Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obama Administration Unveils Requirements

Carbon Limits Could Mean Dim Future for Coal

September 20, 2013

WASHINGTON — Linking global warming to public health, disease and extreme weather, the Obama administration pressed ahead today with tough requirements to limit carbon pollution from new power......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

atoddh

Sep-20-13 8:38 PM

wraith: They will simply raise rates to pay for the new gas fired stations-now mandated-and the gas to run them. Ultimately big oil/gas is the beneficiary; as usual. (The difference is the supply is domestic vs foreign oil.) I don't think the public understands the back story on this. Government is being used to create a market for the domestic gas produced by big oil/gas.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-20-13 7:46 PM

Atoddh, agree, so why be stupid if you are power producer?

Clean coal will be the cheapest 20 years from now IF Obama stays the Eff away.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Sep-20-13 7:35 PM

wraith: Big oil/ gas have the gas supplies to take over power now. They have the political clout to make it happen and did. They will win over coal interests. Yes methane prices will escalate. That is what they want: more demand. They will get it.

Consol is the only coal company smart enough to move into gas and are.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Sep-20-13 7:25 PM

Rag: True: nuclear is the least expense way to produce electric with no CO2.Dozens of new reactors are planed in China and India. There will be a nuclear renaissance soon. Today's announcement will boost nuclear.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-20-13 7:18 PM

The technology options available today for capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil-fueled power plants are limited and involve daunting energy penalties. They’re also expensive, adding up to 80% to the cost of power generation. Current options for using captured CO2 are mostly limited to enhanced oil recovery, which means this use of the captured, compressed, and transported greenhouse gas is limited geographically and practically. Other storage options are in their infancy and look expensive, if not cost-prohibitive. (Power Magazine 8/1/2013 by Gail Reitenbach, PhD)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-20-13 7:06 PM

The current think is CCS is dangerous as carbon dioxide will percolate through the soil.

When the prospect off CCS first appeared, the electric utilities were concerned about the issue, they did not want the potential liability of CO2 seeping into homes. The greenies are going crazy over the pumping of frack water into injection wells. Injection wells are miniscule compared to the scale required for CCS. I don't think this is going anywhere.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-20-13 6:27 PM

Idiots, the historical average of NG was about $8 per mcf.

It is $2 per mcf, a historic LOW.

The price is only TEMPORARY. Building an economy on gas is a house of cards.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-20-13 6:25 PM

Promo61, thanks, very good.

The current think is CCS is dangerous as carbon dioxide will percolate through the soil.

THEN WHAT??? Damage lakes and streams, mix with other chemicals, who the F knows???

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ragnar

Sep-20-13 5:33 PM

Our "abundant" natural gas resources do not belong to the taxpayers. Therefore, the gas will be sold on a world market, ie. where it can bring the most money.

We cannot be energy independent nor can we completely shut down coal.

Once coal and nuclear are pushed aside, how long will it take for those "low" natural gas costs to skyrocket?

With alternatives, the different industries have to play to both the world and the domestic markets.

With no alternative, we will see an OPEC like cartel in this country.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ragnar

Sep-20-13 5:30 PM

Why fool around with coal, gas, wind or solar when we can use nuclear power to fill the gap?

France, a hotbed of liberalism, gets 80% of its' power from nuclear plants.

People point to Japan and the reactor damage there. Well that reactor was not top quality and it was built in a very bad location.

Outside of Three Mile Island (which was overblown) the US has never had a single serious accident with nuclear.

More Americans have died in natural gas well explosions in the past two years than have died in nuclear power plant meltdowns in the last 50 years.

There is no such thing as man made "climate change". I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Earth went through at least Three major Ice Ages (and thaws and Warming Periods) and at least six minor Ice Ages (and thaws and Warming Periods) before humans even existed. If humans weren't to blame then, why are we so sure that humans are to blame now?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Sep-20-13 5:12 PM

why fool around with coal generators when one(in the power business) can just use cleaner cheap gas? Gas turbines are relatively cheap and quick to install.GE/USA made.

look for an uptick in GE shares and gas shares.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Sep-20-13 4:59 PM

dying there will soon be a mass exodus to gas generators-from coal- as occurred in Colorado per the new Fed. appointee. And -yes- we customers will pay for the switch/new equipment. Coal is dead for power.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-20-13 4:08 PM

1,500 coal fired generators in the US! Do any or you have a clue of how much electricity is generated by these generators? Do you think wind and solar generation can make-up the difference any time soon? Do some research on the price per kw for wind and solar energy......

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-20-13 4:03 PM

And, perhaps worse: We've documented it for editors and reporters at several Coal Country newspapers, but: Saudi Arabia has developed a complete suite of technologies that collects Carbon Dioxide and then converts it into hydrocarbons, specifically a synthetic petroleum. Be prepared to start buying tankers full of CO2, the same stuff they're shutting your Coal power plants down for, disguised as crude oil. See, for only one, but particularly telling, example, which our government actually saw fit to publish on US Independence Day: "US Patent Application 20130168966 - Method for Conversion of Carbon Dioxide into Hydrocarbons; Date: July 4, 2013; Inventors: Mazen Abdullah Ba-Abbad, et. al., Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Assignee: King Saud University, Riyadh".

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Sep-20-13 3:54 PM

The "smoke" coming off the roof at Kammer Plant is STEAM.....

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-20-13 3:28 PM

In a US Patent issued just a few months ago, to a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California: "United States Patent 8,461,215 - Rendering Coal As An Environmentally Carbon Dioxide Neutral Fuel And A Regenerative Carbon Source; 2013; Inventors: George Olah and G.K. Surya Prakash; Assignee: The University of Southern California"; technical experts in our US Government agreed that Carbon Dioxide could, on a practical basis, be recovered from Coal exhaust, or even the atmosphere itself, and then be converted into just about any hydrocarbon fuel we want or need. Why is it that we aren't being informed of these options and potentials, and being empowered to utilize them not only to remove the CO2 onus from Coal, but, to free ourselves from economic enslavement to OPEC?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-20-13 3:16 PM

Genuine patriots in the US Navy have devised an entire suite of technologies that collects CO2 from the environment, and, then, in some cases using environmental, as they put it in one of their patents on the technology, "United States Patent 7,420,004 - Producing Synthetic Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels", "wind and wave" energy to drive the processes, converts that CO2 into various hydrocarbons. Their contractors have designed ships to operate the processes and refuel other ships in the fleet. They have had a pilot plant up and running. Don't we have any patriotic journalists in the Coal Country press with the honesty, the courage and the sense of duty displayed by our CO2-recycling Navy scientists?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-20-13 2:57 PM

Right now, in Iceland, the company Carbon Recycling International is recovering industrial exhaust CO2 and then, using environmental energy to drive the processes, is converting that CO2 into Methanol, which is being blended into gasoline and sold at service stations in several European nations. Methanol can also be used in the synthesis of certain plastics, wherein the CO2 consumed in the synthesis of the Methanol would be permanently and productively sequestered. Via ExxonMobil's "MTG"(r) process, Methanol can also be converted into Gasoline. Why aren't those facts and those options being openly reported to us and publicly discussed? Whose interests are served by continuing silence? Doesn't anyone in the public press have the courage or the honesty to make report of those facts?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Sep-20-13 2:54 PM

Fischedick and the energy company RWE predict that power plants using CCS will accumulate additional costs of over 60 to 80 percent per kilowatt hour. In other words, power from a German coal power plant which uses CCS would cost around 13 euro cents ($ .17) per kilowatt hour. By comparison, the current price for wind and solar power costs under 10 euro cents. And according to experts the price could drop below seven euro cents by 2025.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Sep-20-13 2:53 PM

That view is echoed by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin): "The past five years have shown CCS to be a failure," said Christian von Hirschhausen, DIW's research director for industrial economics. "The EU scenarios are from four or five years ago, and are based on the assumption that carbon capture exists in a technically safe and economically sound environment. Both has proven to be incorrect."

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

promo61

Sep-20-13 2:52 PM

From DW.DE: In Germany, the introduction of CCS failed due to residents and politics opposing the technology. As a result, plans to construct massive underground storage reservoirs were abandoned. A recent International Energy Agency report predicts that by 2035, "almost 30 percent of new fossil-fueled power plants will be fitted with CCS." Professor Manfred Fischedick, from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, argues that it would be smarter to wait for research results.

"There is a difference between wishful thinking and reality," Fischedick told DW. "For the moment, I cannot imagine that CCS technology will be widely used by 2020 or 2025, not in Europe and not worldwide. I therefore recommend to take a more realistic approach."

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Sep-20-13 2:49 PM

Clearly, Gas is- now- the anointed fuel of choice for USA power production. This will be embraced world wide. Nuclear will also benefit. Coal will have a long drawn out death for power going forward. WV had better look to diversify in a hurry.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-20-13 2:37 PM

Right now, in Germany, at a Coal-fired power plant, Bayer Corporation and their partners are capturing CO2 and then using it as a raw material from which to synthesize various plastics, in which plastics the CO2 would be forever, chemically "sequestered", but, in a productive way that provides value and earns some income for the CO2 processing. Why aren't such options being openly reported on, discussed and supported in the US, especially in US Coal Country?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Gooseman

Sep-20-13 2:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- Ignoring the wishes of the White House and the Senate, the House of Representatives passed a stopgap funding bill Friday that will shut down the government unless Democrats agree to defund President Barack Obama's marquee health care law.

King of the hair-on-fire right wing extremists teapublican Ted Cruze and his followers might get their wish to destroy the US economy.

Thanks to Republican Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)for choosing country over party, choosing middle class over teaparty.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-20-13 2:26 PM

Carbon Sequestion is a wet dream. There is no large scale successful demonstration of the technology yet.

Forcing power plants into an UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY is more dangerous than the emissions from the plant itself.

The DEVIL you know is better than the DEVIL you DON'T KNOW!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: