Coal Plants Must Limit C02

Post Reply
 
Patch
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed. Oct. 17, 2007 9:36 pm
Location: Columbia, Pa.
Coal Size/Type: 2.5 ton of rice with no stove
Other Heating: Wood Pellet

Post by Patch » Fri. Nov. 14, 2008 9:14 am

From Sierra Club Press release, Nov 13, 2008:

"... the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions."

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?e ... id=78902.0

An interesting list of proposed coal plants, nation wide:
**Broken Link(s) Removed**Maybe the coal industry will go bankrupt, complying with all the regulations. Electricity rates will skyrocket.

John


 
User avatar
Freddy
Member
Posts: 7293
Joined: Fri. Apr. 11, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: Orrington, Maine
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 130 (pea)
Coal Size/Type: Pea size, Superior, deep mined

Post by Freddy » Fri. Nov. 14, 2008 9:28 am

I've got one thing to say to the Sierra Club. Unplug your refrigerators and b*itch all you want.

 
Patch
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed. Oct. 17, 2007 9:36 pm
Location: Columbia, Pa.
Coal Size/Type: 2.5 ton of rice with no stove
Other Heating: Wood Pellet

Post by Patch » Fri. Nov. 14, 2008 9:57 am

And from Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,18 ... 49,00.html

"The board's decision will force the EPA to consider CO2 when issuing permits for new power plants, potentially making it — at least in the short-term — all but impossible to certify new coal power plants."

and

"In the meantime, all other coal plants in the permitting process, or stuck in the courts, will be frozen. Over the longer term, it's possible that new coal plants may be impossible to certify at all until a technology exists to greatly reduce or sequester carbon emissions from coal plants — and currently none has been proven."

My blood pressure goes up, when I read these reports.
John

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Fri. Nov. 14, 2008 10:23 am

Obam would have been pushing for this anyway so its just come sooner instead of later.

The only technology I've seen discussed for capturing the CO2 is to store it underground. Many parts of the country are not even suitable for this, e.g the gas would have to be piped to a more suitable location. That's beside the fact they haven't even tried it yet. They have test facility in Florida that they think is capable but because of legal matters they haven't even tried it yet. The sticking point at this time is the State of Florida won't indemnify them against any catastrophic failures such as if the gas escapes.

I believe there is another facility in Wyoming where they expect to test shortly.

Bottom line is hold onto your socks because energy prices will skyrocket over the next decade if they cannot successfully meet these requirements.

 
BIG BEAM
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri. Jan. 25, 2008 9:34 am
Location: upstate NY

Post by BIG BEAM » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 11:47 am

As soon as these tree huggers cut the service line going to THEIR house I'll give them some credibility.

The only thing I can think of is that most of our politicians have been boinking so much, they all have syphilis and can't think any more.

The country's economy's in the toilet and they put more restrictions on our basic needs. :wtf:

Honey,Where's that .44 S&W mountain revolver you used to keep next to you bed !
DON

 
User avatar
Yanche
Member
Posts: 3026
Joined: Fri. Dec. 23, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Sykesville, Maryland
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Post by Yanche » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 2:07 pm

There are two major issues in the CO2 debate a science debate and a political debate. The science debate concerns the effect CO2 has on the earth's atmosphere and if it's long term increase would accelerate the demise of the human species. The political debate centers on the winners and losers if it's needed to limit CO2 atmospheric emissions.

The science part can be studied by looking at other planets. Venus specifically has a powerful greenhouse effect and in fact was transformed from a planet with abundant water to a fiery hell. The science question to answer is could it happen on earth? That's difficult to answer. But it's indisputable that there is earth global warming. Global warming is one of the necessary factors for the greenhouse effect. As more and more scientific experiments and data becomes available it looks like mankind is indeed accelerating global warming. What's troubling is that it's not a reversible effect and when you reach the tripping point the game's all over. That's the science part. The basic effect is undeniable.

The political debate is about, how correct is the scientists warning and what to do about it. You can just look at the potential winners and losers of any CO2 emissions control proposal to see what side they support.

 
User avatar
rockwood
Member
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun. Sep. 21, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Utah
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: Stokermatic
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Rockwood Stoveworks Circulator
Baseburners & Antiques: Malleable/Monarch Range
Coal Size/Type: Lump and stoker + Blaschak-stove size

Post by rockwood » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 2:53 pm

"As more and more scientific experiments and data becomes available it looks like mankind is indeed accelerating global warming."

Actually, as time goes on I see more and more scientists coming forward casting more and more doubt that global warming is "man caused."
The media, special interest groups and some politicians are doing everything they can to keep the hype going IMO.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ This web site has very knowledgeable people covering the subject.


 
BIG BEAM
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri. Jan. 25, 2008 9:34 am
Location: upstate NY

Post by BIG BEAM » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 2:56 pm

Science may think they know the answeres now but they thought they new the answeres 50 years ago and then again 100 years ago.We still have a lot to learn and what we think we know today may be and probably will be wrong 50 years from now.I don't have the faith in science I once did because it has become political and science was just an educated guess before it became so political.If you're doing research to disprove global warming I bet you would have trouble getting funded,so the balance that science once had is gone.Actually from what I've been reading lately it seems that the sun may be having a larger effect on global warming than once thought.See.we're still learning and I hope we always will.But to base laws and policy on facts that may not indeed be facts can hurt a lot of people unneccessarily.
DON

 
User avatar
Yanche
Member
Posts: 3026
Joined: Fri. Dec. 23, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Sykesville, Maryland
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Post by Yanche » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 8:46 pm

rockwood wrote:"As more and more scientific experiments and data becomes available it looks like mankind is indeed accelerating global warming."

Actually, as time goes on I see more and more scientists coming forward casting more and more doubt that global warming is "man caused."
The media, special interest groups and some politicians are doing everything they can to keep the hype going IMO.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ This web site has very knowledgeable people covering the subject.
As you point out you need to be skeptical about the sources of the information. For example the link you point out is a web page created by a " ... a former television meteorologist ...". Hardly the science rigor I'd want for so important an issue. I'm not saying an experienced meteorologist cannot contribute to the observations of global weather but a scientific answer comes from multitude of experiments with peer review. It's exceedingly difficult to do.

 
User avatar
Yanche
Member
Posts: 3026
Joined: Fri. Dec. 23, 2005 12:45 pm
Location: Sykesville, Maryland
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Post by Yanche » Sat. Nov. 15, 2008 8:59 pm

BIG BEAM wrote:.. If you're doing research to disprove global warming I bet you would have trouble getting funded ...
DON
If the effects of any CO2 limits are economically harmful on the biggest CO2 producers, you would think they would collectively jump to fund research to prove it's not harmful. That doesn't seem to be happening. Makes you wonder if it's another "cigarettes are not harmful" type issue.

 
User avatar
Richard S.
Mayor
Posts: 15184
Joined: Fri. Oct. 01, 2004 8:35 pm
Location: NEPA
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Post by Richard S. » Sun. Nov. 16, 2008 2:54 am

Let's face it Yanche, the coal industry has no incentive to put forth any studies. If a study shows CO2 is a big issue then they are cutting their own throats. If it shows coal is not an issue then the study gets labeled a sham and the people doing it labeled as shills for the industry. They lose no matter what the results are.

This as I've stated before is the dilemma we all face, who do you believe? You have a fear of global warming fueled by the media and people like Al Gore and anyone who disputes their claims is labeled as a whacko no matter what their credentials are. The IPCC? After many of the things I've read anything coming from them I'd use as toilet paper. It's about as reliable as any study put forth by the coal industry.

I have an idea, lets hook them all up to lie detectors, now that would be interesting. :D

 
User avatar
Freddy
Member
Posts: 7293
Joined: Fri. Apr. 11, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: Orrington, Maine
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 130 (pea)
Coal Size/Type: Pea size, Superior, deep mined

Post by Freddy » Sun. Nov. 16, 2008 4:20 am

Personally, I do not think humans have done a thing to the temperature of the Earth. The reason I think this? I believe in science. Right where I sit, right where I live, not 15 million, not 150,000, but a mere 15,000 years ago there was ice ALL YEAR ROUND. (See PDF). We humans had nothing to do with it not being here today, not a thing! The "we are causing global warming people" really have no science behind thenselves, but I do! They project that CO2 causes it, but no real proof, they project that freeon caused a hole in the polar regions, but in fact by some studies the hole has gotten smaller in recent years. (http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm) Gee, how can that be? Because we humans have little to do with it! They make us spend billions on changing our freon to something they think is less harmful, yet, is it? Freeon is heavier than air. It does not rise up and effect anything until after it's oxidized. This takes about 20 years. That means that ALL the freeon we have spilled in the last 20 yrs has not had any effect! I'm not saying we shouldn't try to be more Earth friendly, but quit the panic and quit making we people in the USA pay a huge price in dollars when with a bit of thought we could go about it in a different way. We sit here and pay though the nose to clean things up while China put's a filthy electric machine on line every day. The coal fired electric plants in the USA are much cleaner than they were 25 yrs ago. OK, leave it alone. Why spend ba-zillions to make them a tiny bit cleaner?

Attachments

Ice in Maine.pdf
.PDF | 121KB | Ice in Maine.pdf

 
User avatar
LsFarm
Member
Posts: 7383
Joined: Sun. Nov. 20, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Michigan
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Self-built 'Big Bertha' SS Boiler
Baseburners & Antiques: Keystone 11, Art Garland

Post by LsFarm » Sun. Nov. 16, 2008 10:10 am

Many years ago, when there were no emissions controls,, the air was filthy, nasty stuff.. I can remember early in my career flying into the Los Angeles basin and thinking I was desending into a bowl of brown pudding,, the smog was so thick. So what was the CO2 level then??
How about forest fires?? How much CO2 do they put into the atmosphere??

And.. a biggie... Sun Spots.?? these are major contributors to 'excess heat' radiated onto the earth..

While I do agree that there is global warming, I personally doubt that humankind has a great effect on it..

Just look at the geological history of the earth,, that which we can track,, and find evidence of.. the earth has been very warm and very cold over several cycles.. We burn the product of a very warm period.. coal is from sediment from huge swamps and rainforests... in Pennsylvania...

The hysteria about all of our effects on the earth crack me up most of the time... Nature heals itself, and harms itself all the time.. forest fires: cause new platn growth and makes the earth more fertile. Floods do the same.. Ice storms... Natures pruning shears...

Mankind could all die off from a killer virus... and the earth could continue to get hot, or get cold... regardless of who or what populates it..

NOW.. plastics.. and disposal of our waste... THIS is a big problem.. we should be figuring a way to burn our garbage, or make more gas-producing landfills.. we are terrible about waste polution...

Tires, Plastic bottles, Foam containers. Plastic retail hanging displays, etc, etc.. non of this stuf is properly thought out or recycled..

rant over for now..

Greg L

 
samhill
Member
Posts: 12236
Joined: Thu. Mar. 13, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Linesville, Pa.
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage

Post by samhill » Sun. Nov. 16, 2008 2:38 pm

They have been trying to build a tires to energy plant in Erie for over a year now. It has passed all the EPA crap & went thru all the regulations so now the local tree huggers have city council changing the rules on them. What I think it amounts to is that it will ruin the view of the property owners that bought next to a industrial zoned area. Every one wants cheaper-cleaner sources of energy but not in their view no matter if it`s coal, solar wind or anything else. Just my 2cents.

 
User avatar
UpStateMike
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon. Nov. 03, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: South New Berlin, NY

Post by UpStateMike » Thu. Nov. 20, 2008 1:06 am

I think overall it's a good thing when we are able to sensibly reduce emissions from the many, many forms we as humans use every day. If something can be made more efficient and it improves performance, then why would you not want to do it? Of course, that's not the way it usually is because our decisions are normally based on emotions instead of reasoning.

I'll give you a perfect example of it. I work for a paint company making acrylic paints. The paints contain propylene glycol. It's a very effective additive to control drying time and film formation of the paint. Now, because of the fine state of California's laws about VOC's, paint companies have to reduce or eliminate using Propylene Glycol and switch to something else. The new stuff is usally much more dangerous for the painter and probably the environment as well, but thank God it has low VOCs! In fact, Mineral Spirits are ok cause they are a low VOC additive so use all that you want! LOL. It's rediculous.

So, when I get calls asking about VOCs in paint, I tell them there are in there. We have decorative products that allow people to paint faux marble and whatnot all because of how well the PG works in it to slow drying. CA says watch out for those evil PGs from VOC and now the ENTIRE COUNTRY has to comply with their wishes, even if you DON"T directly sell in Cali. You cannot win. The loophole is we can sell in quart containers only and nothing larger. You can buy pallets of the quarts if you want, but that's what Cali wants so thats what they get. SO the painter gets screwed because of course we have to charge more for 20 quart containers than we do for a 5 gallon pail. The environment gets screwed because now there's 20 containers instead of one, and we have not eliminated the VOC content at all. Well, we actually did before all of this nonsense but that's not the issue because you all use propylene glycol every single day in much much larger amounts than I could ever use as a decorative painter in a week or probably a month. Check your shampoo bottle ingredient list. Check your food list! It's in there.

Now the new one coming from Cali who started this in the first place is we are using too much plastic so now we HAVE TO use less plastic in our packaging. So the customer will get screwed again, because now the container isn't as durable as it was and you'll end up having more paint dry out, or spill because the container cracks wide upon when it falls or during shipping. I could go on and on about silly, meaningless laws that are "for the environment" so they get shoved down our throats, but I wont. At least not int his post. LOL


Post Reply

Return to “Coal News & General Coal Discussions”