New Regulations For Old Coal Plants

Most environmentalists have no idea of what the gains/losses are.

The EPA often seems to have even less of an idea - it either swings right or left depending on the president so at present the pendulum is stuck well off center.

It would interesting to see a real engineering study on the cost and benefits using real numbers - not the made up stuff.

The EPA is clueless, and institutionally disinterested in economics of the subiect they regulate. That is not necessarily the core of their task, but nobody else doing it either.

On the East coast, it does not care about the gunk carried in by the wind from the west.

In the west it does not care about the gunk carried in from mainly china.

Without those considerations, the rules are garbage. Additionally - and rightly so - they are subiect to partisan and ideological blame. And rightly so, by their own hand.

AS, after we (whoever) doing a good iob, the garbage is dominated by "others", sets the problems right here.

What about getting on the case of the source of the case, instead busting or chaps, smart buddy? Let see some firm talking on that!

Your point about pollution flowing from area to area - here we get covered with smog from the 'great green Europe' when the wind blows from the north and west.

I find it hard to believe that anyone starts up and shuts down a coal burner on a daily (afternoon peak) basis, as seems to be implied here:

(17-59GW of a total 316GW). Though most of these are small, intermittently run plants, they play an important role in the nation's power generation during peak hours.

Gas turbines with heat recovery steam generators could potentially be sited at some of these old plants, if natural gas can be made available. Demolition of the coal boiler and coal handling equipment would provide much of the room.

Peakers are often just gas turbines, with exhaust heat wasted off to allow for quick response to peak demand, without the operational complication of starting and shutting down a steam system.

The turbo generators are the most expensive and hard to get components in a powerhouse, and if the oldest coal fired boilers are outlawed, there will be a potential boom installing upgraded burners and natural gas conversions. Thorium based IFR pebble bed nuclear reactors would be my preference, but that seems politically infeasible.

You're correct. The statement I made was based off this phrase from the article:

"Generally, many of these are old, poorly performing smaller units that are operated infrequently-when peak power is needed and demand is high."

This is referring to seasonal demand. Thank you for the clarification.

Unfortunately, the people may as well start preparing for rolling brownouts as a way of life. The power industry has been working to upgrade older units and building newer units to keep in step with the needs of the market. Couple this with the EPA and other late day regulations, the energy companies will more than likely have to mothball older units thereby reducing energy production capacities. This will also cause the cost per KWH to go up to cover the costs of additional generation and new technologies such as Selective Catalyst Reduction systems, etc. used to reduce pollutants, as well as additional green energy power generation systems (wind, photovoltaics, etc.). Upgrading the grid will also come into play on the financial equation as well. As I see it, costs per KWH and the reduced generation capacities along with the problems that come along with it will cause us as a society to either learn to conserve energy, conserve energy without any say-so about it (rolling brownouts), or actively seek to remedy the shortfall of power generation by investing in personal home based PV or wind systems. In the name of progress; we will be taking the one step forward followed by a legislated two (or three) steps back.

Some are already looking into homegrown solar energy projects as evidenced on youtube. One of the largest energy needs in the home setting is for the hot water heater which is easy to remedy with a homebrew solar hot water heater. This type of homebrew manufacturing/engineering may just take off. Other types of home projects could be on the way as well. I for one am interested in keeping up with some of these homebrew energy projects. I just hope that the internet engineers use caution as some of those projects can be dangerous especially if they use focused mirrors in their heating systems.

Industry estimators predict a 5-19% loss of U.S. coal based capacity (17-59GW of a total 316GW). Can the US afford to loose that much (coal fired) generating capacity?

To put the figure in perspective, coal fired generators produce about 316GW of energy OR about 1 kilowatt for Every American. A 5% loss in current times may be bearable..but a 19% loss of capacity when the economy gets rolling again.. Geez !

A year is a long time in politics !

Not sure where the writer got his info, but it's a lot outdated or somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. My brother is a union welder and he has been working at a lot of coal fired plants who have been upgrading the smoke/smog reduction/scrubbers for a number of years now. All of this to comply with the Enviromental Punishment Agency.

The writer must have been making it up as they went - not to mention that the news is that the administration is backing off this as fast as they can.

The entire thing is bad science, bad engineering and really bad politics.

My apologies on a misunderstanding/misread of my source. You're both correct: my statement went beyond the idea of "grandfathering" or leaner regulations and limits on old plants, which was what the article is referring to. My post would read as if the plants were not required to make any changes, which is of course not true. Thank you for pointing that out.

And yes, shortly after I posted this topic, the EPA made a new announcement which made this one old news .