[y66]

Obama to take action to slash coal pollution

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday will announce one of the strongest actions ever taken by the United States government to fight climate change, a proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulation to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, according to people briefed on the plan who spoke anonymously because they had been asked not to reveal details.

The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation’s more than 600 coal-fired power plants. If it withstands an expected onslaught of legal and legislative attacks, experts say that it could close hundreds of the plants and also lead, over the course of decades, to systemic changes in the American electricity industry, including transformations in how power is generated and used.

Experts said that the new regulation would set the United States on track to meet its target set forth in a United Nations accord in 2009, when Mr. Obama pledged that the United States would cut its greenhouse gas pollution 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050

The proposal to be unveiled Monday will be a draft, open to public comment, and is certain to set off a wave of lobbying from states, industry groups and environmentalists seeking to shape the final version of the rule. While there is no legal deadline for finalizing the regulation, Mr. Obama has directed the E.P.A. to issue the rule by June 2015 so that the administration can begin putting the program in place before he leaves office.

Is this not cool?

[billw55]

y66, on 2014-June-02, 05:24, said:

Obama to take action to slash coal pollution


Is this not cool?

I will reserve judgment until I see a plan for how they are going to generate power, not just what they are removing (coal plants). Energy demand will continue to rise. Closing coal plants is ok, but show me how you are replacing that capacity, and increasing total capacity at the same time.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2014-June-02, 06:22, said:

I will reserve judgment until I see a plan for how they are going to generate power, not just what they are removing (coal plants). Energy demand will continue to rise. Closing coal plants is ok, but show me how you are replacing that capacity, and increasing total capacity at the same time.

Some information on the plan is coming out today. This is from the NY Times: Unveiling New Carbon Plan, E.P.A. Focuses on Flexibility

Quote

The E.P.A. estimates that the 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from power plants will be the equivalent of cancelling carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and trucks in America.

Although the rule will target coal-fired power plants, the E.P.A. says it will allow states several years to retire existing coal plants, rather than forcing the immediate shutdown of such plants. The E.P.A. estimates that under the rule, 30 percent of the U.S. electricity mix will still come from coal in 2030, down from about 40 percent today.

Lots of information yet to come, no doubt. Still it seems clear that the impact of the new rules has been considered. Because I know the resilience of the free market first hand, I don't worry about replacing that power over a period of 15 years.

But I'm sure that lots of politicians who fear the free market will blast the new rule over and over between now and November.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2014-June-02, 12:16, said:

Because I know the resilience of the free market first hand, I don't worry about replacing that power over a period of 15 years.

It is not entirely a free market. Good luck getting a new nuclear plant started.

Still, the free market has already produced a thriving alternative to coal - natural gas. I'm not sure if this should be considered a success or not from a carbon reduction standpoint.

[blackshoe]

"according to people briefed on the plan who spoke anonymously because they had been asked not to reveal details."

What the hell is wrong with these people? Have they no integrity?

[hrothgar]

Puffin snuff films

http://dish.andrewsu...n-got-problems/

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-02, 14:41, said:

"according to people briefed on the plan who spoke anonymously because they had been asked not to reveal details."

What the hell is wrong with these people? Have they no integrity?

Yes, sometimes people talk when they aren't supposed to. Other times these are planned "leaks". I know of no way to tell the difference.

[blackshoe]

If my boss came to me to set up a "planned leak," and I agreed to play his dirty little game, I would most certainly not claim that I had been asked not to reveal details.

[mike777]

fwiw saw that there are about 3 molecules out of 10,000 of Co2 in our atmosphere. Increase that to about 6 and things really start to heat up, more is an urgent problem.

Interestingly for the most part the sun and volcanos have little to do with huge increases in co2 compared with man made. However natural orbit changes of earth around the sun does as that effects ocean levels which have a lot to do with capturing co2 in seawater or ice.

Methane for whatever reasons seems to be even more dangerous compared to co2 one on one for trapping heat.

[billw55]

blackshoe, on 2014-June-03, 14:51, said:

If my boss came to me to set up a "planned leak," and I agreed to play his dirty little game, I would most certainly not claim that I had been asked not to reveal details.

I knew there was a reason you don't work for the government

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2014-June-04, 07:49, said:

I knew there was a reason you don't work for the government

I spent 20 years in the military, seventeen of them as an officer. One of the lessons I remember very well from that time was "it is not enough that an officer refrain from impropriety; he must avoid even the appearance of impropriety." But perhaps that only applies outside the beltway.

[Al_U_Card]

Glad to see that the US is finally following the course set by your good ally Great Britain....they really are closing down those dirty old coal-fired power plants and replacing them with wind and solar. Erp, and they are expecting brown-outs and power shortages as well as rate increases you say? Hmmmnn, well at least the US still has fracked gas to fire their power plants. You still have that, don't you? Until that energy source is declared too carbony too, I suppose. Carbon, we have to get rid of it to keep our carbon-based life alive....right? Those 3 molecules per thou really do work overtime...just like more and more Americans.

[Al_U_Card]

Well worth the read Catastrophe averted...IPCC says so

I guess that some grandchildren may not even notice

[y66]

From Henry Paulson's op-ed yesterday The Coming Climate Crash:

Quote

This problem can’t be solved without strong leadership from the developing world. The key is cooperation between the United States and China — the two biggest economies, the two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and the two biggest consumers of energy.

When it comes to developing new technologies, no country can innovate like America. And no country can test new technologies and roll them out at scale quicker than China.

The two nations must come together on climate. The Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago, a “think-and-do tank” I founded to help strengthen the economic and environmental relationship between these two countries, is focused on bridging this gap.

We already have a head start on the technologies we need. The costs of the policies necessary to make the transition to an economy powered by clean energy are real, but modest relative to the risks.

A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure. This would strengthen national security by reducing the world’s dependence on governments like Russia and Iran.

Climate change is the challenge of our time. Each of us must recognize that the risks are personal. We’ve seen and felt the costs of underestimating the financial bubble. Let’s not ignore the climate bubble.

Amen TARP-man.

[Al_U_Card]

y66, on 2014-June-22, 18:34, said:

From Henry Paulson's op-ed yesterday The Coming Climate Crash:



Amen TARP-man.

Perhaps they should also tax financial transactions to reduce the chance of further financial finagles?

What will we do when they come for our breath? (Being carbon pollution-emitting creatures...)

Hopefully, science and reason will prevail before we go down the path of tilting at climate windmills as described by computer models that are at 97% agreement in being hotter than reality.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2014-June-23, 06:21, said:

What will we do when they come for our breath? (Being carbon pollution-emitting creatures...)

Please show me a single example where anyone in favor of a carbon tax has ever suggested applying this to respiration.

[FM75]

hrothgar, on 2014-June-23, 07:35, said:

Please show me a single example where anyone in favor of a carbon tax has ever suggested applying this to respiration.

You won't find a plausible suggestion about respiration. That said, the human population is an integral and driving part of every model. You also will likely have a hard time finding any "politically correct" suggestion for reducing the "driving part".

We must live longer (not die from preventable disease or bad nutritional and exercise regimens), use less energy, breathe less over our life times, and the world will be a happy place matching some 19th century ideal (one that we are comfortable with and are not willing to consider whether a change from it might be better).

OK "use less energy" is a simplification. It does not take into account the relative impacts of dramatically different forms and reliability of the sources available, nor the duration of them.

Sustainable
1) a term which universally is used to describe the energy requirements of the planet and its energy resources, without respect to the fact that our sun will eventually die.
2) a more local term used by "hippies" who espouse "buying" (growing) local, without any metrics demonstrating true understanding of the systemic costs. Simplistic example - n thousand people making trips to two sources of "produce" at distances x and y, versus n thousand people making 1 trip to one retailer and two sources making trips to one retailer, or n thousand consumers purchasing from a distributed retailer who delivers to all of them on a single trip (the milkman, BITD, Amazon, today).

Cheers. Think about it!

[mike777]

FM75, on 2014-June-25, 22:37, said:

You won't find a plausible suggestion about respiration. That said, the human population is an integral and driving part of every model. You also will likely have a hard time finding any "politically correct" suggestion for reducing the "driving part".

We must live longer (not die from preventable disease or bad nutritional and exercise regimens), use less energy, breathe less over our life times, and the world will be a happy place matching some 19th century ideal (one that we are comfortable with and are not willing to consider whether a change from it might be better).

OK "use less energy" is a simplification. It does not take into account the relative impacts of dramatically different forms and reliability of the sources available, nor the duration of them.

Sustainable
1) a term which universally is used to describe the energy requirements of the planet and its energy resources, without respect to the fact that our sun will eventually die.
2) a more local term used by "hippies" who espouse "buying" (growing) local, without any metrics demonstrating true understanding of the systemic costs. Simplistic example - n thousand people making trips to two sources of "produce" at distances x and y, versus n thousand people making 1 trip to one retailer and two sources making trips to one retailer, or n thousand consumers purchasing from a distributed retailer who delivers to all of them on a single trip (the milkman, BITD, Amazon, today).

Cheers. Think about it!

sorry what is your main point?


please repeat

If your main point is fragile..ok I agree, but not sure what your main point is?

[blackshoe]

y66, on 2014-June-02, 05:24, said:

Is this not cool?

It depends on what and how bad the unintended consequences of this move turn out to be.

[Al_U_Card]

King Canute?.....King Canute...

Observational data...

Changes in global sea level is an issue of much controversy. In the Kattegatt Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting has remained stable for the last 8,000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm/yr for the last 125 years. This value provides a firm record of the regional eustatic rise in sea level in this part of the globe.