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

[Capt Worley PE]

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]

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

 

[DVINNY]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"&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]

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

 

[DVINNY]

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]

they don't think about those sort of after effects

 

[Wolverine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.