Midnight reg boosts coal plants

[greenman3610]

Anyone that thought these guys were going down easy is dreaming.

-----
Today, outgoing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson issued a memorandum that is designed to pave the way for dozens of new coal plants across America to be permitted with complete disregard for the staggering amounts of global warming pollution they would release.

On November 13th, the U.S. EPA Environmental Appeals Board rejected a Clean Air Act construction permit issued by the Denver Regional Office of EPA for the Deseret Power Electric Cooperative's proposed Bonanza coal plant -- due to its failure to adequately explain why the permit did not include emissions limitations for carbon dioxide. The Board found the rationale for excluding consideration of carbon dioxide to be erroneous in light of carbon dioxide emissions monitoring and reporting requirements that have long regulated this air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected EPA's claim that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were not "air pollutants" within the purview of the nation's clean air laws.

But today departing EPA head Stephen Johnson -- a Bush Administration official -- nullified the Environmental Appeals Board decision, declared that heat-trapping carbon dioxide is not to be regulated in permit decisions for new coal plants under the nation's clean air laws and commanded that EPA staff implement his new edict immediately.

Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the nation.

Dozens of new coal-fired power plants are pending approval today. The midnight memo by Stephen Johnson would allow those coal plants to be permitted with reckless disregard for the millions of tons of global warming pollution that would be discharged.

America deserves better than a lump of dirty coal in its stocking and a planet in peril. Working together, we can address the climate crisis and revitalize our economy with clean energy -- and new leadership.

Sincerely yours, Vickie Patton
Environmental Defense Fund
720-837-6239

[doc03]

1. Wouldn't it be better to burn the coal in the

USA with at least some environmental standards then to ship it to China? The Chinese have no problem at all with CO2.

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. China has its own coal and even exports it.

How bout we fix our shit?

[doc03]

3. Who do they sell it to? I assume whom ever buys it also

burns the stuff. I don't care what we do here coal will be burned in other countries that don't give a damn about any CO2.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. So in other words you're saying screw everyone else?

Really responsible behavior for our planet I must say! ......... :sarcasm:
That's like saying torture is ok cause other guys do it.







China exported 33.64 million tons of coal, up 0.3 percent over a year earlier; the export value was $3.36 billion, up 75.6 percent.

However, the export of coal in July and August fell month by month. In August the export was 3.37 million tons, down 1.41 million tons and 3.62 million tons from June and July, respectively.

[doc03]

5. So they export it, what are they taking it to another planet

to burn or are they making souvenirs out of it? Coal is a energy source, it is going to used somewhere else if we don't use it and that CO2 ends up in the same place. Wouldn't it be better to use it here where we have environmental laws? Frankly I don't want my electric bill to quadruple. Until a practical alternative is developed we need coal. I suppose you are one of these people that oppose oil, gas, nuclear and coal. If there was a wind farm in your back yard you would complain about the noise. If they put a hydro dam in we may kill a salamander and what about all those hazardous materials used in solar panels?

[greenman3610]

6. actually, the price of coal is going up rapidly

states that have a lot of coal, that are greatly dependent on it, have not been
able to avoid rises in electric rates.
example: Kentucky and Tennessee. Both have seen rates go up 10 and 20 percent in the
last year or so.
http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/energy/node/273

In Tennessee, the problem is not just the price of coal - they have been in the middle of a
severe drought, which is cutting the output of TVA dams. Just the kind of event that will
be getting more severe as warming kicks in.

why the cost rise for coal? more and more information indicates that "abundant" coal is not so abundant.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/world-coal-rese.html

Meanwhile, states that have moved toward renewables are having startling success.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702193.html

Colorado has met its renewable goals 8 years ahead of schedule, and decided to double the
target, due to the success. They are closing coal plants and building more solar and wind.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/20/xcel-ditching-2-coal-plants-going-to-solar/

Don't believe what you've been told by the fossil fuel industry. These are the same people that sold you Iraq,
WMDs and a failed auto industry.
We are moving ahead, we have the tools, and the best thing to do for the economy also happens to be the
best thing for the environment.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. The guy didn't even know that China exported coal let alone

anything else about global change caused by CO2.

I don't think you can 'educate' this one.

[doc03]

8. What the f---- does China importing or exporting

coal have to do with anything. You can't argue a point so you dream up a new one that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. The coal is going to be used somewhere on this earth I don't give a damn where you burn it the CO2 is going to be here. We have environmental regulations in this county we can use coal with much less environmental impact than if it was burnt someplace that has no regulations. The President you just elected is committed to the coal industry and has promised to find cleaner ways of using it. That's my point if we don't use the coal someone else will. I have a half dozen coal fired power plants practically in my back yard, I see good paying jobs when I pass them. The nearest nuclear plant is about 50 miles away and that's to close for me. We have a dam a few miles away and they have been trying to get permits for years from the Army Corp Of Engineers and the EPA to put a hydro plant in. We have a company wanting to build an amusement park here and the same thing we have been waiting over 3 years for the damn EPA to finish their studies.

[greenman3610]

10. damn environmentalists!

:sarcasm:

[Statistical]

9. China is a NET importer of coal.

Looking at the export # without the import # is useless.

The US exports oil so we must not import any right?
We exports some but import more so we are NET importer of oil.

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- China, the world's biggest user and producer of coal, increased purchases of the fuel from overseas by 34 percent last year as its economy expanded.

Imports rose to 51 million metric tons last year from 38.24 million tons in 2006, the Beijing-based Customs General Administration of China said today. China ended 2007 a net exporter of 2.2 million tons of coal after shipping 53.2 million tons abroad.

``It is expected,'' said Shanghai-based Donovan Huang, a coal analyst with Nomura Securities. ``The underlying trend is what's important, we're seeing a sharp drop in exports.'' He expects China to be a net importer of 15 million tons of coal in 2008.

China, the fastest-growing major economy, became a net importer of coal for the first time in January last year, cutting shipments to Asian customers and worsening a shortage of the fuel in the region. Consumption, spurred by global economic growth, has outpaced gains in output from Australia and Indonesia.

Newcastle thermal coal prices, an Asian benchmark, jumped to a record $91.77 a ton in the week ended Jan. 4 because of port and rail bottlenecks in Australia and after China increased imports of the fuel.

China imported 4.3 million tons in December compared with 4.41 million tons in the same month a year earlier, it said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=af4BpuIx2fQc&refer=china

So IF the US (where at least moderate environmental restrictions exist) completely stopped burning coal. Global prices would fall and fall hard. IT would be cheaper for china to focus on coal as a larger % of their energy needs.
So the "dirtiest" country to be burning the "dirtiest" fuel at highest rate ever seen.

I am sure that is going to be good for overall global pollution.

[doc03]

11. Thank you, that's exactly what I have been trying

to point out to these people. They go off half-cocked, they think "coal bad" we can't use it. They don't realize China and dozens of other countries couldn't care less about any CO2 or any damn environment. I work on a steel furnace here and we have to go by very strict environmental standards. They built a sister furnace to ours in China, they have absolutely nothing to control emissions there. The engineer that worked on the Chinese furnace told me the whole city where the plant is located is covered by red dust, it looks like the surface of Mars he said. The same people that don't want us to use coal here are also the ones that wanted the death of the steel industry in the US. I guess because it's out of sight in another part of the world it doesn't count in their minds. That's the way they are though they come out with some stupid idea of shutting down 70% of our electric generating capacity and can't argue facts. So they change the subject to who in the hell imports or exports coal, something that had nothing to do with the subject in the first place.