EPA Ruling Could Speed Up Approval of Coal Plants

EPA Ruling Could Speed Up Approval of Coal Plants

by Matthew L. Wald and Felicity Barringer

WASHINGTON - Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency ruled late Thursday. Some environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration.


Greenpeace activists demonstrate against CO2 emissions in front of the cooling towers at the 'Staudinger' coal power plant in Grosskrotzenburg, 30km (18 miles) south of Frankfurt, November 17, 2008. (Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters)

The ruling, by Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator, responds to a decision made last month by the Environmental Appeals Board, a panel within the E.P.A., that had blocked the construction of a small new plant on the site of an existing power plant, Bonanza, on Ute tribal land in eastern Utah.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the agency could regulate carbon dioxide, the most prevalent global warming gas, under existing law. The agency already requires some power plants to track how much carbon dioxide they emit.

But a memorandum issued by Mr. Johnson late Thursday puts the agency on record saying that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant to be regulated when approving power plants. He cited "sound policy considerations."

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/19-0

promoting Clean Coal.

They can deploy it as soon as they can actually make it clean, not before. Obama never said anything else.

of splanin to do if he starts shutting down coal generating plants. The same with the AWB he said over and over again he supported the 2nd Amendment and just a few days ago made the statement he wasn't going to take anyone's guns away and said we can take him at his word. Joe Biden stuck his foot in his mouth about coal and both him and Obama had to clear that up. I think Obama is a lot less liberal than many Democrats were led to believe.

He has been clear and consistent; he supports research into clean coal. He supports opening more coal plants only if the carbon is able to be sequestered. This technology currently doesn't exist. Don't blame him for the lies of the coal industry that try to portray the technology as being ready.

He also has been clearly behind legislation to capture the costs of carbon from fossil fuels in their pricing.

although it is was waste of time Joe Biden came to WV. Illinois is also a fairly big coal state I believe. Also Obama clarified Joe Biden's remark immediately when he said we won't build coal plants in the USA. Maybe the people in WV were right by not supporting him then since he was lying all along according to you. I think Obama is smart enough to know you just can't eliminate better than 50% of your energy supply. All of this wind, solar and hydro is also undeveloped technology, same as you say about coal. I don't buy all this global warming BS, it's just a normal climate pattern. Thirty years ago there was a lot of so called experts that claimed we had a new ice age coming. The truth is the technology doesn't exist to replace coal and won't for decades.

About not thinking climate change is a legitimate issue, I mean? If you are serious, I'd say you have a lot more reason to be angry at the people who mine coal and petroleum than you do Obama. I can easily prove that they have been lying to you and show you exactly how they've been lying to you. I mean, you don't sound like the type person that likes being played for a fool and they have seriously lied to you in precisely the same way that the tobacco companies lied about knowing nicotine was addictive while they were deliberately upping the nicotine content to get people hooked. In fact, the fossil fuel people and the Repukes have been/are using a lot of the very same "experts" in the climate change denial industry as the tobacco companies used. They modeled the anti-climate change propaganda campaign on the success of the tobacco industry's campaign.

As for what Obama said, let's take a look.
Nov.2 2008 to SF Chronicle
"Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them."

Now, did he play politics a lot of the time and measure his words about clean coal carefully to create an impression that wouldn't alarm the voters who depend on coal mining for a living? Yes he did. But in his defense he was, once the campaign started, pretty clear and consistent. And like I said earlier, it isn't his fault that the coal industry has spent millions lying to people and telling them the technology is ready. Here is a WashPost article looking as his hair-splitting:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/20/obamas_coal_stance_in_kentucky.html

As far as clean coal technology being on the same level as wind, solar and geothermal, well, it just isn't true. Those are all mature technologies that have proved they work and how much they cost. The nuts and bolts of sequestering carbon from coal, however, simply hasn't been figured out - not even theoretically. There is a world of difference.

Finally, Ohio mines about the same amount of coal that Alabama does. It isn't one of the states where it is a big part of the economy, although it isn't insignificant.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table1.html
Check for yourself.

If you want to know the particulars of how Exxon and others have lied about climate change, let me know and I'll be happy to give a reading list.

made about not building coal fired plants in the US. Obama also claimed his statement in SF was not true or taken out of context. No I don't believe people are causing any climate change I think it's just a natural climate cycle. Ohio at one time was covered with a glacier it actually ended just a few miles from where I live. You can believe what you want but there is no way Obama is going to shut down the coal fired plants we receive 85% of our electricity from coal here. I think if anyone has been deceived about this it is the environmentalists, I don't think Obama is stupid enough to actually think you can eliminate coal. Like I said there were many back in the 70s that were warning of a coming ice age. I am not angry at Obama I think if he deceived anyone it is you, he just simply not shutting down the coal plants. If you think you can produce even 25% of our energy from wind solar or geothermal you're dreaming. Well maybe you could if we all lived in log cabins and rode bicycles like the true environmental nut jobs want. I think you are in for a rude awaking, Obama isn't as far left as you think. Just look at the appointments he has made so far.

I have looked at his appointments and all of those associated with energy and science are on the record as believing that dealing with climate change is our number one priority.

The Biden dust up was about "clean coal" and was a case where he told the simple truth - there is no such thing. Obama responded that he supported research and development of "clean coal" technology. He has NEVER said nor indicated his support for conventional coal plants. As I wrote, his was a lie of omission - unlike Biden, Obama did nothing to challenge the "clean coal" lie the coal industry has spent so much money spreading. I can live with that.

You obviously don't care about the truth regarding the impact of fossil fuels, and I can live with that also. Especially since action is going to commence on addressing the problem on January 20, 2009.

I'd like to ask a favor of you. Pretend for a short while that you might not (just might not, mind you) already know everything, then download and read this interesting article detailing Exxon's work at hoodwinking you.

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

UCS report finds that the oil company spent nearly $16 million to fund skeptic groups, create confusion

A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

You can download the pdf here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

***Do you have a swimming pool or have you ever cared for a pool? If so, then you know that in order to keep the scum from growing you need to keep the ph level from reverting to open water's natural range, right? Life can't grow when the water is either too acidic or too base.
Well, the symptoms of "global warming" are a lot more complicated than the name implies. One of those symptoms is that as carbon dioxide is absorbed at higher levels by the oceans, they become more acidic. This is predicted by "global warming" theory and is measurably happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

And just to be clear, it is going to be a really, really bad thing if our oceans start to be as inhospitable to life as a swimming pool.

Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems.
Guinotte JM, Fabry VJ.

Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Bellevue, WA 98004-2947, USA. john@mcbi.org

Ocean acidification is rapidly changing the carbonate system of the world oceans.

Past mass extinction events have been linked to ocean acidification, and the current rate of change in seawater chemistry is unprecedented.

Evidence suggests that these changes will have significant consequences for marine taxa, particularly those that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic calcium carbonate.

Potential changes in species distributions and abundances could propagate through multiple trophic levels of marine food webs, though research into the long-term ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification is in its infancy.

This review attempts to provide a general synthesis of known and/or hypothesized biological and ecosystem responses to increasing ocean acidification.

Marine taxa covered in this review include tropical reef-building corals, cold-water corals, crustose coralline algae, Halimeda, benthic mollusks, echinoderms, coccolithophores, foraminifera, pteropods, seagrasses, jellyfishes, and fishes.

The risk of irreversible ecosystem changes due to ocean acidification should enlighten the ongoing CO(2) emissions debate and make it clear that the human dependence on fossil fuels must end quickly.

Political will and significant large-scale investment in clean-energy technologies are essential if we are to avoid the most damaging effects of human-induced climate change, including ocean acidification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18566099

Global warming is a scam.

"ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science"...probably some truth to it but lets talk about the massive "disinformation campaign" of the UN IPCC:

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


So, from what I see;
UN IPCC = ExxonMobil

Of course, you could say "there are only 650 of those that oppose. What about the 2500 in the UN IPCC that approve?"
To that I say "who is paying the 2500 people who are for it?"

Now, a "paid for" opinion...sounds a lot like your oil industry.



As far as the Ocean acidification and its potential effects on marine ecosystems.

That's the poorest example yet!
Evidence suggests, Potential changes, could propagate, attempts to provide, known and/or hypothesized biological and ecosystem responses, etc.

So, it could, might, attempt..? If this was a conversation with a doctor about the cancer you could, might have; wouldn't you get a second opinion...or do some research yourself?

If you do a little digging and actually LOOK at the so called facts these quacks are passing off, you'll see that it is ALL could, might, potentially...

The main point AGAINST global warming is not that it isn't happening, it's that it isn't going to kill you NEXT WEEK! Let's step back a bit and embrace what we can do now as well as continue to progress toward reduction. Do you really want to pay 3X's what you pay for electricity now?..because that WILL happen if we continue on our current path! How much did your bill go up when fuel went up? Soon, they'll have to pay for high-priced fuel + CO2 credits + emissions upgrades +...and that'll get passed right on to the consumer.

This "YOU MUST ACT NOW!!" should be the dead giveaway that it is blown out of proportion.

:boring:

Really, linking Inhofe(Crazy Asshat- OK)? You know that list is exactly the kind of disinformation propaganda referred to above, right?

You've got to be kidding. You want to join in and the first post you put in basically equates the rest of us with power company sponsored propagandists?

shut down all the coal plants, that's where most of our electricity comes from. Currently electricity is the cheapest way to heat in this area and the reason is we have lots and lots of coal. We don't have solar, wind, geothermal or Hydro in all areas to make them practical. Sure you can put up a bunch of windmills in the Rockies but how do you transport it 1500 miles. I'm sure you will claim their is some great secret technology for that. As of now you have to send it by wire and of course the environmental extremists are against that to. The existing coal plants will be grandfathered in unless you want your electric bill to quadruple and I'm sure we will find ways to use coal in future plants. Why should I believe someone like Al Gore about climate change, he wants us to live in a tent and ride a bicycle. But what does he do, he lives in a house that probably uses 10 times the energy my house or yours uses. If you're going to talk the talk walk the walk. I replaced my oil furnace with a total electric heat pump. Now instead of burning oil in a furnace with no emission controls on it I use electricity supplied by coal from a plant that has spent billions on environmental systems. I work at a industrial water treatment plant and I know how much our company has spent on environmental systems and I know our plant is 100 times cleaner today than 40 years ago. The Ohio river was an open sewer back in those days and I remember when the Cuyahoga caught fire. I work on a steel furnace, tell me where we would get that amount of electricity and not use coal in your world? There's two options either move it to the Rockies and run it from thousands of wind mills or move it to China where they burn f----g coal.

or ride a bicycle. By the way, I'm sure a good look at your coal plant will show it hasn't spent "billions" on environmental systems. This is another piece of propaganda that power companies and refineries put out. They can't afford the pollution controls that would be required on new or revamped plants. It's a lie. You're looking at about $200 million to comply with the NESHAP/NSPS requirements (the real ones, not the Bush rollbacks) on a plant. That's less than the retirement packages of the CEO's that come waltzing through those companies and work for 5 years before moving on with that fat sack of cash.

Again here's the "coal is the only source of fuel" argument that makes all the environmental damage caused by obtaining that coal OK.

Ohio has about 66 gigawatts of high quality wind resources that can be developed.

You have about 185 megawatts of large scale hydro *above* what you have already developed plus quite a bit of microhydro.

Ohio has fairly good biomass resources. There is bound to be some solar and I suspect a llittle geothermal might also be a viable option.

Ohio already imports $24 billion dollars worth of energy every year.

These are just a few of the possibilities. And yes, we DO have s great super secret technology to move electricity 1500 miles, it is called the grid and it uses copper or aluminum wire. They even have superconducting underground cables for a price that comes close to conventional transmission lines. Upgrading the grid is very high on the list of priorities for the infrastructure spending.

You must be a right wingnut news fan to be parroting their garbage about Gore. Their stock in trade is to demonize the people that threaten their special interests and Gore is at the top of their hit list right after Obama. I sometimes listen to them myself, yet I know better than to believe their lying asses.

Hey, I'm sure you have some other reason to vote Democratic besides energy or environment - you clearly support the Republican position on those two areas. Just out of curiosity, what issue are the Democrats on the right side of that earns them your vote? Surely we don't disagree on everything.

that could be developed. Do we have a flux capacitor with that? We have 185 megawatts of large scale hydro? That's a joke we have the Ohio river and it has taken years and years to get through Corp of Engineers and EPA red tape to build a small hydro plant at one dam. About the grid, every time they run the super high voltage power lines you have a dozen environmental groups putting up road blocks. The reason I vote Democrat is the Democrats are (little) more labor friendly. Just because I vote Democrat doesn't mean I support the far left agenda. We have the radical fringe on the left that is just as wacky as the ones on the right. The left wingers don't even support labor they would rather see the Big 3 shut down and 3 million people lose their jobs. Did you hear the news today Toyota lost $1.6 billion this year apparently they aren't building cars people want either. GM makes more models that get under 30 MPG than the Japanese manufactures do. Toyota makes one model the Prius that is a stand out. In the spring Ford is coming out with a Fusion and Milan hybrid that is going to blow the doors off the Camry hybrid and give the Prius a run for the money and it looks like a real car.

I'm a strong supporter of labor and always have been, I agree completely on the cause of the automaker's problems (I lived in Japan for 11 years and know more than most about their car industry) and I support an approach to "free trade" that focuses on what is good for the middle class rather than the corporations.

You're off target about climate change and energy being a "far left" issue, though. You need to get your head out of those radio speakers and understand that science isn't a political issue. This shit is deadly serious and no amount of sticking Limpball's fingers in your ear while shouting "leftist, leftist leftist" is going to change that.

Myself, I think GM is on the right track with the Volt. Ford is going to have to squeeze about 45mpg out of their new design to begin to meet the standards that cars like the Volt are going to set.

Hang in there, it is getting tough for everyone.

it is meant to compete with the hybrid Camry not the Prius and from what I read it should get about 5 miles per gallon better gas mileage. They say the Fusion will be able to run on battery power totally up to 47 MPH. But you know Americans have a very short attention span and with the gas at $1.50 they will forget soon and the auto companies will be stuck with hybrids and they will want their SUVs and pickups. I have to disagree with you on the climate change thing and I think the majority of Americans would agree more with me. Last night at my water treatment plant I ran my butt off trying to keep things thawed out and operating, it was 2º with a -19º wind chill, that sure didn't seem like any kind of global warming to me.

One thing you can count on, gas is going back up. There was speculation in the $4/gal price, but China and India are still there and the still use only a small fraction per person of what we do. My forecast, for what it's worth, is that gas demand will recover midyear next year (09) and the price will start pushing towards $3/gal.

I know you were probably kidding about local weather and global warming, but let me point out anyway that as the planet as a whole gets hotter on average, that heat is being absorbed by the oceans and it is changing/will change the way ocean and air currents distribute the heat around the planet.

What do you make of the ph balance of the ocean becoming more acidic? There are micro-sized shellfish in the ocean and we are already seeing some places where the acidic water is causing a thinning (dissolving) of their exoskeletons. These things are the bottom of the food chain.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com We can't stand anymore prosperity !!!

:(

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

Or what they claim it to reduce?
SO2 - greenhouse gas? no, precursor to acid rain but not a greenhouse gas.
VOCs - greenhouse gas? no, precursor to tropospheric ozone but not a greenhouse gas.
CO - greenhouse gas? no, product of incomplete combustion and "clean coal" isn't what makes the difference.
PM - greenhouse gas? no, decreased by better scrubbing, ESP, or baghouses and "clean coal" isn't what makes the difference.

The whole thing is a big propaganda campaign and too many people accept it without question. All I keep hearing is that there's a 250-year supply of coal and it's our only solution. How about getting off the fossil fuels? No?

on edit: to explain to the poster who insulted us here - "clean coal" is being sold as a way to reduce greenhouse gasses and thus help fight global climate change, or whatever sugar coating they like to put on the words. In reality, it doesn't do anything of the sort. But selling it that way makes the rest of America think it's OK to blow up mountain tops and dump the slag and shit in rivers and streams...all for the sake of combating global warming. Meanwhile, more coal plants eqquals more air pollution, even if the emissions from individual plants are lower than they could be without the amped up pollution controls.