Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The EPA is not "forcing" any power plant to close. Nobody from the EPA will show up, remove all the workers, turn out the lights, shut down the furnaces and lock the gates. It is the OWNERS of those plants who will make the decision to close rather than meet the new requirements mandated by Congress.
It's their choice.
Did you really just say that (unfunded) mandates are the fault of the target?
You know, like No Child Left Behind or if the government were to make all houses add solar pannels to their roofs with their own monies or face fines or possibly having to exit the home?
Basically, what this is saying is that the coal plants have to find a way to push the cost along to the consumer and if they cannot due to energy production competition, longterm contracts or whatever....that it's tough luck they just have to go out of business.
I'm not saying that some of the mandates are bad, of course the govt. needs to implement changes but to say it's entirely the fault of the target institution is erroneous IMO.
I would warn you that if energy costs end up spiking in parts of the country because of this....the 2014 midterms are going to be a brutal bloodbath.
I generally support reasonable mandates as long as the target of the mandate is given sufficient time to adjust.
Did you really just say that (unfunded) mandates are the fault of the target?
Or, could it be a rise of Natural Gas as the resource for energy generation, that these companies are finding more profitable, in the process replacing old coal plants with natural gas driven ones?
It is strange to see people who talk "business" promote ways that are deemed inefficient (and not just from environmental point of view, as we know, natural gas extraction has its own issues as well).
EPA doesn't improve anything. It is technology that improve everything.
Just use car for example: Engine are more sophisticated today than yesterday and this has nothing to do with government. It has something to do with market competition.
Perhaps you not aware of the laws initialized by California and later copied by other states regarding the emissions of engines, and the long, very protracted fights and billions of dollars that car companies and oil companies sunk into the process over the decades? And continue to fight tooth and nail every time?
I'd be interested in examples where Market Competition actually resulted in lower environmental emissions on a large scale for periods longer then a few years. I'm pretty sure that "Market Conditions," would never have changed the coal industry in the first place. There were no energy alternatives at that time, and there were no incentives to clean up the process in the first place, even with the protests that were going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000
Just ask yourself this: if regulation works, then why are we still have these problem? I am not familiar with EPA, but I am familiar with SEC. Look at SEC and how much money is spent on it, and did they stop anything from happening? Criminal will always does crimes regardless of what the regulation/laws say, they just don't care. Regulations just hurt the very same people they said they try to protect.
Because large companies have either inserted their own people into the system and watered down enforcement from the inside, or they have sunk millions of dollars to remove the teeth from any laws that Congress enacted to back these systems up.
I'm certainly not saying that all laws and regulations are a good thing. But I am interested in not getting screwed over by "Big Business," and leaving the world as good or better then I found it for my children.
If these plants are shut down it is not because the pollution retrofits are too expensive. That will be the excuse while the reason is these things are simply too inefficient and worn out to compete with new natural gas fueled generators.
The current closures are combination of both Greg, these plants would have been closing in the near future. It would be more feasible to build a new plant instead of retrofitting an old one....... however that's not going to happen either becsue of the CO2 cap proposals. They won't be retroactive at this point these caps are so restrictive even some of the natural gas plants that were built the early part of the last decade couldn't meet them.
Or, could it be a rise of Natural Gas as the resource for energy generation, that these companies are finding more profitable, in the process replacing old coal plants with natural gas driven ones?
It is strange to see people who talk "business" promote ways that are deemed inefficient (and not just from environmental point of view, as we know, natural gas extraction has its own issues as well).
That's not going to last and remains to be seen where the price of NG settles, if coal is out of the picture they no longer have to meet that mark do they?
Speaking of NG and environmental issues........
Quote:
Fractured Lives - July/August 2012- Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club
What's the official position now?
We view natural gas as a significant source of air and water pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition to its large climate footprint, the extraction of natural gas is having a big impact on rural communities, state forests, and the landscapes that we've worked hard to protect. Our primary goal is still to retire coal plants as quickly as possible and replace them with genuinely clean energy like solar and wind. Investing in gas actually hinders deployment of wind and solar, so we want to leapfrog gas as we move to a clean-energy future.
What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.
The environazis are just ramping up their "War on natural gas" .
Or, could it be a rise of Natural Gas as the resource for energy generation, that these companies are finding more profitable, in the process replacing old coal plants with natural gas driven ones?
It is strange to see people who talk "business" promote ways that are deemed inefficient (and not just from environmental point of view, as we know, natural gas extraction has its own issues as well).
That is a fascinating topic of discussion and I think it boils down again to *timeframe*. Power generation plants aren't just something we throw up and tear back down year to year and there is significant obstruction to any serious power production plants.
So, you might build that natural gas power gen. plant with a 30 year life and capital recoupment built into the rates but what happens if in 15 years it's a lot more expensive than coal?
Pretty complex problem, especially when you get into the whole private monopoly situation and how they cap the return but allow a monopoly....because otherwise the uncertainty would likely dictate higher costs via profit margins being risk adjusted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.