U.S. limits on coal plant mercury emissions too costly: Trump's EPA

[JacksinPA]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...emissions-too-costly-trumps-epa-idUSKCN1OR1BU

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Friday said limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants were unnecessary as they were too costly, sparking an outcry from environmentalists who feared the next step would be looser rules favoring the coal industry at the expense of public health.

Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury, which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems.
=================================================
What are some birth defects & neurotoxicity downwind of hese plants worth when there are $$$ on the bottom line to be concerned about? The welfare of the people becomes secondary to the recommendations of some bean counters with their spreadsheet programs.

 

[Hawkeye10]

After taking account of both the cost to coal- and oil-fired power plants of complying with the MATS rule (costs that range from $7.4 to $9.6 billion annually) and the benefits attributable to regulating hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from these power plants (quantifiable benefits that range from $4 to $6 million annually)

https://www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actions-final-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards-mats-power-plants

That is a **** ton of money and a crappy looking cost/benefit ratio.

in the U.S., the rate of Hg released per ton of coal consumed has dropped from 0.063 g Mg−1 in 1950 to 0.034 g Mg−1 in 2010

https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/streetsetal2018_stoten.pdf

And the so-called green energy advocates claim that coal is leaving on its own....

 

[Deuce]

https://www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actions-final-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards-mats-power-plants

That is a **** ton of money and a crappy looking cost/benefit ratio.


https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/streetsetal2018_stoten.pdf

And the so-called green energy advocates claim that coal is leaving on its own....

So you’re saying you want to nearly double mercury emissions.

 

[Hawkeye10]

So you’re saying you want to nearly double mercury emissions.

I am saying that the Obama rule was likely a bad idea and yet another lie, I am saying that the purpose was likely not "SAFETY!" as was claimed but was using the law to drive up the price of a product that government wanted to fail at the marketplace.

I do not approve of either coercion or lies from power.



BTW: That second link of mine is of superior quality.

 

[Deuce]

I am saying that the Obama rule was likely a bad idea and yet another lie, I am saying that the purpose was likely not "SAFETY!" as was claimed but was using the law to drive up the price of a product that government wanted to fail at the marketplace.

I do not approve of either coercion or lies from power.



BTW: That second link of mine is of superior quality.

Mercury contamination should be as close to zero as we can make it, it’s nasty stuff. Don’t whine to me about dollars.

 

[Helix]

U.S. limits on coal plant mercury emissions too costly: Trump's EPA

what's a little mercury between friends?

 

[Nemiroff]

We should bring back leaded fuel and paint too. What's mental retardation and public health compared to more money for already insanely profitable businesses... those poor poor insanely profitable businesses.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/arch-coal-profit-rises-revenue-beat-expectations-2018-10-23

The only thing better for you then mercury and lead is that sweet sweet kool-aid. Enjoy.

 

[dcsports]

So you’re saying you want to nearly double mercury emissions.

No one is proposing to double anything. Emissions from coal fired plants are what they are -- and are reduced significantly as older plants are retired, leaving newer, more efficient ones.

The issue is that the massive amount of money required by this regulation doesn't justify the relatively insignificant benefit.

 

[Manc Skipper]

No one is proposing to double anything. Emissions from coal fired plants are what they are -- and are reduced significantly as older plants are retired, leaving newer, more efficient ones.

The issue is that the massive amount of money required by this regulation doesn't justify the relatively insignificant benefit.

How much is not poisoning millions of people worth?

 

[Deuce]

No one is proposing to double anything. Emissions from coal fired plants are what they are -- and are reduced significantly as older plants are retired, leaving newer, more efficient ones.

The issue is that the massive amount of money required by this regulation doesn't justify the relatively insignificant benefit.

They're reduced because the newer, more efficient ones have newer, more stringent emissions controls because regulations like these required them to. Energy companies didn't reduce mercury emissions out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[apdst]

Why aren't y'all just as freaked out about mercury and lead from solar panels?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0mVZavJDq4az4N5xacheXa&ust=1546224247742460

 

[Deuce]

Why aren't y'all just as freaked out about mercury and lead from solar panels?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0mVZavJDq4az4N5xacheXa&ust=1546224247742460

The volume is dramatically less than from coal and it's also not just spewed into the atmosphere or sitting on giant ass lakes of deadly sludge.

The real question is why you aren't concerned with either.

 

[apdst]

The volume is dramatically less than from coal and it's also not just spewed into the atmosphere or sitting on giant ass lakes of deadly sludge.

That isn't what the research says:

A new study by Environmental Progress (EP) warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there’s been little done to mitigate their potential danger to the environment.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/

 

[Deuce]

That isn't what the research says:

Exactly which part of this do you think is a rebuttal to my point about coal?

Nuclear is the safest form of power we have. Of course it's going to compare favorably to solar. Because it compares favorably to everything.

You... do understand you just bolded text about an entirely different power source, right?

 

[apdst]

Exactly which part of this do you think is a rebuttal to my point about coal?

Nuclear is the safest form of power we have. Of course it's going to compare favorably to solar. Because it compares favorably to everything.

The toxic waste from solar panels is being released into the environment and it's 300x more toxic than nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is more toxic than coal power plant waste.

Get the picture?

 

[Deuce]

The toxic waste from solar panels is being released into the environment and it's 300x more toxic than nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is more toxic than coal power plant waste.

Get the picture?

Coal waste is far worse than nuclear waste, per unit of energy. It's not even close. Per unit of energy, nuclear is the safest form of energy by a huge margin. Coal is, by a huge margin, the worst.

 

[apdst]

Coal waste is far worse than nuclear waste, per unit of energy. It's not even close. Per unit of energy, nuclear is the safest form of energy by a huge margin. Coal is, by a huge margin, the worst.

Is it over 300x worse?

 

[Idiometer]

https://www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actions-final-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards-mats-power-plants

That is a **** ton of money and a crappy looking cost/benefit ratio.


https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/streetsetal2018_stoten.pdf

And the so-called green energy advocates claim that coal is leaving on its own....

Well, since even the Kentucky Coal Museum uses solar power, perhaps the green energy advocates are right.

 

[Deuce]

Is it over 300x worse?

For one, let's clarify that the link you posted was talking about volume of "toxic waste" being 300x higher for solar vs. nuclear. This is true. Nuclear power has incredible energy density because it's going off that whole e=mc^2 business. Many orders of magnitude more energy per kg of fuel from any sort of chemical reaction. Thus, the volume of waste per unit of energy is low for nuclear. Solar, conversely, is not a dense source of energy so the volume of waste is higher. The waste isn't necessarily 300x more toxic. Come on, surely you didn't believe that solar panels are 300 times more toxic than a spent uranium rod.

The real question is mortality as a result of the energy production. Mortality will be a factor of both the toxicity of the waste and the volume of the waste. (and how much exposure the public has to it) Something only slightly toxic can still be really bad if you release just massive amounts of it, right? So we want to know the total impact on mortality rates.

In that, coal is about two thousand times worse than nuclear.
Solar about five times worse.

 

[Idiometer]

Why aren't y'all just as freaked out about mercury and lead from solar panels?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw0mVZavJDq4az4N5xacheXa&ust=1546224247742460

I gotta throw a flag on that play:

https://www.wiseinternational.org/n...hael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress

He may have a point about old solar panels, but he has a very heavy ulterior motive, being such a strong proponent of nuclear power. I'm going to try to follow the money on this guy, see where that leads me.

 

[apdst]

I gotta throw a flag on that play:

https://www.wiseinternational.org/n...hael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress

He may have a point about old solar panels, but he has a very heavy ulterior motive, being such a strong proponent of nuclear power. I'm going to try to follow the money on this guy, see where that leads me.

You ignored this link.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/

 

[apdst]

For one, let's clarify that the link you posted was talking about volume of "toxic waste" being 300x higher for solar vs. nuclear. This is true. Nuclear power has incredible energy density because it's going off that whole e=mc^2 business. Many orders of magnitude more energy per kg of fuel from any sort of chemical reaction. Thus, the volume of waste per unit of energy is low for nuclear. Solar, conversely, is not a dense source of energy so the volume of waste is higher. The waste isn't necessarily 300x more toxic. Come on, surely you didn't believe that solar panels are 300 times more toxic than a spent uranium rod.

The real question is mortality as a result of the energy production. Mortality will be a factor of both the toxicity of the waste and the volume of the waste. (and how much exposure the public has to it) Something only slightly toxic can still be really bad if you release just massive amounts of it, right? So we want to know the total impact on mortality rates.

In that, coal is about two thousand times worse than nuclear.
Solar about five times worse.

That isn't what the source said:

Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic

 

[dcsports]

How much is not poisoning millions of people worth?

Who are they poisoning?

 

[dcsports]

They're reduced because the newer, more efficient ones have newer, more stringent emissions controls because regulations like these required them to. Energy companies didn't reduce mercury emissions out of the goodness of their hearts.

Yes, standards and advancing technology has reduced the amount of emissions. They've made continuous, incremental, improvements.

The issue is this particular standard which is not reasonable at this time.

 

[danarhea]

https://www.epa.gov/mats/regulatory-actions-final-mercury-and-air-toxics-standards-mats-power-plants

That is a **** ton of money and a crappy looking cost/benefit ratio.


https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/streetsetal2018_stoten.pdf

And the so-called green energy advocates claim that coal is leaving on its own....

^
Translation - yes, it is costly, so **** 'em. Let's poison them.