EPA poised to formally repeal Clean Power Plan in major blow to Obama’s climate legacy

[bripat9643]

Rolling Back Obama EPA Rule Could Save $33 Billion

But the Eco-Freaks will scream and moan that it would destroy the ecology.

Reversing an Obama administration energy regulation will save energy companies $33 billion in compliance costs through 2030—costs that would have otherwise been borne by consumers, senior Trump administration officials said in providing details about scrapping the plan.

Read both sides @ Trump Rolls Back Obama EPA Regulation

And how much in increased medical costs to the public from the pollution? The people pushing this should have their teeth kicked in.They are literally harming our children for their profit.

Zero increased medical costs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rolling Back Obama EPA Rule Could Save $33 Billion

But the Eco-Freaks will scream and moan that it would destroy the ecology.

Reversing an Obama administration energy regulation will save energy companies $33 billion in compliance costs through 2030—costs that would have otherwise been borne by consumers, senior Trump administration officials said in providing details about scrapping the plan.

Read both sides @ Trump Rolls Back Obama EPA Regulation

And how much in increased medical costs to the public from the pollution? The people pushing this should have their teeth kicked in.They are literally harming our children for their profit.

Zero increased medical costs.

Fucked up little liar.

However, this is a temporary problem. When President Pence is voted out of office in 2020, these decisions will not only be reversed, there will be more stringent protections for the protection of the health of the citizens of this nation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Rolling Back Obama EPA Rule Could Save $33 Billion

But the Eco-Freaks will scream and moan that it would destroy the ecology.

Reversing an Obama administration energy regulation will save energy companies $33 billion in compliance costs through 2030—costs that would have otherwise been borne by consumers, senior Trump administration officials said in providing details about scrapping the plan.

Read both sides @ Trump Rolls Back Obama EPA Regulation

And how much in increased medical costs to the public from the pollution? The people pushing this should have their teeth kicked in.They are literally harming our children for their profit.

Zero increased medical costs.

Fucked up little liar.

However, this is a temporary problem. When President Pence is voted out of office in 2020, these decisions will not only be reversed, there will be more stringent protections for the protection of the health of the citizens of this nation.

Got to love the optimism knowing full well this will be bumped and you will be laughed at.

 

[bripat9643]

Rolling Back Obama EPA Rule Could Save $33 Billion

But the Eco-Freaks will scream and moan that it would destroy the ecology.

Reversing an Obama administration energy regulation will save energy companies $33 billion in compliance costs through 2030—costs that would have otherwise been borne by consumers, senior Trump administration officials said in providing details about scrapping the plan.

Read both sides @ Trump Rolls Back Obama EPA Regulation

And how much in increased medical costs to the public from the pollution? The people pushing this should have their teeth kicked in.They are literally harming our children for their profit.

Zero increased medical costs.

Fucked up little liar.

However, this is a temporary problem. When President Pence is voted out of office in 2020, these decisions will not only be reversed, there will be more stringent protections for the protection of the health of the citizens of this nation.

If it's a lie, then you should have no trouble producing evidence that pollution from coal plants made somoneill. And by "evidence" I don't mean projections based on cases where someone reeived 10,000 times the dose someone leaving next door to a power plant would recieve.

 

[Old Rocks]

ESTIMATING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS RECEIVING PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL FINANCING Summary In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing. This range of estimated mortality reflects different assumptions regarding use of air pollution control technologies in plants for which this information was not obtainable. Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases. Estimates of the number of people experiencing these additional health outcomes were not made in this study, as the necessary data from the countries where the power plants are located were not available. This suggests that the deaths estimated here represent only a portion of a larger overall health burden related to air pollution from these power plants.

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf

#1

 

[Old Rocks]

Why are coal-fired power plants a concern?

Coal is the largest energy source for generating electricity at U.S. power plants. There are approximately 1,200 coal-fired generators at 450 facilities in the United States. They generate about 44.6 percent of the country's electricity.

There are approximately 125 coal-fired power facilities in the Southwest. Texas generates more electricity from coal-fired power plants than any other state in the country.

Coal-fired power plants are among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as posing a threat to human health and the environment.

Coal-fired power plants also emit cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, furans, lead, nickel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. They emit volatile organic compounds, including benzene, toluene, and xylene. Emissions include acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride. Small amounts of radioactive materials such as radium, thorium, and uranium are also emitted.

Burning coal in power plants emits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with precipitation in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Burning coal also produces particulate matter.

Coal-fired and oil-fired power plants are also called fossil-fueled power plants. Oil-fired power plants generate only 1 percent of the country's electricity.

About 60 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 50 percent of mercury emissions, and 13 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions come from fossil-fueled power plants. Coal- and oil-fired power plants also account for about 60 percent of arsenic emissions, 30 percent of nickel emissions, and 20 percent of chromium emissions.

Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide.

The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

Hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can affect the kidneys, lungs, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

Mercury pollutes lakes, streams, and rivers, and accumulates in fish. Nearly all fish and shellfish contain mercury. People who eat large amounts of fish from mercury-contaminated lakes and rivers, including Native Americans, are at the greatest risk of exposure to mercury.

Tox Town - Coal-Fired Power Plants - Text Version

#2

 

[Old Rocks]

Physicians Point to Effect of Pollutants as EPA Takes Action on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Public Health Feature — June 2016

Tex Med. 2016;112(6):37-42.

By Joey Berlin
Reporter

Cherelle Blazer, an environmental scientist, says she turned toward clean-air activism after a harrowing night more than eight years ago, when she feared poor North Texas air quality might take the lives of her husband and, indirectly, her unborn child.

Ms. Blazer, living with her family in the Fort Worth suburb of Mansfield, was eight months pregnant when she went to dinner at a family member's house with her children. Her husband did not join them because his asthma was giving him trouble. Her husband called her later that night and told her he was having extreme breathing problems. When Ms. Blazer and her children went back to the house, her husband's condition was worse, and he kept using his nebulizer.

He eventually lost consciousness, and an ambulance took him to the hospital. By the time Ms. Blazer got there, her husband was in an asthma-induced coma.

As he remained in the coma for days, Ms. Blazer went into premature labor. Amazingly, her husband came out of his coma on the same day she delivered a healthy baby.

Ms. Blazer says there's no doubt in her mind "living in the conditions that we do in North Texas contributed to my family being in that situation." She's now an organizing representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.

"It's one thing to read … statistics," she said, "and it's another thing to experience the possibilities of what that means in everyday life."

Mindful of the devastating impact pollutants can have, Texas physicians have been clamoring for years for action to curb or eliminate the emissions of coal-fired power plants, pointing to studies and evidence those plants' congesting environmental output makes patient populations sicker and the number of emergency department visits greater.

Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is setting its sights on several of the epicenters of Texas' environmental battle. In February, EPA proposed designating various areas around the country as "nonattainment" regions because of unsafe levels of sulfur dioxide according to 2010 federal standards. Some of those nonattainment areas surrounded three coal-fired power plants in East Texas: the Luminant power facilities known as Big Brown, Martin Lake, and Monticello.

Those plants are among grandfathered "legacy" facilities that aren't subject to clean-air standards requiring lower emissions and newer technologies. As a result, the trio of plants have come under intense scrutiny over the years from clean-air advocates who blame them for downwind pollution in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex.

Trying to Clear the Air

#3 How many more do you want, stupid little shit of a finger guy?

 

[bripat9643]

ESTIMATING THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS RECEIVING PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL FINANCING Summary In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing. This range of estimated mortality reflects different assumptions regarding use of air pollution control technologies in plants for which this information was not obtainable. Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases. Estimates of the number of people experiencing these additional health outcomes were not made in this study, as the necessary data from the countries where the power plants are located were not available. This suggests that the deaths estimated here represent only a portion of a larger overall health burden related to air pollution from these power plants.

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9553_coal-plants-health-impacts.pdf

#1

Their "estimate" is based on extrapolating what happens when someone recieves a high does, to someone recieving a low dose. This is based on a theory that the toxicity is linearly related to the dose. Unfortunately that theory is pure horseshit. Many things are toxic at high doses and perfectly harmless or even benficial at low doses. Consider Iodine. That can kill you, but low doses of it are essential for your body to function properly.

In short, you're peddling bullshit, not science.

 

[bripat9643]

Physicians Point to Effect of Pollutants as EPA Takes Action on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Public Health Feature — June 2016

Tex Med. 2016;112(6):37-42.

By Joey Berlin
Reporter

Cherelle Blazer, an environmental scientist, says she turned toward clean-air activism after a harrowing night more than eight years ago, when she feared poor North Texas air quality might take the lives of her husband and, indirectly, her unborn child.

Ms. Blazer, living with her family in the Fort Worth suburb of Mansfield, was eight months pregnant when she went to dinner at a family member's house with her children. Her husband did not join them because his asthma was giving him trouble. Her husband called her later that night and told her he was having extreme breathing problems. When Ms. Blazer and her children went back to the house, her husband's condition was worse, and he kept using his nebulizer.

He eventually lost consciousness, and an ambulance took him to the hospital. By the time Ms. Blazer got there, her husband was in an asthma-induced coma.

As he remained in the coma for days, Ms. Blazer went into premature labor. Amazingly, her husband came out of his coma on the same day she delivered a healthy baby.

Ms. Blazer says there's no doubt in her mind "living in the conditions that we do in North Texas contributed to my family being in that situation." She's now an organizing representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.

"It's one thing to read … statistics," she said, "and it's another thing to experience the possibilities of what that means in everyday life."

Mindful of the devastating impact pollutants can have, Texas physicians have been clamoring for years for action to curb or eliminate the emissions of coal-fired power plants, pointing to studies and evidence those plants' congesting environmental output makes patient populations sicker and the number of emergency department visits greater.

Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is setting its sights on several of the epicenters of Texas' environmental battle. In February, EPA proposed designating various areas around the country as "nonattainment" regions because of unsafe levels of sulfur dioxide according to 2010 federal standards. Some of those nonattainment areas surrounded three coal-fired power plants in East Texas: the Luminant power facilities known as Big Brown, Martin Lake, and Monticello.

Those plants are among grandfathered "legacy" facilities that aren't subject to clean-air standards requiring lower emissions and newer technologies. As a result, the trio of plants have come under intense scrutiny over the years from clean-air advocates who blame them for downwind pollution in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex.

Trying to Clear the Air

#3 How many more do you want, stupid little shit of a finger guy?

What a cute little anectdote. However, that's not science. It's bullshit. For one thing your story doesn't even mention whatever the so-called pollutant was that was supposedly causing the problem. If you look at any map showing the concentration of emissions from coal fired power plants, there is absolutely no correcelation with hospital admissions for any possibly related medical conditions. None.

These claims about coal pollution causing health problems have zero hard evidence to support them. They are all based on "correlations" and other bullshit that haven't been demonstrated scientifically.

This is just EPA propaganda.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Physicians Point to Effect of Pollutants as EPA Takes Action on Sulfur Dioxide Emissions

Public Health Feature — June 2016

Tex Med. 2016;112(6):37-42.

By Joey Berlin
Reporter

Cherelle Blazer, an environmental scientist, says she turned toward clean-air activism after a harrowing night more than eight years ago, when she feared poor North Texas air quality might take the lives of her husband and, indirectly, her unborn child.

Ms. Blazer, living with her family in the Fort Worth suburb of Mansfield, was eight months pregnant when she went to dinner at a family member's house with her children. Her husband did not join them because his asthma was giving him trouble. Her husband called her later that night and told her he was having extreme breathing problems. When Ms. Blazer and her children went back to the house, her husband's condition was worse, and he kept using his nebulizer.

He eventually lost consciousness, and an ambulance took him to the hospital. By the time Ms. Blazer got there, her husband was in an asthma-induced coma.

As he remained in the coma for days, Ms. Blazer went into premature labor. Amazingly, her husband came out of his coma on the same day she delivered a healthy baby.

Ms. Blazer says there's no doubt in her mind "living in the conditions that we do in North Texas contributed to my family being in that situation." She's now an organizing representative for the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.

"It's one thing to read … statistics," she said, "and it's another thing to experience the possibilities of what that means in everyday life."

Mindful of the devastating impact pollutants can have, Texas physicians have been clamoring for years for action to curb or eliminate the emissions of coal-fired power plants, pointing to studies and evidence those plants' congesting environmental output makes patient populations sicker and the number of emergency department visits greater.

Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is setting its sights on several of the epicenters of Texas' environmental battle. In February, EPA proposed designating various areas around the country as "nonattainment" regions because of unsafe levels of sulfur dioxide according to 2010 federal standards. Some of those nonattainment areas surrounded three coal-fired power plants in East Texas: the Luminant power facilities known as Big Brown, Martin Lake, and Monticello.

Those plants are among grandfathered "legacy" facilities that aren't subject to clean-air standards requiring lower emissions and newer technologies. As a result, the trio of plants have come under intense scrutiny over the years from clean-air advocates who blame them for downwind pollution in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) metroplex.

Trying to Clear the Air

#3 How many more do you want, stupid little shit of a finger guy?

What a cute little anectdote. However, that's not science. It's bullshit. For one thing your story doesn't even mention whatever the so-called pollutant was that was supposedly causing the problem. If you look at any map showing the concentration of emissions from coal fired power plants, there is absolutely no correcelation with hospital admissions for any possibly related medical conditions. None.

These claims about coal pollution causing health problems have zero hard evidence to support them. They are all based on "correlations" and other bullshit that haven't been demonstrated scientifically.

This is just EPA propaganda.

IT's amazing isn't it.. very loose correlations and very wide areas of effect.. And yet not one shred of physical evidence linking it to anything... Proof positive that Old Fraud doesn't read his links and has no cognitive reading skills.. EVERYTHING IN THAT STUDY IS HYPOTHETICAL AND DERIVED FROM MODELING USING LEVELS 100 to 1,000 times levels in real life at just 1000 feet from a power plant....

CONTEXT... the alarmists need to get some...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whining Billy-Bob post @116 asks where the science, apparently amnesia after only 6 messages. The science was begun in post @100. Billy-Bob, like the EPA, seems to require some serious pop quizzes and exams on the material presented in this thread.

LOL

You cant even properly quote a post and then you make shit up.... Just another Alarmist that is dumb as a damn rock.. Taking lessons from Old Crock?

 

[skookerasbil]

Progressives supporting the CPP either..........


1) Do not have the thought processing ability to connect the dots on worldwide carbon emission impacts

or

2) Are very aware of the cost impacts on the poor and middle class of America and the long stated goal of controlling energy as another way to seize power by turning more towards government assistance.



It is one or the other for anybody even half paying attention.


C'mon now....... controlling emissions on only one side of the world is beneficial to the environment??


More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India



"Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world's biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade."




https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute

 

[skookerasbil]

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/as-u-s-shutters-coal-plants-china-and-japan-are-building-them/

 

[skookerasbil]

Anybody who falls for this "China is going green" propaganda stunt has the IQ of a small soap dish................

http://www.theenergycollective.com/lauri-myllyvirta/2197106/new-coal-power-plants-china-carbon-bubble-waiting-burst

 

[bripat9643]

None of you want to accept the Clean Power Plan for what it really was---an attempt to grind the U.S. economy to a crawl to allow the rest of the world to catch up. Obama's job was to get in power and put on the brakes. America last.

Cry in your pinko appletinis.

You fucking dumb asshole, both wind and solar are now produce electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel or nuclear. They are also cheaper to install. Once installed, they require no pipelines, rail lines, or mines to support them. And grid scale batteries are making them power 24/7.

How can that be when wind and solar require a 100% backup from fossil fueled power plants or nuclear?

Wind and solar both require a massive investment in the power grid to get the power from where it's created to where it is consumed. Coal fired power plants, on the other hand, can by built in the middle of the cities where the power is used.

 

[bripat9643]

It would have been like the Interstate Highway Program that Eisenhower put through. The GOP was not going to let President Obama have anything like that. That is why the next time the pendulum swings their way, the Dems need to have a workable program for energy, for healthcare, already thought out and ready for legislation.

Obama was given a trillion to spend on infrastructure. So where did the money go?

 

[SSDD]

Several nations that had put great stock in wind and solar are going to end the subsides...watch wind and sola completely dry up in those nations when tax dollars are no longer paying for the ride...

German flagship business daily “Handelsblatt” reported … how Germany’s wind energy market is now “threatening to implode” and as a result “thousands of jobs are at risk“. José Luis Blanco, CEO of German wind energy giant Nordex, blames the market chaos on “policymakers changing the rules“. Subsidies have been getting cut back substantially. The problem, Blanco says, is that worldwide green energy subsidies are being capped and wind parks as a result are no longer looking profitable to investors. The Handelsblatt writes that “things have never been this bad“.

And in Australia...the land of green renewable energy wackos the number of people seeking food assistance due to the dent increased power bills due to renewables has put in their budgets...industrial nations being turned into third world countries by green renewable energy dreams...

 

[Mr Natural]

Coal!

If it was good enough for the 19th century it’s good enough for today!

Make America Great Again!

 

[jc456]

Ten percent of all of the electricity generated in the U.S. in March came from wind and solar power, marking the first such milestone in U.S. history, according to a new U.S. Energy Information Administration report.

The EIA estimates that wind and solar farms likely generated 10 percent of America’s electricity in April as well, which would be another first, according to the report.

This year’s milestone shows that renewables are becoming a major source of electricity in the U.S. and can no longer be considered “alternative” energy, said Christopher Clack, CEO of the power grid modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researcher.

U.S. Reports a Major Milestone in Wind and Solar Power

Tesla CEO Elon Musk — whose company makes electric cars and has a new solar roof panel division — reminded more than 30 state governors at the National Governors Association meeting this weekend exactly how much real-estate is needed to make sure America can run totally on solar energy.

“If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said during his keynote conversation on Saturday at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”

It’s “a little square on the U.S. map, and then there’s a little pixel inside there, and that’s the size of the battery park that you need to support that. Real tiny.”

Here's Elon Musk's Plan to Power the U.S. on Solar Energy | Inverse
Considering that those panels could be on the tops of shopping malls, warehouses, and other buildings, not even necessary to cover land with those panels.

go build a dome and live under it.

 

[Old Rocks]

U.S. electric generating capacity increase in 2016 was largest net change since 2011

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual and Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory
More than 27 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity was added to the U.S. power grid during 2016, the largest amount of added capacity since 2012. These additions more than offset the retirement of roughly 12 GW of capacity, resulting in a net capacity gain of nearly 15 GW, the largest change since 2011. These net additions follow a 4 GW net capacity decrease in 2015—the largest net drop in capacity recorded in the United States.

U.S. electric generating capacity increase in 2016 was largest net change since 2011 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Much coal retired since 2012, no new coal since 2014. Yes, the subsidies could end today, and the turbines and solar installations would continue. End the subsidies for coal, and the mines will close tomorrow.