The latest proposed regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will force the closing of five American Electric Power (AEP) coal-fired power plants – THAT’S FIVE POWER PLANTS. The only option to closing is spending at least $8 BILLION renovating the plants to meet the newest guidelines. The legislation that Obama cannot get through Congress, is instead, being foisted on us through EPA regulations.
…by bureaucratic decree what he could not achieve through the legislative process: force Americans to stop using fossil fuels to generate the energy that our society must have to function on a daily basis. The EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule for power plants will take giant steps toward doing exactly that.
Despite the fact the mercury pollution levels have been decreasing worldwide for two decades, the EPA’s proposed rule would force power companies to install costly new mercury-scrubbing equipment on existing coal-power plants. The EPA says this will reduce mercury emissions from coal plants by 91 percent. But the EPA’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis also concedes that the new regulation will lead to “new lower levels of consumption as a result of higher market prices.” That is bureaucratese for saying Americans will have a lower standard of living because they will have to pay more for energy.
Not to worry about the coal plants closing and the jobs lost. With mercury levels already decreasing, the administration says 30,000 new jobs will be created to watch/monitor mercury…as the levels decrease!
Perhaps you remember in 2008 when Obama told us exactly how it would be under his regime:
In January 2008 he told the San Francisco Chronicle, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. … Coal power plants, natural gas, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
Message to Republicans: When you take the microphone, you MUST tell us the exact EPA regulation that is killing jobs, or the tax code that is killing jobs, or the banking regulations that are killing jobs, or the Affordable Care Act provision that is killing jobs, or the lawsuits that are killing jobs, or the unionization that is killing jobs, and definitely, tell us the stories of the hijacking of American energy dependence and the laws and regs that keep us from drilling.
Give the name and number of the reg, law or code, when it went into effect, and name the number of jobs being lost and where. Don’t be vague. Be specific – and do it over and over and over on every issue.
Here is an example if a stat the entire Republican leadership should be quoting from Speaker John Boehner:
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), ‘The smallest firms (fewer than 20 employees) spend 36 percent more per employee than larger firms to comply with federal regulations’ – or roughly $10,585 per employee for all federal regulations.
If that data is heard often – $10,585 PER EMPLOYEE – cost to a Small Business owner – it would be remembered with horror by any reasonable American.
We are begging you to be clear and specific and loud. Get the message out. Our future depends on it.
Fabulous Cartoon Credit goes to Clay Bennett!
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook


Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2
Shove that “lung disease from coal plants” straight up your ass you hypocrite jack ass!!!!!!
All you green energy people need to take yourself completely off the grid and see how long you last without the conveniences of modern society…… ya know…. the one that causes cancer.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2
Why it is that anyone even has the time to ruminate about environmental concerns? The word is wealth. It is due to our wealth that people don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from and can even begin to ponder the benefits of clean air and water. That wealth creates the funding for non-profits and enviro-organizations that can devote their entire existence to those pursuits. They forget that. They often damn “progress/growth/industry” without realizing that these are the very things which have enabled them the luxury to do any damning. Even worse, each restriction that their legislators (or regulators in this case) push for will marginally reduce future wealth and the ability of their children to have solutions to any problems that might arise – and not just environmental problems.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
Reduction of wealth and punishing the American people for being American is the name of the game, the object of these regulations. The EPA should be shut down, along with the UN, the Energy Dept., the Education Dept, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc, etc. Until we see these things happen we will know that Washington has no interest in solving our problems.
By the way, wasn’t it the EPA that just shipped Millions of our dollars to China to clean up some of their pollution? Beautiful! You loan me money and profit on the interest, and I’ll give some of it back to you for free. I must be insane!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
Wealth doesn’t have to come at the expense of our environment. Take a look at hydrodams. You can run all the water through the dam, thus generating lots of power (and hence wealth) at the expense of native fish stocks. You can also run some water through the dam and have bypasses the fish can use. It doesn’t generate as much power but it still generates some and it keeps your fish stocks around.
At the end of the day maximizing profit at the expense of the environment is a very short term strategy because eventually it kills you, at which point your wealth is meaningless.
Like or Dislike:
2
“At the end of the day maximizing profit at the expense of the environment is a very short term strategy because eventually it kills you…”
It’s the exact opposite. Anything that maximizes wealth is likely – in the long run – to save you. It is the maximization of wealth which enables the innovations necessary to impact the environment less going forward. It all occurs on the margins but it is no less real.
Environmental pollution due to LACK of wealth is more problematic than any pollution resulting FROM it. The top environmental killer in the world is indoor air pollution. In many third world countries people burn ‘biomass’ (wood, waste, dung) to cook their meals and heat homes. Those 2.5 Billion people need the wealth necessary to rise above this pollution – which is estimated to kill 1.3 Million people per year.
Like or Dislike:
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1
Except that your eco-kook friends who want to tear down the dams as they have negative impact on the environment for the fishies.
BETTER STILL! Hydro ISN’T counted as a renewable energy source by the EPA.
WTF?
Like or Dislike:
2
I don’t know of any major environmental groups calling for existing dams to be torn down. There is debate about possible methane emissions from dam water caused by decaying organic material in the flood area.
Like or Dislike:
1
T…do you know how many things cause cancer? man, you have no idea what this is doing to families losing their jobs due to the mines being closed. You go ask the workers about the cancer and they will tell you how wrong you are. Obama is killing this country and he is going to hurt even the middle class with the high cost of energy due to closing the mines. You don’t go about it this way when the country is hurting and families are suffering. You find other ways and get those things up and running and people working before you close things.
You had more than C above not like your comment if you bothered to look. Use your head man unless you are way to the left liberal than you can’t use your common sense because you don’t have any.
Like or Dislike:
3
I never said coal was the only thing that cause lung disease. As you imply a lot of things can, no doubt, but air pollution is most definitely one of them, and coal is a huge source of air pollution.
As for the workers in coal plants- yes I’m sure it is very hard to have your boss shut down your job because they won’t comply with environmental regulations. Probably just as hard as a boss who shuts down because they won’t comply with safety regulations, or won’t pay taxes, or any of the other things an employer has to do to have the privilege of running a business in the US, but that’s the boss’ fault for not feeling like they want to follow the law. If they don’t want to take a hit to their bottom line and would rather just close up shop they can, but yes their employees will be hurt.
I’m all for job retraining programs to help workers in dying industries (which coal hopefully is) to get good jobs in other industries.
Here’s the thing- there’s a lot more future and a lot more money to be made by switching away from archaic dirty technologies like coal. If we put off doing so until times are good we may never do so in part because our economy is tied so strongly to a dirty archaic technology like coal. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, or a tautology if you like.
As for not liking, we’ve already established that there are a number of readers here who will dislike any comment I make even when I agree with them. Consequently their expression of opinion is useless.
Like or Dislike:
2
I already know about externalities. That is great for being against something, but the real issue is what do you propose ? We are stuck with 1970s nuclear technology thanks to idiots driving the costs thru the roof for no rational reason, in spite of the French solving problems, and China investing in Thorium. But no, we have a bunch of intransigent idiots who are against everything, making vacuous promisses about ‘green jobs’. Well, we need only look at what goes on in California to see what they actually DO as opposed to their propaganda. Then there are the nutcakes who propose a national grid to smooth out intermittent wind and solar, as if line-loss is irrelevant, never mind that it is politically and technically impractical. The fact is, there are all kinds of externalities – like wrecking the economy, and upside down priorities.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7
You could two simple things that woud make huge improvements.
1) efficiency retrofitting. Retrofitting the typical house saves 25-40% on electricity bills. In extreme cases it can go as high as 60%. Applying these measures across all residentials could save us (on the low end) ~3 quadrillion BTUs. That’s the same as over 100 typical nuclear plants. Apply those same techniques to commercial buildings and the benefits go up hugely.
2) create more local small scale power generation and less big large scale generators. Rooftop solar panels should be the rule, not the exception. Solar panels have dropped below the $1 per watt mark. Having small scale local production is highly advantageous in that it avoids transmission costs, and it also mitigates rolling blackouts or other large scale failures by allowing at least a small flow of electricity into the local environment that is essentially guaranteed.
Those two steps would go a lot farther to easing our energy problems and increasing our energy security without requiring much of anything in terms of new resources or producing much additional greenhouse gases.
Hot debate. What do you think?
2
Wow could the EPA leave companies alone for once. The administration while doing its job correctly is doing the exact opposite of what it promises. Jobs! Closing the plants means more people unemployed. The coal plants are providing reliable electric power sources and electric power to hundreds of people everyday across the country. Coal is our number 1 energy production in the US but we sell most of it to China when it be cheaper to just keep it here and use it ourselves. It costs us less that 5 cents to run a microwave for 1 hour off coal power but we’d rather send the coal to China for the money they offer. It doesn’t make since to close plants when your opening new ones like the surry coal plant in virginia. Anyways great article and sad to see Obama get his way again.
Like or Dislike:
2
A great study in missing the point here…
First these five…
Wait a bit…
Then five more…
Wait a little more…
Repeat.
Then – soon – one day you will flip your light switch and nothihg will happen.
You will not be able to afford the cost of electricty anymore.
Your air conditioned home with all those things that run on electricity will have been “transformed” into a primitive shelter similar to what our forefathers had in the 17th century: Four walls and a roof highly susecpable to the whims and fits of Mother Nature and Gaia.
You may still have that flat screen TV in the living room, but it will be nothing more than a dust catcher.
You may still have that refrigerator in the kitchen, but it won’t be running either.
How about those faucets and the toilet in your bathroom? It takes a lot of electricity to pump and pressurize that water coming into your house. You may not be able to afford the cost of water anymore. No water to your toilet? Go build an outhouse in your backyard.
Only then will these green progressive/socialist/marxist/communist idiots finally realize what fools they really are. Maybe then will they finally understand what Obama meant when he said that under his plan, “The cost of electricity will necessarily skyrocket”.
But the lights will still be out. And they may stay out for a generation or more to come.
Switch the subject from the power plants and the electricity they provide to something – anything – else.
Lung cancer… That was a great example of that tactic.
Like or Dislike:
2
“Switch the subject from the power plants and the electricity they provide to something – anything – else.”
In other words take an intelligent look at the drawbacks as well as the advantages? yeah actually that sounds like a smart plan. No I don’t want electricity if it means I get lung disease. I’m wacky that way. living is more important than AC. On the other hand I don’t have to choose between them. We can refit coal plants to reduce pollution (which is what this story is about) until we’re ready to phase the tech out completely in favor of BETTER forms of electricity production.
Like or Dislike:
0
—–> sigh <—–
We have already retrofitted our coal plants to meet the present EPA clean air standards.
These "new" standards are intended to shut down the industry. Obama himself has said so.
Said Obama: We intend to make it so expensive to operate these plants they will be forced to shut down.(paraphrased)
Those plants provide over 50% of our electricity. Shut them down and our entire economy will collapse.
Then see how wacky your living becomes.
One other thing….
What BETTER form of electricy production are you refering to? All of our present green alternatives -solar, wind, hydro – Have been proven to be totally incapable of meeting our present energy needs, much less those of the future.
Please do a bit of research on what we have already done with our coal fired plants.
While you're at it, go find some real numbers as to how many people have died from lung cancer attributed to a coal-fired plant.
You may actually discover your worries are unfounded.
Like or Dislike:
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0
AEP(American Electric Power) says it will be forced – because of the new EPA regs – to retire plants that presently produce 6,000 megawatts.
How much solar equipment will it take to replace that lost 6,000MW?
A good quality and reliable solar panel can be brought from Astroenergy. Their model CHSM 6610P panel generates 235 watts, costs $485.00, and is roughly 3′ x 5″ in size.
At 235W output each, it will take roughly 4,170 of them to produce 1 Megawatt. That will cost a bit over 2 million dollars.
These panels put out 12VDC, which will need to be converted to 115VAC. This is done by inverters. One 10,000W inverter costs #1,300.00. A megawatt worth of inverters will cost $1,300,000.
$3,300,000 for 1 megawatt. That is strictly for the panels and the inverters available on the market today.
4,170 3′ x 5′ panels take up 62,550 square feet. Thats around an acre and a half. Add space needed for mounting racks, walkways, etc., call it two acres.
So. 1 megawatt of solar: 4170 panels, 100 inverters, 2 acres. The cost of construction, installation and wiring and labor will easily double the $3,300,000 for materials.
Lets just say $6,500,000/Megawatt.
Now, multiply that by 6,000.Thats $36,000,000,000. And even so, 6,000 Megawatts is a drop in the bucket.
Keep in mind, that when the sun sets, that solar installation output DROPS TO ZERO. Then what?
In july of last year, total U.S. generation was 371,631 gigawatt hours. Solar accounted for 108 gigawatt hours out of the total U.S. or 0.03 percent of the total.
0.03 percent. Whoopee.
Coal provided roughtly half of that, or 186,000 gigawatt hours.
Take 1 megawatt of solar at $6,500,000 and ramp that up to 186,000 gigawatts. The cost is beyond reach for any nation on earth. How about the space those 4,170 panels per megawatt take?
Project that out to provide 186,000 gigawatt hours. You reach that 10,000 square mile solar farm the greens so hopefully refer to.
Yes, solar provides power. Fine for a home in the country. But it is not cost effective and cannot possibly replace what we now have.
Forget solar as a replacement. The only thing we have that can replace fossil fuels is nuclear. If you don’t want nuclear, then live with coal and gas, or go live in a cave.
How about fusion? we have worked on fusion projects for a half-century and the result is a big bill for the taxpayers, but no new energy source.
And by the way, the numbers for wind power is no better.
Your statement about solar, wind and hydro: “Sure, but as replacements for coal plants as we shut the former down? No they do that just fine.”
Pure unfounded babble.
No, they will not “do that just fine”. They will never do that.
Study and learn. Or remain ignorant.
Your choice.
Like or Dislike:
3
A nation and its people must have a common ethos that defines them as who and what they are. Until the 1950s the ethos that defined the United States was the Puritan Ethic. In that scheme, evil was always condemned, even to the extent of hypocisy, lest it be publicly justified and accepted through the process of scandal. Likewise, evil was to be destroyed and WWII was the greatest achievement of the puritan ethic in that regard. The scheme included a work ethic that was appropriate to free enterprise. It included a sexual ethic. The ethic espoused prudence. It made the United States the mosy successful society and provided its people with the highest standard of living the world has ever seen.
In the 1950s, it was destroyed by two far-reaching events. First Truman introduced the concept of limited war in Korea, quailing before the challenge of once again destroying evil and opting rather to accommodate evil by containment. In doing so, he broke one leg of the ethic. Then Kinsey published his study on sexual activity and exposed the ethic as being built upon widespread hypocrisy. At that point, the entire ethic was done and the country rejected it all, the good with the bad.
Since then the country has been in search of a new ethos. Into the vacuum created stepped Rachel Carson and the Stanford professor who gave us “The Population Bomb.” Since then, we have been developing a green ethic purveyed by the green evangelists. Given their way, we will all worship Gaia and, after an adjustment period when most of us will starve away, the survivors will live in a green version of the Garden of Eden – poverty driven and laboring for the most elemental factors of survival, but at least one with nature. Like the animals.
Like or Dislike:
4
I totally agree that republicans need to be SPECIFIC. This blather about ‘shut down the EPA’ simply gives the libs fodder for more debate rather than making a knock-down argument that their various actions are idiotic. Will people please stop overgeneralizing. We get the same nonsense about ‘regulations’. Lots of regulations are idiotic, as documented in the book “The Death of Common Sense” , but fraud is illegal and ought to be discouraged, so you dont get AAA ratings on crap, and it cost us 14 trillion bucks – out of OUR pocket. It does not mean I support Dodd-Frank (ugh) but neither does it mean I supported Greenspan’s laissez faire nonsense. There are lots of dippy ideas out there, and they have a bunch of loudmouth supporters. It is a real pain in the neck to wade through all this just to save what is good and dump what is stupid, and to make it worse, much of it sounds plausible. At least a lot of idiocy at the EPA is easy to spot.
Backwoods Lawyer hit the nail right on the head. And i think the whole point of the 1965 immigration act had the purpose of destroying that ethos, and was part of this multicultural-politically correct race to the bottom. Now we keep the junk, reward the deviants, and throw out what works. What a way to run a country – into the ditch.
Like or Dislike:
2
Say what? What is your point?
Like or Dislike:
0