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

[danarhea]

what's a little mercury between friends?

They say that Lewis Carroll ate mushrooms while writing Alice in Wonderland. I believe them.

 

[Hawkeye10]

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

$7 Billion is half an aircraft carrier, that's real money!

 

[danarhea]

$7 Billion is half an aircraft carrier, that's real money!

Easy solution. Get rid of coal plants. BTW, that's already happening. Good riddance, unless you don't mind people being poisoned. Too bad a coal plant doesn't exist in YOUR back yard. You'd be singing a different tune.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

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 can't compare nuclear and solar waste the way he does.. Because materials from solar panels can be recycled and reused and you also can find less harmful materials to be used. While nuclear waste have to be safely stored for thousands of years. There many countries like USA lack solutions for long term storage of nuclear waste. So nuclear power is like building a house without a toilet.

You also don’t get accidents like this one from solar panel waste. That the American military ended up with a 2 billion dollars nuclear waste cleanup, just because they used the wrong type of kitty litter in the drums that stored nuclear waste.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/kitty-litter-nuclear-waste-accident-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

With nuclear power you also have huge risk from operating the nuclear plants. There for example the Fukushima accident is expected to cost 180 billion dollars.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38131248

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are huge benefits to the regulation of mercury that Trump wants to abolish.

“By contrast, the Obama administration had calculated an additional $80 billion in health benefits because particulate matter and other toxic pollutants are also reduced when utilities limit mercury. It said those "co-benefits" included preventing up to 11,000 premature deaths each year.

"What has changed now is the administration's attitude towards public health," said Clean Air Task Force Legal Director Ann Weeks in a statement. Weeks called the EPA's estimates outdated and said more recent research finds billions of dollars in public health benefits from reducing mercury emissions alone.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/6791...imits-on-coal-plants-too-costly-not-necessary

 

[Nemiroff]

That isn't what the research says:

Two counter points.

1. It may be 300x more toxic then nuclear, but we arent comparing it to nuclear, we are comparing it to coal.

Nuclear is extremely clean, everything is more toxic then nuclear... when it's working right and not melting down. The problems with nuclear are the things your math didnt consider.

2. Solar is relatively new tech and rapidly improving. Its dirt per "unit of electricity generate" will inevitable reduce just as fast even if we dont come up with cleaner materials.

 

[Deuce]

That isn't what the source said:

300 times more [of the] toxic waste.

Not "waste that is 300 times more toxic."

300x refers to volume (or weight, maybe), not toxicity.

Eliminate the subject for a moment. "Deuce produces 300 times more ____ than _____" Clearly this is a sentence about the amount of ____ being produced.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Your basis for this is "Trump said so."

 

[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?

Your interpretation of the 300x is incorrect.

 

[marke]

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.

Trump cut back expensive Obama additions to burdensome regulations? Oh well, we lived OK for hundreds of years before Obama came and nearly wrecked our economy chasing environmentalist butterflies, so I guess removing some of those heavy burdens off American industries will ultimately help Americans live more prosperous lives going forward.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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

Oh the irony...

 

[apdst]

Two counter points.

1. It may be 300x more toxic then nuclear, but we arent comparing it to nuclear, we are comparing it to coal.

Nuclear is extremely clean, everything is more toxic then nuclear... when it's working right and not melting down. The problems with nuclear are the things your math didnt consider.

2. Solar is relatively new tech and rapidly improving. Its dirt per "unit of electricity generate" will inevitable reduce just as fast even if we dont come up with cleaner materials.

Are you saying coal is more toxic than nuclear material?

I doubt that.

 

[apdst]

300 times more [of the] toxic waste.

Not "waste that is 300 times more toxic."

300x refers to volume (or weight, maybe), not toxicity.

Eliminate the subject for a moment. "Deuce produces 300 times more ____ than _____" Clearly this is a sentence about the amount of ____ being produced.

That isn't what the source says. Sorry, but you can't lie your way out of this one.

 

[noonereal]

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

not every environmental policy is needed or cost worth

 

[Greenbeard]

Trump cut back expensive Obama additions to burdensome regulations? Oh well, we lived OK for hundreds of years before Obama came and nearly wrecked our economy chasing environmentalist butterflies, so I guess removing some of those heavy burdens off American industries will ultimately help Americans live more prosperous lives going forward.

Mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are not the basis of our economy.

 

[dcsports]

Your basis for this is "Trump said so."

Not at all. It's not Trump, but the agency itself, as well as those familiar with the industry. Look earlier in the thread (second or third post) has links to the rationale used.

Under Obama, the EPA made a number of reaching proposals that weren't possible from a practical standpoint. This is just one.

 

[Deuce]

Are you saying coal is more toxic than nuclear material?

I doubt that.

Per unit of energy, yes, due to the sheer difference in volume.

 

[Deuce]

That isn't what the source says. Sorry, but you can't lie your way out of this one.

‘Produces 300 times more toxic waste’ means the amount of toxic waste is 300 times greater. Your interpretation is grammatically incorrect. I really don’t know what else to tell you.

 

[Nemiroff]

Are you saying coal is more toxic than nuclear material?

I doubt that.

Not per weight, but per energy produced hell yeah I am. Nuclear energy is extremely clean. 1 rod can produce the energy of a mountain of coal.

Your just sort spooked by the word nuclear and running on baseless assumptions/biases. Instead of doubting, look it up.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Are you saying coal is more toxic than nuclear material?

I doubt that.

If you factor in mountaintop removal mining into coal, then coal is an order magnitude dirtier than nuclear waste in terms of damage to the environment.

 

[Deuce]

If you factor in mountaintop removal mining into coal, then coal is an order magnitude dirtier than nuclear waste in terms of damage to the environment.

Several orders.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Several orders.

Add up all the environmental damage and costs to human health resulting from coal mining and burning, and even if you had a Chernobyl level nuclear disaster every few years, coal would still be far dirtier and far more damaging to human health.

 

[apdst]

If you factor in mountaintop removal mining into coal, then coal is an order magnitude dirtier than nuclear waste in terms of damage to the environment.

I'm pointing out intensity, not volume. Keep moving the goal posts, though.

 

[apdst]

Not per weight, but per energy produced hell yeah I am. Nuclear energy is extremely clean. 1 rod can produce the energy of a mountain of coal.

Your just sort spooked by the word nuclear and running on baseless assumptions/biases. Instead of doubting, look it up.

Keep moving the goal posts. You might accomplish something.

 

[longview]

A quick look around the internet shows that atmospheric mercury levels have been falling since the 1970's
https://www.pnas.org/content/113/3/526

Observations of elemental mercury (Hg0) at sites in North America and Europe show large decreases (∼1–2% y−1) from 1990 to present.

and

The authors showed that this commercial Hg source peaked in 1970 and has been declining rapidly since, driving an overall global decrease in Hg release to the atmosphere over the 1970-to-2000 period.

Since most of the current MATS new standards have not been fully implemented yet and mercury levels were already falling, the new regulations seen
almost unnecessary.
Coal is dirty power and will eventually be phased out because of it's logistical tail, (Hard to move, hard to dispose of the ash), but until
we have something which can serve the same purpose of energy density and on demand duty cycle, it still has value.