• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA: No new coal plants likely to be built despite relaxed rule

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,258
Reaction score
16,738
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...lants-likely-to-be-built-despite-relaxed-rule

The Trump administration is forecasting that no new coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States, despite a new regulatory rollback aimed at making such plants easier to build.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed Thursday to increase the allowable carbon dioxide emissions from newly built power plants to 1,900 pounds per megawatt-hour produced, from the 1,400 pounds the Obama administration had set for the climate change pollutant.
===========================================
This is no surprise. Major utilities have studied the economics of coal & there is no incentive to build more coal burning power plants when existing ones are being shut down. Any new plants will likely burn natural gas since we have that in abundance. It is less polluting & produces no toxic ash that needs to be disposed of safely.

This is not good news for the coal miners in places like WV & KY.
 
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...lants-likely-to-be-built-despite-relaxed-rule

The Trump administration is forecasting that no new coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States, despite a new regulatory rollback aimed at making such plants easier to build.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed Thursday to increase the allowable carbon dioxide emissions from newly built power plants to 1,900 pounds per megawatt-hour produced, from the 1,400 pounds the Obama administration had set for the climate change pollutant.
===========================================
This is no surprise. Major utilities have studied the economics of coal & there is no incentive to build more coal burning power plants when existing ones are being shut down. Any new plants will likely burn natural gas since we have that in abundance. It is less polluting & produces no toxic ash that needs to be disposed of safely.

This is not good news for the coal miners in places like WV & KY.

Coal.....its your grandfather's fuel!
 
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...lants-likely-to-be-built-despite-relaxed-rule

The Trump administration is forecasting that no new coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States, despite a new regulatory rollback aimed at making such plants easier to build.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed Thursday to increase the allowable carbon dioxide emissions from newly built power plants to 1,900 pounds per megawatt-hour produced, from the 1,400 pounds the Obama administration had set for the climate change pollutant.
===========================================
This is no surprise. Major utilities have studied the economics of coal & there is no incentive to build more coal burning power plants when existing ones are being shut down. Any new plants will likely burn natural gas since we have that in abundance. It is less polluting & produces no toxic ash that needs to be disposed of safely.

This is not good news for the coal miners in places like WV & KY.

Who TF is propagating the lie that relaxed ruling was so more coal plants could be built?

No energy company in it's right mind would be so stupid. Natural gas is currently the best bang for the buck.
 
Who TF is propagating the lie that relaxed ruling was so more coal plants could be built?

No energy company in it's right mind would be so stupid. Natural gas is currently the best bang for the buck.

The President, for one.
 
The President, for one.

I would love to see a video, audio, or transcript in context where he says we will build more coal plants. My understanding he he simply wants to keep the existing jobs from dying.
 
I would love to see a video, audio, or transcript in context where he says we will build more coal plants. My understanding he he simply wants to keep the existing jobs from dying.

Maybe they'll start landscaping the Trump Tower with coal fly ash.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.
 
Maybe they'll start landscaping the Trump Tower with coal fly ash.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

Side-stepping again.

How does that relate to what I said?
 
Maybe they'll start landscaping the Trump Tower with coal fly ash.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

10 x trace amounts is still extremely small.
 
I would love to see a video, audio, or transcript in context where he says we will build more coal plants. My understanding he he simply wants to keep the existing jobs from dying.

Not Trump, but what existing jobs are there with new coal plants that won't be built? That's some odd logic there.
 
Believe as you wish.

The new rules relax emissions for new plants.

New plants.

New.

None are planned.

There are no existing jobs with new plants that don't exist yet.
 
The new rules relax emissions for new plants.

New plants.

New.

None are planned.

There are no existing jobs with new plants that don't exist yet.

What about the existing regulations that make old plants modernize to new standards or close?
 
Maybe the rest of you should know what you are spouting...

Hahaha...you failed to get my point.

It's been explained in here already. These are a relaxation of emission standards for new plants, not existing ones. It does not appear that there is a change in rules for existing plants.
 
Hahaha...you failed to get my point.

It's been explained in here already. These are a relaxation of emission standards for new plants, not existing ones. It does not appear that there is a change in rules for existing plants.

What about regulations requiring plant modifications to new standards? Why do you deny them?
 
What about regulations requiring plant modifications to new standards? Why do you deny them?

Deny them? I've seen nothing in the latest EPA proposal to address them. So not what is being discussed.
 
[FONT=&quot]Coal[/FONT]
[h=1]China is building coal power again[/h][FONT=&quot]From China Dialog Feng Hao 28.09.2018 Experts are calling for the government to return to cutting capacity after policy reversal, reports Feng Hao *Updated Sept. 27 CoalSwarm published a report on September 26 warning that 259 gigawatts of coal power capacity – equivalent to the entire coal power fleet of the United States – is…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/09/china-is-building-coal-power-again/"]
15502182661_2a3e3123f4_k_meitu_1-220x126.jpg
[/URL]Coal[/FONT]

[h=1]China is building coal power again[/h][FONT="]From China Dialog Feng Hao 28.09.2018 Experts are calling for the government to return to cutting capacity after policy reversal, reports Feng Hao *Updated Sept. 27 CoalSwarm published a report on September 26 warning that 259 gigawatts of coal power capacity – equivalent to the entire coal power fleet of the United States – is…
[/FONT]

I wonder what level of technology they plan to use?
 
Back
Top Bottom