be as high as mine when it comes to keeping a car's finish. Again, who are you to mandate what is good enough?


I think you need to ask this of yourself.You seem to have a mandate against coal.

I ask you this.Where do you think electricty comes from? The vast majority comes from coal and there is no plausible alternative in the foreseeable future,regardless of what the EPA and others that promote these things might say.

I live in a state that coal is almost the only source of electricty and I have never had a problem with acid rain.

You work with chemicals,suppose the EPA comes in and adds a huge tax to the chemicals you work with and they have the intent to make them so unaffordable that they cant be used,as they are coal.Also consider that the foreseeable future has no replacement for the chemicals in question.

Do you not think that your industry would not lose jobs? Of course it would.It would also increase the prices of products that use the chemicals that are taxed.

When you take chemicals getting taxed to the point thay that cant be used in an affordable way and then you add the fact that there is no real replacement for these chemicals,there will be job loss.

 

[JHZR2]

No kidding. Yours is a fine and reasonable response. But as Shannow mentioned earlier what is the deal with 60 years of grandfathering?

Further, thereof a lot of knee jerk to the document, which wasnt well done and most likely didn't read anyway... The basis seems to assume that the regulations would require capital costs such that the coal plants would all just shut down overnight. Well, if coal is such a GREAT deal, then the capital costs would be passed on, sure, but long term the cost of the raw material is low enough that if it makes economic sense to keep burning it, then it will be burned... And that would change the whole story of the NG prices and everything else.

This reads to me like a step function, which is likely highly impractical. I doubt the grid has enough standby generation or inertia to turn off all coal as fast as they define...

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
As I said, factory paint jobs leave something to be desired as far as durability in some cases. A properly applied aftermarket finish will last almost forever.


I guess that most of the repairers and aftermarketters in Oz could learn a thing or ten from the OEMs.

What about your limestone public, and concrete buildings dissolving ?

Who pays for that ?

How, Who, and when ?


Oh please. Who cares about limestone buildings and concrete. Is that one of the newest scares we are supposed to change our whole way of life for? I hadn't heard about THAT one yet. This enviro-garbage is just over the top. I even heard that "global warming" would cause more zits on teenagers.

The only way the eco-weenies will ever be satisfied is if we go back to the horse and buggy days. Then they'll find something else to complain about for more control and a reduction in property rights over the populous.

The idiots in this country have spent untold billions for the last 30 years running around digging up asbestos insulation, chiseling up asbestos tile/linoleum and scraping lead based paint off of the walls when if they just left it there it would have never been a problem until there was a NEED to replace/repair/repaint.

On the subject of automotive refinishing there are many aftermarket body and paint shops that could learn a few things. I didn't work at the "production" shops. I did restoration work on collector cars.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Oh please. Who cares about limestone buildings and concrete. Is that one of the newest scares we are supposed to change our whole way of life for? I hadn't heard about THAT one yet. This enviro-garbage is just over the top. I even heard that "global warming" would cause more zits on teenagers.


If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest bloke on your street.

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Oh please. Who cares about limestone buildings and concrete. Is that one of the newest scares we are supposed to change our whole way of life for? I hadn't heard about THAT one yet. This enviro-garbage is just over the top. I even heard that "global warming" would cause more zits on teenagers.


If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest bloke on your street.


No Shannow,

There is no ignorance here. It never seems to amaze me that someone as educated as yourself can't see the BIG picture. Inside the collage of legitimate environmental concerns we all have are a great many lies incorporated intentionally to take away property rights and freedom, worldwide.

You live on a prison island for a reason. Here in the states we aren't so quick to give what is left of our freedom up because some talking head or bought off scientist tells us to.

Limestone and concrete dissolving? You must be kidding! Our Pentagon is made out of limestone not that I'm happy at all considering what goes on there but are we to tear it down so YOU can feel safe?

 

[Torino]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Oh please. Who cares about limestone buildings and concrete. Is that one of the newest scares we are supposed to change our whole way of life for? I hadn't heard about THAT one yet. This enviro-garbage is just over the top. I even heard that "global warming" would cause more zits on teenagers.


If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest bloke on your street.
+++++1. John--Las Vegas

No Shannow,

There is no ignorance here. It never seems to amaze me that someone as educated as yourself can't see the BIG picture. Inside the collage of legitimate environmental concerns we all have are a great many lies incorporated intentionally to take away property rights and freedom, worldwide.

You live on a prison island for a reason. Here in the states we aren't so quick to give what is left of our freedom up because some talking head or bought off scientist tells us to.

Limestone and concrete dissolving? You must be kidding! Our Pentagon is made out of limestone not that I'm happy at all considering what goes on there but are we to tear it down so YOU can feel safe?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
As for mercury? If it's so dangerous why are they mandating light bulbs loaded with it?


The amount of mercury in coal your CFL can reduce by being more efficient (if used correctly) is much more than the tiny amount of mercury in CFL.

You should have learned that by now.

 

[PandaBear]

There is no short term viable alternative to replace coal, it is too cheap, and we in the world have too much of it. It doesn't means it is clean and has no side effect when burnt. Acid rain is a real issue that causes not just car paints (that's the least of my concern, and no, I'm not going to let Trvlr500 touch my OEM paint), but soil condition, building (metal and concrete) condition, Nox emission and soots causing local residents health problem, ground water pollution (may not be to the extend of undrinkable), etc.

In the US the power plants do a relatively good job compare to the rest of the 3rd world, because of EPA and all the mandate to scrub and clean off the pollutions at the expense of efficiency. Like Shannow said before, you can run the power plant with more efficiency but generate more pollution, but due to regulation we do not.

Go visit a coal fired power plant in the 3rd world country, and live next to it for a few months, and see if you would still bash the work EPA did and ask them to raise the pollution limit (or eliminate it) for a 11% reduction in electricity price. As a matter of fact you don't even need to go there, just visit Northern China and stay in places that still use coal for heating, cooking, and local electricity generation, and see if you will still be bashing EPA like you do now.

China is replacing dirty coal power plant with cleaner coal power plant, for a country that is 3rd world, with lots of coal, short of electricity, and disregard human right, that should tell you something (more than what the coal lobbyists do).

 

[LTVibe]

This news is from Virginia, June 10, 2011. We will see more of this in months and years to come:

Coal-fired plant to close — AEP announces Glen Lyn facility among those slated to be retired

Quote:
“...the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies.”

AEP projects that closing the Glen Lyn plant will result in the loss of 44 jobs, according to AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry. “AEP will do what it can to relocate employees at other power plants in the system, but Glen Lyn is by itself and not close to any other power plants like, for example, the ones on the Ohio River.”

She said that AEP has been successful in reducing harmful emissions from its coal-fired power plants, but said the EPA’s regulations will have an adverse impact in the areas served by AEP. “We think the EPA’s regulations will have an adverse costly impact on the communities,” she said. “What we’re seeking is balance.”

Other plants slated for retirement on Dec. 31, 2014 in addition to Glen Lyn include the Kammer Plant in Moundsville, the Kanawha River Plant in Glasgow, the Phillip Sporn Plant in New Haven, the Picway Plant in Lockbourne, Ohio, two units of the Big Sandy Plant in Louisa, Ky., one unit of the Clinch River Plant in Cleveland, Va., one unit of the Conesville Plant in Conesville, Ohio, two units of the Muskingum River Plant in Beverly, Ohio, three units of the Tanners Creek Plant in Lawrenceburg, Ind., and one unit of the Welsh Plant in Pittsburg, Texas.

 

[JHZR2]

So again, DOES the grid have enough generating inertia and/or standby capacity to allow these shutdowns to occur? What about spinning reserve an standby plants at that point for the power companies and interconnects are comfortable with maintaining power quality?

Again, the original document shows essentially a step function. I dont see that as practical. It seems to imply that no real additional capacity or attempt at efficiencies of operation will occur. I'd think that to operate the extra plants, let alone build replacements (our electrical demand isn't goin down last I checked), we will need extra jobs so people can operate and keep those replacement plants... Or install and keep the new emissions equipment, which is a viable solution too.

Claiming that we've obtained prosperity or efficiency or cheap energy because of coal is all well and good. Doing so by ignoring the times and the effects and grandfathering in 60yo technology endlessly is a poor excuse. Sounds more like an item just paying for itself so many times over that it costs nothing. That's not bad, but if that is what the industry relies upon to stay viable, then perhaps it isn't really...

As was mentioned before, coal is cheap and we have lots of it. I do t mind it as a fuel source. But to ignore the realities of it's basic chemical composition, and then say it doesn't matter is short sighted. To say that adding controls to plants that have been grandfathered too long is not viable, and so gigawatts of generation wil just be shut down in short order is also a scare tactic and IMO not viable.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: LTVibe
This news is from Virginia, June 10, 2011. We will see more of this in months and years to come:

Coal-fired plant to close — AEP announces Glen Lyn facility among those slated to be retired

Quote:
“...the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies.”

AEP projects that closing the Glen Lyn plant will result in the loss of 44 jobs, according to AEP spokesperson Melissa McHenry. “AEP will do what it can to relocate employees at other power plants in the system, but Glen Lyn is by itself and not close to any other power plants like, for example, the ones on the Ohio River.”

She said that AEP has been successful in reducing harmful emissions from its coal-fired power plants, but said the EPA’s regulations will have an adverse impact in the areas served by AEP. “We think the EPA’s regulations will have an adverse costly impact on the communities,” she said. “What we’re seeking is balance.”

Other plants slated for retirement on Dec. 31, 2014 in addition to Glen Lyn include the Kammer Plant in Moundsville, the Kanawha River Plant in Glasgow, the Phillip Sporn Plant in New Haven, the Picway Plant in Lockbourne, Ohio, two units of the Big Sandy Plant in Louisa, Ky., one unit of the Clinch River Plant in Cleveland, Va., one unit of the Conesville Plant in Conesville, Ohio, two units of the Muskingum River Plant in Beverly, Ohio, three units of the Tanners Creek Plant in Lawrenceburg, Ind., and one unit of the Welsh Plant in Pittsburg, Texas.





Of course...

AEP:

Show Overview

Hide Environmental record

The Political Economy Research Institute ranks American Electric Power 45th among corporations emitting airborne pollutants in the United States. The ranking is based on the quantity (91 million pounds in 2005) and toxicity of the emissions.[12] Major pollutants include sulfuric and hydrochloric acid, and chromium, manganese and nickel compounds.[13] Overall, electric power plants, such as those operated by AEP, account for almost "70 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions each year and 30 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions." Individually, these pollutants cause serious respiratory damage and other illnesses; when combined, they create what's known as acid rain, which causes long term damage to the environment and deterioration of natural and man-made structures.[14] Environmental Protection Agency has named American Electric a potentially responsible party at the Green River Disposal Inc. Superfund toxic waste site.[15]

Justice Department lawsuit

The United States Justice Department filed a lawsuit on November 3, 1999, against AEP and six other companies for violating the Clean Air Act. On October 8, 2007, AEP agreed to install US$4.6 billion in equipment to reduce emission, as well as pay a US$15 million civil fine.[1] The company will cut 813,000 tons of air pollutants annually once all of the controls are installed.[16] According to the press release, the agreement imposes caps on emissions of pollutants from 16 plants located in five states. The facilities are located in Moundsville (2 facilities), St. Albans, Glasgow, and New Haven (2 facilities), West Virginia; Louisa, Kentucky; Glen Lyn and Carbo, Virginia; Brilliant, Conesville, Cheshire, Lockbourne, and Beverly, Ohio; and Rockport and Lawrenceburg, Indiana.

↑ Jump Back A Section
Hide Political influence

AEP's political action committee, the American Electric Power Committee for Responsible Government, has increased spending since the 1998 election cycle, reaching $1.4 million in contributions in 2007-2008, 57 percent to Republicans.[17] Also in 2008, American Electric Power significantly increased lobbying expenditures from less than $2 million a year to over $11 million, as climate legislation became a key issue in Washington.[18]

In 2009, AEP CEO Michael Morris contributed $100,000 to Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future, which supports increased oil drilling and opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas pollution.[19] American Electric Power is also a member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying and marketing organization which opposes President Obama's climate and clean energy legislation.[20]

The last part is FYI because it is important to understandthat the articles and documentation is usually done to please the funding source, NOT necessarily independent. It is not pasted to be political. They are paying for influence just like anyone else so the commentary should be take neither a grain of salt, like anything else.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
They are paying for influence...

Looks like the EPA is winning, and AEP's 'paying for influence' was wasted time and money.

 

[JHZR2]

Seems like they've got most of the people in this thread aligned... Of course that's likely more political brainwashing for most than open minded analysis.

The reality is somewhere in-between the EPA and AEP, IMO.

 

[Shannow]

Thing that is a bit (actually a lot) silly with this particular policy is that it only applies to black coal power, which typically operates in the low 30s-40s efficiency wise, and not to brown coal, which is generally low 20s.

The brown coalers are way worse polluters (of nearly every pollutant), but EPA acknowledge that they are and let them go, as it's too hard to change them.

Something's fishy when a policy closes black coal over brown.

Also, some mercury removal processes tie up the fly ash from concrete production, meaning that another pollutant has to be stockpiled.

As per JHZR2, then truth is generally in the centre.

 

[JHZR2]

I think that there is a lot more brown coal (western, high S, V, Hg) than black coal. I heard that someplace regarding where one would install FT plants. Dont know how correct it is though.

But if the case, then the black coal plants would also be much closer located to the major population centers in the USA, which I'd think has to do with some of the thought process.

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
As for mercury? If it's so dangerous why are they mandating light bulbs loaded with it?


The amount of mercury in coal your CFL can reduce by being more efficient (if used correctly) is much more than the tiny amount of mercury in CFL.

You should have learned that by now.


CFL's put out poor light and as well as having mercury in them emit a poison called "phenol" which isn't good for you if you spend long periods of time close to one.

If you ever break one and do the clean up "the government way" you'll wish you never had one of those things in your house. Try $2000 on for size if you break one and tell the government about it.

There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.

Enjoy!

 

[Trvlr500]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Seems like they've got most of the people in this thread aligned... Of course that's likely more political brainwashing for most than open minded analysis.

The reality is somewhere in-between the EPA and AEP, IMO.


The "political brainwashing" comes from college grads mostly. It used to be that you could trust what you're taught in college. Those days are long gone. The "change agents" did their job well way back in the 50's and 60's.

You actually trust the Department of Justice? That's funny. The DOJ is nothing but a criminal enterprise just as congress is, for the most part.

There is no justice being served there or 90% of these environmentalist groups would be shut down and their "leaders" thrown in jail for fraud, extortion and racketeering along with the judges that enable them to sue the way they do.

As far as paying for influence? Who's funding the environmental lobby from overseas and right here? Both sides of the isle take money from the same people. Spend some time at "Open Secrets.org". If they haven't scrubbed the site from the internet by now.

Barbara Boxer was an energy trader on Wall Street before she became a senator and an "environmentalist". She owned stock in Halliburton last I heard. She has no problem making money from the energy industry. She has a VERY sordid history.

Talk about brainwashing!

 

[JHZR2]

Trust me, I went to a top engineering school and there was no brainwashing either way when it came to the technical aspects of all these processes.

Of course now youll probably claim that MSDSs are also written by some left-wing conspiracy, right?

The fact that the Rothschilds control the money flow and both sides doesnt mean that there isnt a reality to a lot of this stuff that has some alignment and a lot of conflicts to what you say.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

You should have learned that by now.


CFL's put out poor light and as well as having mercury in them emit a poison called "phenol" which isn't good for you if you spend long periods of time close to one.


T8 florescent work light has mercury in them too, and no one is complaining about them at work place, mall, school, everywhere except home. OSHA doesn't seems to mind, so why would you selectively mind the miniaturize version (CFL)?

I suggest you cut down on the consipracy theory sites and go to a more "reputable" source like the UK Department of Environment if you don't trust the US.

“Although they contain mercury, limited at 5mg per lamp, it cannot escape from a lamp that is intact.

“In any case, the very small amount contained in an energy efficient bulb is unlikely to cause harm even if the lamp should be broken.”

About Phenol: don't buy cheap CFL and pay a bit more for the good quality ones.

Phenol can be a solid mercury
Phenol is a chemical raw material, often used in the manufacture of industrial solvents. Associate Professor, Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Zheng Liming pointed out that mercury and other manufacturers to make a solid coating of light-emitting material in the glass surface of compact fluorescent lamps, mercury must first be mixed with solvents, can be applied step, therefore, if the solvent containing phenol The ingredients and manufacturing process has not been fully volatile, there may be left in the light bulb inside.


Zheng Liming respect, every light bulb manufacturer of materials and solvents used are different, so not all brands of compact fluorescent lamps are phenol. However, if the phenol is a solvent used to make the most economic materials, there may be widely used in similar products.

http://www.waichilighting.com/news/details/38

Quote:
If you ever break one and do the clean up "the government way" you'll wish you never had one of those things in your house. Try $2000 on for size if you break one and tell the government about it.


Who told you to clean up the EPA way? Do you call EPA if your mercury thermometer fell and cracked? Do you also call EPA if you spill your engine oil?

Quote:
There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.


Dumb people would kill themselves going under a car on scissor jacks too, that doesn't means if scissor jack is used correctly it isn't useful and safe.

Dumb people also would prefer a coal power plant next to their home with no emission control so they can save 11% on their electricity. Dumb people would also prefer to pay more for electricity than using CFL if it is the right application (my dad's apartment electricity bill dropped by $40 a month since switching to CFL).

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trvlr500

The "political brainwashing" comes from college grads mostly. It used to be that you could trust what you're taught in college. Those days are long gone. The "change agents" did their job well way back in the 50's and 60's.


Absolutely, today we should trust the guy in the slum of India that invented a method to turn urine into gasoline with no energy input, instead of the college grads working for oil companies that spend billions and potential lost of lives to extract oils and refine gasoline.

We should also trust a guy with Ouija board that discover enough oil in the middle of Montana that can make America energy independent without buying any foreign oil, rather than the college grads working for oil companies that scrap the projects because it would not be profitable and the volume of oil too little to be bothered with.