EPA offers new rules to cut pollution from power plants

[charrison]

linkage

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration proposed requirements Thursday to cut smog- and soot-forming chemicals from power plants, aiming to curtail pollution that often travels long distances across many states.

The Environmental Protection Agency's plan would cap emissions of sulfur dioxide and smog-causing nitrogen oxide from hundreds of power plants in 30 states, most of them east of the Mississippi River.

EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said the regulations represent "the largest single investment in any clean-air program in history" and "the largest reduction in air pollution in more than a decade."

He estimated it will cost industry $5.5 billion to comply.

...

The proposal, expected to be issued as a final rule in about a year, would cap sulfur dioxide emissions at 3.2 million tons - about a third of current emissions - by 2015. Smog-causing nitrogen oxide would be limited to 1.7 million tons.

That would be a reduction of nearly 70 percent in sulfur pollution and 40 percent in the smog- causing chemical from current levels, the agency said in a statement.

 

[Strk]

If the numbers are correct, that's not bad for 5.5 billion.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

They probably could come close, IF we could build some Nuclear plants....somewhere/anywhere.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

They probably could come close, IF we could build some Nuclear plants....somewhere/anywhere.

CkG

Or replace them with natugal gas powerplants, but that would only add to the howling about natural gas prices.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

They probably could come close, IF we could build some Nuclear plants....somewhere/anywhere.

CkG

Hasn't it been about two decades since any new Nuclear plants were built? I know the plants that existed have greatly increased efficiency to keep up with demand, but I dont recall any new ones being allowed to the outcry in communities near any proposed sites. Nuclear power could be a great way to supply our increase in energy needs. We can only increase capacity so much at the sites we have, so unless there are communities that would accept these plants, nuclear power's future is severely restricted.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

Well sort of, they are replacing them with newer and much larger plants still firing Coal of course.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

Well sort of, they are replacing them with newer and much larger plants still firing Coal of course.

And these are significnatly cleaner than those that are being shut down.

My guess is there will be more retrofitted thant torn down and rebuilt.

 

[Captain4]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

Well sort of, they are replacing them with newer and much larger plants still firing Coal of course.

And these are significnatly cleaner than those that are being shut down.

My guess is there will be more retrofitted thant torn down and rebuilt.

And with the changes that Bush wants to make to the "new source" rules, they will be retrofitted with new equipment but with no pollution controls.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Captain4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Devil is in the details. I would contend that much of the benefit will come from the ultimate decommissioning of aged power plants NOT any new curbs in emissions.

350 coal power plants are going to be decommissioned in the next 10-15 years?

Well sort of, they are replacing them with newer and much larger plants still firing Coal of course.

And these are significnatly cleaner than those that are being shut down.

My guess is there will be more retrofitted thant torn down and rebuilt.

And with the changes that Bush wants to make to the "new source" rules, they will be retrofitted with new equipment but with no pollution controls.

These new epa regs would require pollution controlls to be added.

THe new source rules you speak of, only require pollution controls be added if the upgrades cost more than 20% of the facility. They are not allowed to increase the amount of pollution they are creating in the process.

 

[wirelessenabled]

The Bush Administration do anything about pollution? I'll believe it when I see it.

Kind of along the lines of the "Healthy Forest" program is set up to prevent wildfires. Check the stats in a couple of years and see what really happens.