Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New carbon targets

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New carbon targets

    Leaving aside the issue of whether or not you think the EPA's recently-accounced carbon emission targets are a good ideas - if implemented, is this likely to firm up the soft SREC markets?
    SHF produces something besides manure!

  • #2
    Its intent is Obama making good on his 2008 campaign promise to punish US citizens with much higher energy cost. He tried to push through Carbon Tax in his first two years in office and both Democrat controlled Congress and Senate told him to go pound rocks. Now he went around Congress and Senate with a XO to the Employment Prevention Agency to get his way.
    MSEE, PE

    Comment


    • #3
      Reduced Coal Use is The First Step

      I'm not suggesting it is the best way to employ people, but I believe environmental regulations end up creating more jobs, not less. They are American based jobs as well. If we ever hope to control CO2, by far and away the best way to do that is reduce the amount of coal we burn. When you compare reducing coal consumption to burning EPA mandated ethanol and biodiesel for fuel (implemented in the Bush years), there is no comparison what is better for our country/lifestyle. Of course the 1,000s of ethanol plants have created many jobs. Eliminating the use of coal would far outweigh the benefits of ethanol or biodiesel as fuel. It absolutely floors me that we produce/buy electric cars when our incremental electricity comes from coal. Unless you plug in your Tesla to your solar panels and life off the grid, you essentially have a coal powered car. Don't quote me on this, but I've heard coal plants emit more radioactivity in the flue gas than nuclear power plants. Of course, that assumes the nuke plant isn't melting down..... Oh, and how many solar panels would you have if the government wasn't giving you a 30%+ install subsidy?

      Comment


      • #4
        Sure the new EPA ruling will create new jobs using "greener" technology but will they offset the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal industry?

        Another issue is that the USA will be walking away from a huge source of energy material. Although more than likely the coal industry will just mine it and sell it to 3rd world countries like China which will just put the CO2 into the air from a different continent.

        A new meaning for "cap and trade". We cap the use of coal here and trade it to other countries where they use it there.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
          A new meaning for "cap and trade". We cap the use of coal here and trade it to other countries where they use it there.
          Unfortunate but very true.

          India loves the carbon trading schemes. You can get most anything you want certified as legit for a small fee. I suppose much of Asia is about the same.
          [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

          Comment


          • #6
            Utilities are just going to pretty much ignore the new limits for now. They will just wait until NoBamma leaves off and wait and see what the POTUS does. This was done by XO which means the next POTUS can retract the XO as it is not a law. If enacted GAO estimates it will raise electric prices by $200 to $300 per year fulfilling Obama'a promise to punish Americans with higher energy bills. Chamber of Commerce estimates a loss 220,000 jobs by 2016.

            However the ironic part us Native American Indians can now put the screws to White man as we are exempt and can build all the coal fired plants we want to replace all that electricity and can sell lower than NG because coal prices will plummet. We can put a lot of white and black folk out of work and do to you what you did to us.
            MSEE, PE

            Comment


            • #7
              Back to the original topic, please

              It may be too early to figure out what this will do to SREC markets, as each state will find their own way.
              I think it is fair to say that, for at least a while, prices of energy will increase per kWh. The market has decided to make energy from coal because it is cheap. Adding another parameter to the optimization will cause changes (plant upgrades, alternative fuels, new renewable facilities, etc.), that will have at least short term costs.
              This alone would cause a greater increase in solar, as the perceived payback time would be shorter. This could increase the supply of SRECs, which would decrease their price.
              Eventually, it will cause the payback time to increase again, but hopefully by then energy prices will stabilize after the upgrade/replace costs are fully known.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by beatme View Post
                It may be too early to figure out what this will do to SREC markets, as each state will find their own way.
                I think it is fair to say that, for at least a while, prices of energy will increase per kWh. The market has decided to make energy from coal because it is cheap. Adding another parameter to the optimization will cause changes (plant upgrades, alternative fuels, new renewable facilities, etc.), that will have at least short term costs.
                This alone would cause a greater increase in solar, as the perceived payback time would be shorter. This could increase the supply of SRECs, which would decrease their price.
                Eventually, it will cause the payback time to increase again, but hopefully by then energy prices will stabilize after the upgrade/replace costs are fully known.
                You can install all of the renewable energy generators you want but you will still need as much "base load" generation from them fossil fuels plants. Unless someone wakes up and gets the Nuclear industry back on track.

                The coal may be cheap but the technology to make them run clean will be very costly and hard to justify so upgrading older plants may not be on the table and they will be just shut down.

                My concern is the gap between losing major coal generating plants before the new "cleaner" ones are built and brought on line. The people that will feel that impact are the states that import a large portion of their energy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sunking View Post
                  This was done by XO which means the next POTUS can retract the XO as it is not a law.
                  Not quite true. The new EPA regulations are part of the code of federal regulations (CFR), which means that any changes to the regulations have to go through a formal rulemaking process with public comment and the whole works.

                  The process for these particular regulations was actually started under GWB, and the actual rules have changed a lot along the way.

                  And yes, it has been 6+ years in the rulemaking process so far. Obama inherited a process which was already underway.
                  16x TenK 410W modules + 14x TenK 500W inverters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pleppik View Post
                    Not quite true. The new EPA regulations are part of the code of federal regulations (CFR), which means that any changes to the regulations have to go through a formal rulemaking process with public comment and the whole works.

                    The process for these particular regulations was actually started under GWB, and the actual rules have changed a lot along the way.

                    And yes, it has been 6+ years in the rulemaking process so far. Obama inherited a process which was already underway.
                    You might want to do some checking because this is Obama'a Plan announced June 1st under XO. No hearings, just dictatorship. He completely bypassed Congress and hearings shoving it down Americans throat.
                    Here is the link from EPA. Link from NYT

                    The good news is the next POTUS can kill it as it will not be a law.
                    MSEE, PE

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sunking View Post
                      You might want to do some checking because this is Obama'a Plan announced June 1st under XO. No hearings, just dictatorship. He completely bypassed Congress and hearings shoving it down Americans throat.
                      Here is the link from EPA. Link from NYT

                      The good news is the next POTUS can kill it as it will not be a law.
                      Well, yes and no.

                      I was mistaken in that the process which started under GWB was related to motor vehicle emissions, not power plants. The new power plant regulations are a different set of regulations, and they are not yet effective.

                      However, you are mistaken if you think a future president can overturn the EPA regulations by fiat.

                      You need to keep in mind the difference between an executive order and a regulation. An executive order is issued by the President and directs the executive branch of government to implement the law in some particular way. It's basically the boss telling his employees how to do their jobs. You can't be arrested or fined for violating an executive order (though if you're in the military this might be different--not sure on that), but you might lose your job if you are a federal employee.

                      A federal regulation, on the other hand, has more of the force of law and you can be subject to fines and administrative proceedings for violating a federal regulation. However, the President can't just write a federal regulation. The authority to create a regulation has to come from a law passed by congress which gives authority to a government agency to create the regulation, and then the agency has to go through a process where they publish the proposed rules, allow public comment, publish revised rules, allow more comment, and finally publish a final rule which can then become effective. The process can take years, though in theory it can be rammed through in just a few months.

                      What happened this week was the EPA announced that it intends to publish proposed rules for regulating power plant CO2 emissions. It has this authority under the Clean Air Act, in a case which the Supreme Court ruled on in 2007. Once the proposed rules are actually published in the Federal Register, that begins a 120-day public comment period, hearings, revised proposed rules, more comments, more hearings, and so forth until final rules are published sometimes in the future and they become effective.

                      If a different administration wants to reverse the EPA rules, they basically need to run the whole process over again beginning with publishing proposed rules and public comment. It's also clear, based on the 2007 Supreme Court decision, that the EPA doesn't have the option to not regulate CO2, unless the EPA can show that CO2 is not harmful. Given where the science stands, a future administration would face a very high burden in trying to eliminate CO2 regulations without Congress first passing an amendment to the Clean Air Act.

                      The bottom line is that since the 2007 Supreme Court decision, everyone who has been paying attention to this issue has know that one of two things would have to happen: either Congress would have to pass a law removing EPA's mandate to regulate CO2, or EPA would have to make regulations of CO2. Congress tried and failed to pass a law addressing climate change. That left EPA with a mandate it would have to act upon sooner or later, and now we're seeing the results.
                      16x TenK 410W modules + 14x TenK 500W inverters

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Right On Brother

                        Pleppik is absolutely correct. The statement that it will kill jobs is rhetoric with a great history. In 1966 Henry Ford II said the seat belt law would shut down US automobile manufacturing. Lee Iacocca said in 1970 the new automobile smog requirements would "prevent production of cars" and "was a threat to our economy" and would "end car production". The first Bush presidential campaign promised if elected would stop acid rain and he did. The 1988 EPA regulations on the ozone layer depletion and acid rain restrictions was going to kill jobs. All of these regulations probably did put some people out of the work they were doing. But many other jobs opened up to do other work. For the last 50 years we have been hearing "the sky is falling" worries about environmental regulations that have proven to be false. There probably are laws that have hurt the economy/lifestyle and if the hurt was severe enough, hopefully they were changed. (Now I'm thinking of Prohibition, and that was a Constitutional Amendment!)

                        Pleppik is correct. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA HAD to do something about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2007. We would have to change the Clean Air Act to not proceed with cleaning up coal.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ward L View Post
                          Pleppik is absolutely correct. The statement that it will kill jobs is rhetoric with a great history. In 1966 Henry Ford II said the seat belt law would shut down US automobile manufacturing. Lee Iacocca said in 1970 the new automobile smog requirements would "prevent production of cars" and "was a threat to our economy" and would "end car production". The first Bush presidential campaign promised if elected would stop acid rain and he did. The 1988 EPA regulations on the ozone layer depletion and acid rain restrictions was going to kill jobs. All of these regulations probably did put some people out of the work they were doing. But many other jobs opened up to do other work. For the last 50 years we have been hearing "the sky is falling" worries about environmental regulations that have proven to be false. There probably are laws that have hurt the economy/lifestyle and if the hurt was severe enough, hopefully they were changed. (Now I'm thinking of Prohibition, and that was a Constitutional Amendment!)

                          Pleppik is correct. The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA HAD to do something about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2007. We would have to change the Clean Air Act to not proceed with cleaning up coal.
                          So if the generating industry is forced to close coal fuel plants which would reduce mining because there is less coal usage don't you think that some jobs would be lost?

                          In Pennsylvania there are about 68,000 jobs associated with the coal industry. Probably close to that amount in Illinois and Missouri.

                          Also what about states that purchase their electricity from coal generating plants like Idaho. It gets 39% of it power from coal generation. Don't you think that closing coal generating plants that supply it power will not increase the cost of purchasing electricity from other sources and hurt that states finances?

                          I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. I'm just saying the new EPA rules could lead to shutting down a major industry which will affect jobs. That's not rhetoric. That's just economics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
                            So if the generating industry is forced to close coal fuel plants which would reduce mining because there is less coal usage don't you think that some jobs would be lost?

                            In Pennsylvania there are about 68,000 jobs associated with the coal industry. Probably close to that amount in Illinois and Missouri.

                            Also what about states that purchase their electricity from coal generating plants like Idaho. It gets 39% of it power from coal generation. Don't you think that closing coal generating plants that supply it power will not increase the cost of purchasing electricity from other sources and hurt that states finances?

                            I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. I'm just saying the new EPA rules could lead to shutting down a major industry which will affect jobs. That's not rhetoric. That's just economics.
                            SunEagle - You are not willing to stick your head in the sand and praise the EPA? Additionally, the coal will just be sold to China, India or other country where it will be burned in dirtier plants causing even a bigger mess.

                            Due to politics and stupidity the US gets screwed coming and going.
                            [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by russ View Post
                              SunEagle - You are not willing to stick your head in the sand and praise the EPA? Additionally, the coal will just be sold to China, India or other country where it will be burned in dirtier plants causing even a bigger mess.

                              Due to politics and stupidity the US gets screwed coming and going.
                              You are right about the coal going off shore so that will provide some jobs.

                              Unfortunately only about 8100 of the 63,000 jobs in Pennsylvania perform the mining. That still leaves a very large number of people with the potential of losing their job and livelihood when the generating plants shut down.

                              Even if new jobs are made with the increase of renewable energy or natural gas generation I don't believe it will balance out the jobs that will be lost. Not a good path to go down. Better to create new jobs first and then slowly wean down the those in the coal industry.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X