Subscription Center
Nov 14, 2008 02:39 PM | 19
.jpg)
In its waning days, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has essentially halted all new construction of coal-fired power plants until the government can figure out what to do about climate-change-causing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In a ruling yesterday (pdf) on a petition to build a new 110-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Bonanza, Utah, the EPA decided that it could no longer grant permits for such new construction until it determines what is needed to limit CO2 emissions.
The decision refers back to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that the EPA, much to its own chagrin, has the authority to regulate emissions of CO2, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas. In essence, permits cannot be granted until the agency figures out whether or not to force power plants to install technology to control such emissions.
The CO2 problem is not limited to coal plants. All fossil-fuel fired power plants emit CO2 in varying proportions. And, if you scratch most renewable energy sources—wind turbines, solar photovoltaics, even nuclear—there are copious greenhouse gas emissions somewhere along the line—forging of steel for turbine blades, purifying silicon and concentrating uranium.
Further, there is no control technology for CO2 available at present. Carbon capture—whether before the fossil fuel is burned or after—is still only being demonstrated, although the storage portion has been used effectively to get more oil and natural gas out of the ground.
So, for the time being, at least 30 new coal-fired power plants just received a big stop-work order and, with a new administration pledging to regulate CO2, it remains unclear when the climate might change in coal's favor again.
Credit: © Michael Utech/istockphoto.com
Tags:
clean coal,
wind,
epa,
environmental protection agency,
coal,
electricity,
solar,
renewables,
fossil fuel,
power plant,
energy
More News Blog:
Next: U.S. East Coasters may see space shuttle in the sky tonight
Previous: How bleach kills germs
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jul 14 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
19 Comments
Add Comment"In its waning days, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has essentially halted all new construction of coal-fired power plants until the government can figure out what to do about climate-change-causing carbon dioxide (CO2) "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems like they are trying to push it off to the next administration. Its like saying, come back and ask again in 6 months.
On another note, could it hurt to force powerplants to regulate emmissions. OK, maybe they dont have any scientific data about it at this point (even though it is ALL around and easy to find) but could it hurt to force them to regulate it anyway.
We are regulating ourselves into poverty as no business will find it profitable to operate or produce in the USA, and foreigners continue to be more and more willing to embrace the virtues of free market capitalism. The result: 300 million Americans left with nobody who wants to employ them in America. Don't think its happening? Look at US automakers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHoorah for CLEAN energy technologies! The idea of clean coal is a joke - impossible to accomplish without massive federal funding that would make even nuke plants look cheap. There's a good discussion of alt fuels at AltFuels101.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Look at US automakers." Good idea. They got themselves in their own fix by convincing millions of idiots to buy SUVs because they were such a hot profit item. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda have been pursuing electric and hybrid technology. Now we awake to find out that gas and oil are in short supply and cost a bundle. When did that happen? Why didn't we see it coming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS automakers shouldn't share a dime of any bailout money until they are committed to building what this country (and this world) needs. We have the brains and technology, but in a free-market system, your decision to go in the wrong direction will be rewarded only so long. Then brains begin to kick in and Detroit finds itself saddled with all the equipment to build SUVs but what is needed is the equipment to build batteries, etc.
Stupid decisions voluntarily made should not be rewarded. They got themselves into this mess; let them figure out how to get out.
Nuclear Power + Electric Cars is the future (I just hope it comes soon enough).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe people that rant about government regulation of greenhouse gases need to think about the dire consequences & the cost of a much warmer planet. If they are worried about any short term cost & inconvienence, they have seen nothing yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother sector of the economy falls to environmental alarmism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article does not describe the legal situation correctly. The EPA court is asking EPA to clarify its reasons for not regulating CO2 under a specific section of the law that is ill suited for the task. The underlying problem is that there is no way to reduce CO2 emissions when burning carbon based fuel, because CO2 is a product of combustion, not a minor pollutant that can be removed in the process. All the oxygen in the air gets converted to CO2 in the fire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Wojick, Ph.D.
http://www.climatechangedebate.org
WV voted 63 -67% Republican. I don't forsee the coal industry doing well here. Just as well They destroyed and poluted the Mountains and rivers her and screwed the towns around the mines. Good ridence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the US we burn just over one billion tons of coal a year to make electricity, so you can read this message. It has to come from somewhere. We are going to burn a billion tons next year and the year after that, no matter who is president. There is no real alternative in the short run.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre CO2 emmissions really changing climate? Studies of the antarctic ice at the Vostok station indicate that there has been a periodicity in the fluctuation of global temperature. According to it, there is a slow descent and a fast ascent within a cycle of 100,000 years, changing the global temperature in about 12�C....and the earth is presently in the ascending phase. Geological studies have also shown a periodicity of about 60,000 years between glaciations. Where is the scientifical evidence that man made CO2 is causing the global temperature to raise? Rather, in seems indifferent if we burn fossil fuels or not; the global temperature is rising anyway...slowly and steadily.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnybody who thinks that CO2 and climate change is no big deal should consider that (a) the frequency of large wildfires has quadrupled since the 70s and (b) a statistical connection between the intensity of hurricanes and sea surface temperatures has just been shown for the first time this year. That's exactly what climatologists have predicted for decades. I'm sure that drought, number of tornadoes and other climate events that are predicted as a result of climate change will soon be shown to be connected as well. If we don't go for nuclear and renewable energy, the Indians and Chinese always know where to point their finger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSTOP BREATHING, FA%^iNG It is my understanding that cleaner coal could be possible, but a 'demo plant' cannot be built, because it cost more, as utilities are required by law to accept the lowest bid. Try something soon, a coal plant will last 50 odd years. With the amount of coal available, the coal industry is not about to be wiped out -here or around the world. Develop the technology, and allow the construction to be built. Every new 'old style plant is 50 years backwards. Coal is very likely part of the solution. We cannot sit and wail, likewise in other industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you checked all the major gobal temperature indicators for the past 7-8 years. Gobal temps have actually cooled. How does your model explain that, given the fact that China and India put 200MW per week of coal generation in service?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe frequency of large wildfires is directly related to the forest and park services new policy of not fighting small fires which leads to larger fuel buildup. It cannot be attributed to warmer climates (if they exist) alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dont believe any of this fabricated crap. Keep looking at ways to burn our coal as clean as possible, and use our own energy sources. Greenhouse gases what a bunch of crap. How about the idea of cycling weather that changes as mother nature sees fit. Scientists who are being overpaid have to invent ways to make everything look bad in order to keep receiving paychecks. We need to totally clean house and get some scientific people involved with problem solving, that will use common sense. This country has been on a downhill slide and has all but stopped our forward progress due to the continual flow of newly invented problems that do not exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to common sense in problem solving. We are trying to eliminate using one of our own natural resourses. Maybe we ought to form a group of people who would look objectively, and think of a way to burn our coal as cleanly as possible. Common sense would go a long way into getting this country moving forward again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree, when USA stopped the coal-fire power plant development, we are in developing country begin to use especially china and india. there are possibility way to minimize the CO2 emission. one, the power plant from water resource with dams shall be stopped and shall be normalization to naturalization, so it can enlarge new Forrest that can minimize the CO2. two, surcharge the abandon open exploration of coal, iron,gold, etc. mining with fertilize soil that can be found in minor unsettled archipelago (that's a big project but that's one of a way since we are difficult to find fertilize soil).three. use thermal, wind, wave or sea flow based power plant, or we have possibility to develop lightening power plant. the country with high technology of power plant shall do technology transfer to the developing countries, so we together have to minimize the CO2 production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRicky Rosadi.
develop bio, wind, thermal, sea wave, sea flow, lightening, lava heat based power plant. close the abandon open mine with fertilize soil from minor archipelagos to build Forest. transfer technology to developing countries to press agility to build CO2's power plant production. and don't use water power plant that halting the water flow by built the dam. it will minimize forest regeneration. since developing those plant above, hydro fusion can be appropriate than nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this