Dems Join Effort to Block Global Warming Rules

[spidey07]

Talk about the Scott heard around the world. Pay attention to the names, they are also facing a big backlash in their state. This is indeed good news. It also signals that Cap and Trade should be truly dead.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9624894

Three Democratic senators are joining an effort to block the Obama administration from taking steps to reduce the pollution blamed for global warming.

Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas have signed onto a resolution introduced Thursday by Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The measure, which must pass Congress and be signed by the President, would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations to control greenhouse gases.

The EPA has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gases using existing law as it has waited for Congress to pass legislation. A Senate bill limiting heat-trapping gases has stalled.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the President is unlikely to sign it.

 

[Genx87]

Unfortunately there wont be a snowballs chance in hell Obama signs that and they wont have a veto proof majority. But maybe Cap N Tax will be dead for now.

 

[ayabe]

I would high-five my friend Big Coal, but the resulting soot has been proven to be toxic.

 

[Pens1566]

So the EPA shouldn't be allowed to do its job. Got it. Then it can be just like FEMA under the last admin ...

 

[PJABBER]

I would high-five my friend Big Coal, but the resulting soot has been proven to be toxic.

US coal fired power plants aren't at all that bad these days and haven't been in quite a few years.

Maybe you should write to the Premier of the State Council of the PRC Wen Jiabao about your concerns.

 

[Slick5150]

US coal fired power plants aren't at all that bad these days and haven't been in quite a few years.

Maybe you should write to the Premier of the State Council of the PRC Wen Jiabao about your concerns.

#1) Better than they used to be doesn't mean they're good.

#2) Most coal plants are old, REALLY old (> 50 years), so unless you pass new regulations that require retrofitting them with better equipment, then you're stuck with the same problems.

 

[PJABBER]

#1) Better than they used to be doesn't mean they're good.

#2) Most coal plants are old, REALLY old (> 50 years), so unless you pass new regulations that require retrofitting them with better equipment, then you're stuck with the same problems.

Let's see. Coal provides around 45% of the country's electricity. Nuclear around 20%.

Based on conservative current forecasts, the U.S. demand is increasing, even with the economic malaise, at around 1% per year.

Where will all of this power come from?

In another thread from early last year, I advocated going nuclear as soon as possible. I still do and the negative prospects have not changed for the better either.

The Democrat Congress and the Obama Administration, beyond the BS rhetoric, are adamantly against both coal and nuclear power generation.

Most coal power companies have just given up on building new clean plants based on the government regulatory stonewalling.

No nuclear plants have been built in 30 years.

Companies started applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for combined construction/operating licenses in 2007 thanks to Bush reviving their prospects. Although no company in the United States has decided to actually build a new reactor, 17 companies and consortia are exploring the licensing and financial issues associated with such an endeavor.

The entire process, from starting the application to completing the new power plant, will take an estimated nine years. Actual construction will take about four years, excluding about 18 months for pre-construction preparation.

Unlike the old licensing process, the new process allows companies to re-evaluate their decision to proceed at various points in the process without debilitating losses. Some of these applicants will drop the projects due to the interminable government stonewalling, doncha think? Just like clean coal?

From a practical perspective, you have to use fossil fuels or nuclear to generate the required amounts. Nothing else, other than maybe natural gas, will suffice.

Mining has gotten much better, and each coal plant plant is equipped with multi-million dollar scrubbers, the discharges are mostly water vapor. So why not go there as part of a mix for better energy independence?

Nuclear, much cleaner than anything else in use, now has to contend with the Obamanites delaying, then canceling the proposed storage site at Yucca Mountain last year. A "blue-ribbon" commission of experts will study alternatives interminably.

Guess you will have to build yourself a water wheel generator in the back yard or buy some of those toxic (can you say silicon tetrachloride (one ton of polysilicon = FOUR tons silicon tetrachloride,) dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride, Sparky?) solar panels soon to keep posting here.

 

[Fern]

#1) Better than they used to be doesn't mean they're good.

#2) Most coal plants are old, REALLY old (> 50 years), so unless you pass new regulations that require retrofitting them with better equipment, then you're stuck with the same problems.

They fixed that in 1990 (IIRC). Earlier EPA rules grandfathered old coal plants under the theory they'd be mothballed soon anyway. It didn't work out that way.

In 1990 we passed cap-n-trade for the coal plants futher eliminating (non CO2) types of pollution. I believe they are still under a mandate to continue to reduce levels.

I'm all for forcing them to cut sulfur dioxide and any heavy metal pollution levels. I think the current focus on CO2 (plant food) is taking away our focus on these more dangerous pollutants.

Edit: I do not oppose using coal, just want it clean and I think we can do that.

Fern

 

[PJABBER]

I'm all forcing them to cut sulfur dioxide and any heavy metal pollution levels. I think the current focus on CO2 (plant food) is taking away our focus on these more dangerous pollutants.

Fern

The scrubbers take care of NOX and SOX, but the resultant solid byproduct is only 40% re-usable with the current air pollution control technology. The remaining ash contains many of the same toxic heavy metals that are also present in photovoltaic solar collectors, a real problem when both coal ash and those PSC cells are disposed of, but not an insurmountable one.

Mercury (which is due to be scrubbed out as well,) cadmium, and other poisonous heavy metals are only hazardous if they are not contained. Non-recyclable coal ash is contained in slurry ponds and pits. I have not heard of any contamination of water tables from lined coal ash slurry pits so a mandate to line pits or return the ash to the originating mines will solve the potential issue.

Byproduct "fly ash", "coal slag", and gypsum (produced by using lime to sequester sulphur dioxide) are pretty useful. Fly ash is great at strengthening concrete (Port-au-Prince would still be standing if they used it in their concrete mixes, even without iron rebar,) coal slag is used for sandblasting since silica sands may have long term health effects if the most rigorous dust-control measures aren't used. Of course, the gypsum is used in drywall and backer board production.

The irony of it all is that the EPA insisted that coal be burned as completely and efficiently as possible and that particulate ash, which can have practical use, be eliminated as much as possible. The resulting not especially recyclable by-product? Coal ash.

Obama has promised to bankrupt the coal industry, and loons like Cass Sunstein of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the White House Office of Management and Budget are rushing to make it so.

Can we say "ever increasing dependency on foreign oil?"

From an article in the WSJ -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126300256672322625.html

...Each year, the waste left over from burning coal generates 125 to 130 million tons of ash and sludge -- enough to fill a million railcars. Currently, about 40% of that waste finds it way into new products and 60% is stored in ponds or pits, mostly on utility property.
There is no single, federal standard requiring that pits be lined to prevent the leeching of pollutants into ground water or streams, nor is there a common standard for pit or pond structures and monitoring.

...As the power industry has sought to cut air pollution from power plants, it has resulted in more pollutants remaining in the material left behind after coal is burned. It contains such toxins as arsenic, lead, chromium and selenium, which present health and environmental risks if released into ground water. The exact characteristics depend on the type of coal burned and methods used to capture soot and smoke.

...Electric Power Research Institute, a power-industry research organization based in Palo Alto, Calif...has told OMB that utilities could lose $5 billion to $10 billion of revenue each year if they no longer could sell coal combustion byproducts to industry. Furthermore, the organization says added storage costs could be a burden on power plants, especially those operating in deregulated markets, where they must compete against other forms of generation.

"We think 250 to 350 coal units could be shut down, in an extreme scenario, and drive up the cost of electricity," said Mr. Hannegan.

 

[Patranus]

 

[umbrella39]

Oh look it's like Romper Room reunion! I see lordtyranus, and GeneralGrievous in the back, I see Zendari, there's winnar111, and Patranus......

 

[Patranus]

Oh look it's like Romper Room reunion! I see lordtyranus, and GeneralGrievous in the back, I see Zendari, there's winnar111, and Patranus......

I see umbrella39

 

[PJABBER]

I see umbrella39

He's the serious and dedicated looking one that is right at the edge, up front of the pack. I figured it out by matching his avatar with the illustration.

:awe:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Oh look it's like Romper Room reunion! I see lordtyranus, and GeneralGrievous in the back, I see Zendari, there's winnar111, and Patranus......

I think it's hilarious the children don't see the hypocrisy in supporting the SCotUS when they say corporate money is free speech, and then opposing the Courts ruling provding the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The children should not throw stones in their glass houses.





--

 

[Sclamoz]

I think it's hilarious the children don't see the hypocrisy in supporting the SCotUS when they say corporate money is free speech, and then opposing the Courts ruling provding the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The children should not throw stones in their glass houses.

Sooo producing greenhouse gas is now protected free speech?

 

[drebo]

I think it's hilarious the children don't see the hypocrisy in supporting the SCotUS when they say corporate money is free speech, and then opposing the Courts ruling provding the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The children should not throw stones in their glass houses.





--

The EPA, as a part of the Executive Branch, does not have the authority to pass laws, as per the CotUS. The EPA was created by executive order as part of the executive branch. Where in the Constitution does it say they can create regulations (read: pass laws)?

Additionally, the Legislature can pass law that explicitly removes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over certain topics.

 

[Munky]

I would high-five my friend Big Coal, but the resulting soot has been proven to be toxic.

Then maybe you should high-five your long-abandoned friend "big nuclear", which you would, if it was really about the environment and not scam-and-profit.

 

[IGBT]

no surprise. the KOOKS are running from the KOOKS. their save the planet scam has been exposed. Now the blame game will start.

 

[OutHouse]

I think it's hilarious the children don't see the hypocrisy in supporting the SCotUS when they say corporate money is free speech, and then opposing the Courts ruling provding the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

The children should not throw stones in their glass houses.
--

i have absolutely no idea what you are trying to point out.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Hey, Geniuses ...

The Supreme Court spanked the Bush EPA in 2007 for not regulating greenhouse gases under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act.

So throw a tantrum, hold your breath, yell, scream and stomp your feet in whatever childish fashion you desire. Post even more whiny trolling threads about climate change and greenhouse gases ....

Because CO2, methane, et. al., will be regulated by Act of Congress, or by no action of Congress.

Bet you didn't see that coming .....




--

 

[CPA]

The skeptic in me believes Nelson and Landrieu are just using this as an opportunity to get something out of Obama, seeing as that's what happened in the HC fight.

 

[OutHouse]

The skeptic in me believes Nelson and Landrieu are just using this as an opportunity to get something out of Obama, seeing as that's what happened in the HC fight.

you have a good sniffer. you might be right.

 

[Ozoned]

Hey, Geniuses ...

The Supreme Court spanked the Bush EPA in 2007 for not regulating greenhouse gases under the existing provisions of the Clean Air Act.

So throw a tantrum, hold your breath, yell, scream and stomp your feet in whatever childish fashion you desire. Post even more whiny trolling threads about climate change and greenhouse gases ....

Because CO2, methane, et. al., will be regulated by Act of Congress, or by no action of Congress.

Bet you didn't see that coming .....
--

Mexico doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of our congress.

Along with recently contructed plants, several super critical coal fired power plants are in various planning and construction phases in Mexico. The rail infrastructure and logistics needed to export a massive amount of coal from the powder river basin has quietly been put in place over the last 10 years. The 2 big players are Uprr & Bnsf. Most of the high voltage transmission lines are already in place to import the electricity.

We call this outsourcing. It was caused by an act of congress. I doubt that it will be as clean as we could have done it here.

Bet you didn't see that coming .....

 

[monovillage]

Here's the AG of Texas article about the lawsuit against the EPA ghg ruling.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6912011.html

"The Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that man-made greenhouse gas emissions — including carbon dioxide — are harmful pollutants and must be regulated. The lawsuit I filed challenging that finding does not address the disputed science surrounding global warming. Instead, it focuses on the indisputable fact that the EPA relied on information that has been discredited, manipulated, lost or destroyed, and sometimes evaded peer review. The lawsuit does not attempt to show that the globe is not warming. It does, however, show that the process used by the EPA in deciding to regulate greenhouse gases is riddled with errors that render its conclusion untrustworthy.

Before regulating man-made greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA was required to conduct a scientific assessment. Rather than conduct its own assessment, the EPA relied on reports by third parties. The EPA's conclusions rest primarily on information gathered by a creation of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC — an organization that has become mired in scandal because the reliability, objectivity and scientific validity of its work has come under fire."

"Do these errors mean the globe is not warming? No, but they demonstrate that the rigorous, objective scientific process has been abandoned in favor of political science. They also mandate that the EPA conduct a scientifically valid process before making a decision that could cost Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Because the EPA failed to do its own independent scientific review, I am asking a court to order the EPA to do it."

 

[HannibalX]

So the EPA shouldn't be allowed to do its job. Got it. Then it can be just like FEMA under the last admin ...

Not when its motives are purely political based on shaky science, no.