# EPA announces historic rule to clean or shut coal-burning power plants



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 22, 2011)

> WASHINGTON — Unveiling a historic rule, the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced the first national requirement for the nation's coal-fired power plants to reduce emissions of mercury, arsenic, cyanide and other toxic pollutants.
> The landmark ruling took more than 20 years for the EPA to finish. Under the Clean Air Act, many other sources of air pollution have been cleaned up, but power plants were so important to the economy that they long had a pass.
> 
> About 60 percent of the nation's plants, however, already comply with the new requirement because of state rules. *The remaining 40 percent* are a major source of pollution, producing more than half the mercury emissions in the country, the EPA said. The ruling will require coal-fired power plants to add pollution-control equipment or close. Many plants already scheduled to close are 50 years or older.


Read more here: http://www.thestate....l#storylink=cpy

Looks like we're gonna loses a lot of power....


----------



## Master slacker (Dec 22, 2011)

As long as baby seals and spotted owls are safe, that's all that matters.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 22, 2011)

The EPA needs to go.

It had its purpose, but it now overstepping its bounds. Time to go bye bye.

I think the states' DEPs should have control over these environmental issues.


----------



## engineergurl (Dec 22, 2011)

interesting article, but I would like to have seen some numerical examples at to why they decided this is necessary, what limits did they set, and how much of a reduction of pollution will occur. I also think that the article has a good point on the three year time limit for plants to implement control measures... I think that 7 years is more realistic.

I don't think that the EPA needs to go away, but I think that there definitely needs to be some restructuring and redefining of it's purpose and responsibilities.


----------



## Master slacker (Dec 22, 2011)

Three years is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY to fast. Internally, it took one year to install a lube oil varnish removal unit on a single gas turbine. Good luck having these control measures in place within three years.


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 22, 2011)

This has been on the radar for some time and the power industry has been trying to brace for it, but now the cat is out of the bag and at least some of the uncertainty is removed. It's hard to make financial decisions when you don't really know what the rule is going to say.

Yes, three years is a *very *short time frame - ridiculously short.

Yes, this is going to be expensive.

Yes, your power bill is going to go up. Oh but at least reliability goes down.

Just take a deep breath and relax when you get the bill, knowing that there are three-parts-per-billion fewer CO2 molecules in your lungs now.

Let's coin a new phrase - Soft-Fascism: Government control of industry through regulatory manipulation, without actually seizing ownership.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 22, 2011)

I've been reading the 'corporate' take, since the company I work for has multiple coal fired generation plants. We also have multiple nuclear plants, so by reading between the lines in the company articles, they sound to be behind it.

Why not.

We will still be producing the energy, but charging a hell of alot for it. I better buy up more company stock to offset my electric bills that will be coming.

I'm serious before about ending the EPA. I prefer states to be able to handle things individually. California can move to zero emissions, and make everyone ride bicycles or ride in rickshaws, and the rest of us can function normally, with no federal interruptions.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Dec 22, 2011)

Unfortunately those who think we should all ride bikes or take the bus don't ever seem to live in areas where it's practical...


----------



## engineergurl (Dec 22, 2011)

when you put it that way DV, I understand... I always said California would be one state I wouldn't want to work in if I were to continue doing my current job... in GA the CWA seems to get most of the attention and I think even those are a bit beyond what they should be.... we move dirt on construction sites some of it is bound to end up in water that flows off the site... but to keep it under the NTU limits that are in the regs is sometimes nearly impossible.... no matter how many bmp's you put in place


----------



## Supe (Dec 23, 2011)

Oh well, looks like I'm going to have a buttload of gas turbine/combined cycle builds in the next couple years!

Hey environmental wingnuts - suck on this: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/22/4140289/reactor-design-certified-by-nrc.html


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 27, 2011)

In the interest of fairness and equal time, we should also post a link to the alternative perspective at http://www.nonukesyall.org/

Here you can read about the ongoing nuclear holocaust at Fukushima in Japan and learn how solar power at 12 cents per kwh (subsidized) is actually cheaper than nuclear power at 1.8 cents per kwh.

_(oh, btw, that was my sarcastic voice)_


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 27, 2011)

This will get interesting.

I have a good friend who is part owner of a coal mining company. He was in Charleston (WV state capitol) during a meeting of industry leaders.

One of the largest coal companies CEO stood up and addressed the crowd. he basically stated, "F"&amp;K Washington. I will be the first to 'throw the switch' and see what they do then."

The conversation actually involved industry leaders talking about halting production for a short spell. I can tell you that the U.S. doesn't have enough other methods to produce electricity at the levels currently needed.



> _The nation's fleet of over 100 coal plants is responsible for 57 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., more than any other single electricity fuel source_.


I agree with the coal companies. I think they should halt production for one week. The entire country would come to a griding stop. And I think they should kill the power to Washington D.C. first.

I prefer they do this prior to November as well.


----------



## snickerd3 (Dec 27, 2011)

^ a good chunk of IL would be ok since we have the largest number of nuclear plants in the nation.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 27, 2011)

I think our tree huggers really need to take a step back and look at the global picture.

If the U.S. only produces 18% of the world's emissions anyway, and the tree huggers are successful in reducing our emissions by 20%, then they are only reducing the global number by 3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

However, if we quit using coal, the Chinese will buy it off of us at a reduced price, so their consumption will probably rise by much more than the 3% that we gained from tighting our standards.

then, the only result is our personal heating bills are doubled, and the planet still gets the same amount of Carbon Dioxide, or worse.


----------



## snickerd3 (Dec 27, 2011)

they don't think about those sort of after effects


----------



## Wolverine (Dec 27, 2011)

DVINNY said:


> If the U.S. only produces 18% of the world's emissions anyway, and the tree huggers are successful in reducing our emissions by 20%, then they are only reducing the global number by 3%


 Whoa, whoa, whoa... easy with the "math" there buddy. You know that some people aren't as good at "math" as others. If you're going to use "math", you have to also present some pictures for those persons of "math-gap-iness".

But seriously... consider:

Utilities are required by their State Public Service Commissions to provide the lowest cost power to customers.

The Feds therefore have to manipulate the costs of generation through regulation rather than direct interference, else they face a conflict with the 10th Amendment (powers reserved to states) and the risk of unrest at the state government level.

It's more difficult for people to connect the dots where the Guv uses regulation to control an industry, and is even conversely beneficial in that regulation artificially induces high prices which then "require" more government regulation to fix.

I think the Powers-That-Be would relish a John Galtian moment of defiance to seize and nationalize the power system... uh, I don't know, maybe like Venezuela or what happened last century with the creation of TVA? They're already working towards that goal through regulation so the shut-down scenario above would just accelerate things.

Do I sound paranoid? Could be. Got my tinfoil hat on after what I'm seeing.


----------



## DVINNY (Dec 27, 2011)

Wolverine said:


> They're already working towards that goal through regulation so the shut-down scenario above would just accelerate things.


I fully agree with this. If the companies did shut down, the Feds would then tell the public, "see what we must protect you from?" and our sheep-like citizens will eat it up, and pay triple to avoid not being able to charge their I-phones.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 10, 2012)

So, a year later, does the outlook look the same, better , or worse than it did?

We've had at least three, I think, local coal plants announce they are closing rather than comply.


----------



## PeonPE (Dec 10, 2012)

I wonder how costly it really is to get your plant compliant? If they are closing the doors it must be something more than installing a few scrubbers and an exhust air monitoring system.

I do agree with some earlier posters that the EPA has gotten away from its roots. Unfortunately, we have gotten into the practice of letting judges and bureaucrats legislate instead of the guys who are tasked with writing and approving the laws. Let this serve as a reminder to all of us when you give the green light to a regulatory Agency with punitive powers to set whatever rules it deems fit.


----------



## Supe (Dec 10, 2012)

fuller57 - The expense of a scrubber and a crapshoot as to whether those requirements will tighten further, vs. cost of decommissioning and then throwing together a HRSG/gas plant over a 24 month window also plays a significant role.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 10, 2012)

fuller57 said:


> I wonder how costly it really is to get your plant compliant? If they are closing the doors it must be something more than installing a few scrubbers and an exhust air monitoring system.


Installing scrubbers can run as high as $500 million depending on how much modification is required to the plant. Plants weren't laid out with the idea of adding on to them in the future, so sometimes you have to move a lot of stuff around. You can probably build a nat gas plant for not much more than that, so thus the coal plants are getting shut down.


----------



## Master slacker (Dec 10, 2012)

My old plant had four GE 7FA gas turbines with HRSGs and a 200 MW steam turbine for ~$600M. That's ~900 MW.


----------



## Supe (Dec 10, 2012)

Master slacker said:


> My old plant had four GE 7FA gas turbines with HRSGs and a 200 MW steam turbine for ~$600M. That's ~900 MW.


Yep, and that's a biggie. For comparative purposes only, you're looking at roughly $2.5B cradle to grave for an 1100MW coal-fired supercritical unit with scrubber that would meet present emissions requirement. It should also be noted that utilities aren't seeing the lifespans they'd hoped for out of their scrubber units, in part due to the difficulty of welding duplex stainless steels and subsequently seeing a significant loss in corrosion performance associated with wet FGD absorbers.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 11, 2012)

^What's cradle to grave on a 1100MW nuke?


----------



## Supe (Dec 11, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> ^What's cradle to grave on a 1100MW nuke?


Realistically in the $7B-$10B mark per unit. $7B is along the lines of what it was bid at, but there's no way the first few units will come in on budget while they sort out design and regulatory issues, plus the cost of rework.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Sounds like NG is the way to go, then...

Until the prices on that spike.


----------



## Supe (Dec 11, 2012)

And even then, factor in the money the utilities are making by bringing it online. 2 years for NG, 7+ for nuclear when you factor in 2 years just for licensing and suitability studies (seismic, etc.) One requires hiking up the rates to offset costs during construction, one doesn't.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Sounds like NG is the way to go, then...
> 
> Until the prices on that spike.


...and spike they will. The only question is when.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Why the heck do they keep going nuke then?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Flyer_PE said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like NG is the way to go, then...
> ...


Yeah, I remember when oil heat was the cheapest thing out there...


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Why the heck do they keep going nuke then?


Two reasons Come to mind. The first is that they are ideal for supplying base load. The other is that NG is next on the EPA hit list for CO2 production.


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 11, 2012)

This is why we need fuel diversification. We need to have coal, NG, nuclear, and some renewables thrown in for good measure. That way, we don't get screwed over by a spike in NG or any other fuel shortages.


----------



## Supe (Dec 11, 2012)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Why the heck do they keep going nuke then?


Higher baseload, relatively low operating costs (about on par with coal), and a life expectancy of 40-60 years vs. 30 max for gas.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 11, 2012)

Ble_PE said:


> This is why we need fuel diversification. We need to have coal, NG, nuclear, and some renewables thrown in for good measure. That way, we don't get screwed over by a spike in NG or any other fuel shortages.


This.


----------



## PeonPE (Dec 12, 2012)

Interesting. I am not in this industry so all of this is educational. I definately agree with diversifying your means to generate energy.

My understanding with nukes is you tend to get more service life out of your turbines and other mechanical because there are fewer starts / stops when you compare them to more traditional means of boiling water to make steam. But that's just what I have been told - I claim no real knowledge about anything.


----------

