Comments on: EPA Defies Republicans – Announces Better Data-Gathering on Air Pollution Harm Anyway

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:35:00 +0000

Yes, and put another way, all this “catastrophic” mandate would do is help to make the power companies “internalize” the true cost of coal (but, actually, only partly)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:15:00 +0000

“The impact of the proposed MACT boiler mandates would be catastrophic to coal-fired power generation.”

And to that I say “HIP, HIP, HOORAY!!!”

We don’t need coal for baseload. We can do just fine with a mixture of renewables and load shifting along with some natural gas generation to fill in gaps. And we need to improve our storage solutions so that we can fade that NG out later.

We spend an incredible amount in tax dollars and health insurance premiums to subsidize burning coal. Every coal plant we close reduces government and personal spending.

By: Wilmot McCutchen

Wilmot McCutchen — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:14:00 +0000

The EPA does not consider the cost or the availability of technology that will be necessary to meet its mandates. Its BACT database is just an unsorted junkpile of old permit data. Neither the EPA nor the DOE has any available database of technology assessment. Commanding the impossible of the unwilling is bad policy, no matter how much is said about the harm being done by coal emissions. First, invent a solution, then if it proves to be effective and affordable, make a rule to implement it. The EPA appears to believe that if they can just ratchet up the pain enough, the necessary technology will magically appear.

The impact of the proposed MACT boiler mandates would be catastrophic to coal-fired power generation. Maybe that’s the covert intent. Despite the confident (and wrong) assertions that coal can be replaced by renewables without power shortages, coal, for the foreseeable future, will have to provide the baseload power that keeps the lights on, no matter how much we conserve and meter power usage and subsidize wind and solar.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:50:00 +0000

I bet! Been wondering how you’re liking it there. One of my main professors in grad school for city planning did much of his research there over the course of 10 years — sounded like a diff world & have always wanted to go there

@Forest: we’re already seeing the effects of climate change. No doubt, Texas and several other states’ ridiculous droughts this year are connected to it, as are the freak storms we’ve been seeing from time to time in the U.S. Unfortunate for them, many people in less wealthy countries (especially in Asia) are getting hit even worse. While no specific weather event can be linked to AGW, technically, it is clear to anyone that follows the science that we are already seeing the effects. (Ironic that extreme science-denying Rick Perry’s state is getting hit so hard.)

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:27:00 +0000

So true. Or they think voting for Rand Paul or Ron Paul will solve everything. The level of ignorance is dismaying, but not surprising considering the US media. Now that I live in another country (an actual democracy) the media difference is startling.

By: Forest

Forest — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:14:00 +0000

I can only hope that the first group to experience the future effects of climate in the form of massive flooding, severe droughts, increased air pollution, rising sea levels, shortages of food, increased aggression from have-not countries, and internal strife, will be those who vote against addressing any of this. But I guess, by that time, the barn door will have long since been left open. Are there no sane, educated, civil, concerned people out there: oh, yes, the 99% who seem to forget to vote.