The Unseen Carbon Agenda ..The EPA wants to take away 7% of U.S. power generation.
Anyone who cares about the U.S. economy is breathing easier now that cap and tax appears to be on the political garbage barge, but don't be so sure. The White House is still pursuing its carbon agenda through regulation, albeit with almost no public attention, and a new study shows the damage that is already being done.
Yesterday the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a highly regarded federal energy advisory body, released an exhaustive "special assessment" of this covert program. NERC estimates that the Environmental Protection Agency's pending electric utility regulations will subtract between 46 and 76 gigawatts of generating capacity from the U.S. grid by 2015. To put those numbers in perspective, the worst-case scenario would amount to a reduction of about 7.2% of national power generation, and almost all of it will hit coal-fired plants, the workhorse that supplies a little over half of U.S. electricity.
The EPA's battery of new rules is mostly obscure, ranging from traditional pollutants such as mercury and sulfur to new regulation of coal ash and even water intake structures, which power plants use to cool down equipment. NERC notes that the "pace and aggressiveness" of issuing so many new rules at once is unprecedented. Keep in mind, too, that these are conservative estimates and don't even include the EPA's looming carbon "endangerment" rules.
Supposedly all this is separate from greenhouse gasses, but the White House and the EPA are clearly targeting fossil fuels and coal in particular to achieve via rule-making what even the Democratic 111th Congress has rejected as legislation. As much as a fifth of the perfectly functioning coal-fired fleet will be forced into early retirement, to be replaced with a largely more expensive energy mix, especially natural gas.
Some plants can be retrofit with new environmental controls like scrubbers, but this is nearly as costly as building new plants from scratch. And just as you can't replace an engine while heading down the highway at 75 mph, this will still require shut downs in the interim, for at least five years.
In a recent research note, Credit Suisse estimates that compliance will cost as much as $150 billion in capital investment by the end of the decade. All of this will flow through to rising electricity prices, which is the same as a tax increase on businesses and consumers.
NERC also warns of "deteriorating resource adequacy" and of the logistical reality that replacing or upgrading so much capacity so fast may lead to brownouts and shortages. The danger is greatest throughout the Midwest in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where the costs will also be concentrated.
The larger point is that instead of debating a carbon program on the merits, the Obama Administration is now trying to impose the same burden step by step on the sly. At this point, the only way voters can stop the EPA is to install a check in one of the other branches of government. Election Day is Tuesday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574401127...
Yesterday the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a highly regarded federal energy advisory body, released an exhaustive "special assessment" of this covert program. NERC estimates that the Environmental Protection Agency's pending electric utility regulations will subtract between 46 and 76 gigawatts of generating capacity from the U.S. grid by 2015. To put those numbers in perspective, the worst-case scenario would amount to a reduction of about 7.2% of national power generation, and almost all of it will hit coal-fired plants, the workhorse that supplies a little over half of U.S. electricity.
The EPA's battery of new rules is mostly obscure, ranging from traditional pollutants such as mercury and sulfur to new regulation of coal ash and even water intake structures, which power plants use to cool down equipment. NERC notes that the "pace and aggressiveness" of issuing so many new rules at once is unprecedented. Keep in mind, too, that these are conservative estimates and don't even include the EPA's looming carbon "endangerment" rules.
Supposedly all this is separate from greenhouse gasses, but the White House and the EPA are clearly targeting fossil fuels and coal in particular to achieve via rule-making what even the Democratic 111th Congress has rejected as legislation. As much as a fifth of the perfectly functioning coal-fired fleet will be forced into early retirement, to be replaced with a largely more expensive energy mix, especially natural gas.
Some plants can be retrofit with new environmental controls like scrubbers, but this is nearly as costly as building new plants from scratch. And just as you can't replace an engine while heading down the highway at 75 mph, this will still require shut downs in the interim, for at least five years.
In a recent research note, Credit Suisse estimates that compliance will cost as much as $150 billion in capital investment by the end of the decade. All of this will flow through to rising electricity prices, which is the same as a tax increase on businesses and consumers.
NERC also warns of "deteriorating resource adequacy" and of the logistical reality that replacing or upgrading so much capacity so fast may lead to brownouts and shortages. The danger is greatest throughout the Midwest in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where the costs will also be concentrated.
The larger point is that instead of debating a carbon program on the merits, the Obama Administration is now trying to impose the same burden step by step on the sly. At this point, the only way voters can stop the EPA is to install a check in one of the other branches of government. Election Day is Tuesday.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574401127...
Views: 74
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by essay on -
so taking the average of the hi/lo estimate gives us 61,000,000 kWh annually taken out of the grid at a cost of at least $150,000,000,000
for that much money we could add 75,000,000 kWh in advanced nuclear generation, or, a staggering 375,000,000 kWh worth of gas turbine generation, using numbers from a couple years ago.
it's also worth noting that just about every source i've researched says constructing nuke plants is cheaper than new "clean coal" plants, though not by much.
election day is tuesday, indeed.
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
In war time (say against Nazi Germany), if the Allies could wipe out 7.2% of their electric generation capacity. without endangering a single bomber crew or having to drop a single bomb, that would be worthwhile.
In peace time, we have our own federal government planning to do the same thing to us. Which side is the EPA on?
-
Permalink Reply by Stevew on
-
Electric charging stations are being built at every I-5 rest stop in our state. We have rest stops about every 40 miles on both sides of the Interstate. The college campus near us is building a station for 15 electric cars.
If we start having a lot more electric vehicles on the road the demand for juice will SOAR. A drop of 7% capacity is HUGE. Oh, I should mention that these electric charging stations are free.
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Nothing is free.
-
-
How can the charging electricity be "free" at these stations along I-5??? Your tax dollars at work! I think the bulk of the money is from the stimulus bill and perhaps our state is adding a little. Besides, the economy is going to turn around any day now. Our governor says so.
We can afford it. Our state only have about 13% unemployment and yes, we are deeply in debt. But, isn't it important to promote electric vehicles?? It would be mean-spirited to make those green Volt drivers pay for their electricity. They are doing all of us a favor and this is just helping them a little bit. Plus, we are going to give them additional tax breaks! It's nice to help our little friends (you have to be small to fit into most electric cars)
I kid you not, that was the quality of the arguments in favor of the stations. I've always been a supporter of renewable energy but the intellectual bankruptcy of these arguments has stunned me.
Ok, I'm done .... anyone else need the soapbox now??
Logger
-
Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on
-
Logger, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "Gas, Grass or Ass, No One Rides For Free". The good tax paying citizens will be the ones that foot the bill. This has to be a huge cost to the state or fed gov., I for one protest.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on
-
I remember seeing those bumper stickers. Jack Blake had one on the gas tank of his dirt bike when he was a kid. He was a very liberal yankee punk.
Jack believe it is Oregon where you live, right Logger?
Jack Blake remembers Portland, OR back in th e late 60's early 70"s. The majority of the people were/are very liberal still. Jack has kin there. What a difference from the South in many ways but also how similar to the South in some ways. Jack thinks both places are great........
live and let live is Jack's personal rallying cry.......................................
-
Permalink Reply by j garrett on
-
Glad to see you back in third person Jack. As for this thread topic, doesn't this bode well for natural gas?
-
Permalink Reply by essay on
-
there are any number of far more appetizing avenues to encourage NG usage than anything even vaguely resembling this boondoggle.
-
-
I remember a guy with a small used car lot at Jewella and Greenwood Road. He had a sign in the early 70's during the oil embargo saying:
Don't Be an Ass. We have a lot of gas.
What I am waiting to see is if the tiny electric cars get blown around the road by the big gusts of winds on Hwy 101, the Pacific Coast or in the Columbia Gorge. Won't they be lightweight and small too? I'd even be afraid to be near 18 wheel trucks in one of the small electrics. That's why I can't figure out why string the charging stations up and down I-5???
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
