Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday December 30 2018, @10:50AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong dept.

The Trump administration EPA says regulations to reduce power plant emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants are too costly and should no longer be considered legally "appropriate and necessary."

In another proposed reversal of an Obama-era standard, the Environmental Protection Agency Friday said limiting mercury and other toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants is not cost-effective and should not be considered "appropriate and necessary."

The EPA says it is keeping the 2012 restrictions in place for now, in large part because utilities have already spent billions to comply with them. But environmental groups worry the move is a step toward repealing the limits and could make it harder to impose other regulations in the future.

In a statement, the EPA said it is "providing regulatory certainty by transparently and accurately taking account of both costs and benefits."

The National Mining Association welcomed the move, calling the mercury limits "punitive" and "massively unbalanced."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @12:19PM (18 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @12:19PM (#779948) Journal

    Oh-kay. I grew up in Lawrence county in Penna. Pretty much everyone used coal for heating. Later, during high school, it seems a lot of city people had switched over to gas or oil, but still, lots of coal. My immediate family had no asthma. None of my friends. Here I am, today, in Arkansas, and I know a number of people who never used coal in their lives, but have asthma.

    I'm certainly not going to tell you that coal smoke is "good" for you, but personally, I can't see that it's all that bad.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday December 30 2018, @04:29PM (8 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Sunday December 30 2018, @04:29PM (#779979) Journal
    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:04PM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:04PM (#780012) Journal

      The only nation I'm aware of today that might create a smog like that, would be China. On the page you linked to, the Battersea station is pictured, in 2012. From that photo, you wouldn't know that they are burning coal. Even in the '70's we were busily cleaning up our coal plants. Penn Power's West Pittsburgh plant dumped soot across many square miles of land on bad days. On better days, housewives in West Pittsburgh simply could not hand laundry out, because it would be black before it got dry. I'm not sure what the dates were now, but by about 71, maybe 72, Penn Power installed new stacks with scrubbers. When the plant was reopened, those literal tons of soot were transformed into columns of vapor, and that vapor wasn't even visible sometimes.

      I don't intend to minimize the pollution that industry generates, but I do tend to agree with Trump, in that EPA's mandates don't always make sense. There has also been a long running battle from various sectors, in that EPA mandates should consider affordability.

      Coal stack emissions, for instance. The original mandates were expensive, but affordable. The soot removed from the emissions was WAY over 99% - you would have to carry the decimal point way out beyond the trillions. It made sense. At some point, further mandates make no sense though. The expense gets so high, no one can afford to run the plant!

      If gubbermint decides that we will burn no more coal, well, they probably have that right. But, the EPA doesn't have that right, or authority. It's not right that they just arbitrarily increase the cost of doing business, until no one is doing business any longer.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:30PM (2 children)

        by Gaaark (41) on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:30PM (#780021) Journal

        I basically just posted it 'because': it's an interesting read, and an interesting 'solve' that China will probably have to go through eventually: i get the feeling their soil is more polluted even than their air.

        I just wish people were smarter: we have too many people in this world who think the dollar is more important than people and i wish things were different.

        But they're not.

        By the way: have you given the keys to the kingdom back yet? :)
        https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=29377&page=1&cid=779966#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:36PM (3 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:36PM (#780022) Journal

        On the page you linked to, the Battersea station is pictured, in 2012. From that photo, you wouldn't know that they are burning coal.

        You would not know that they were burning coal because they were not. The Battersea power station closed in the '80s. It's an iconic listed building and is now being redeveloped for retail and offices.
        https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/ [batterseapowerstation.co.uk]

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:24PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:24PM (#780036) Journal

          That's some clean, clean coal!!

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:12PM (1 child)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:12PM (#780048) Journal

          OK, let me set my smartassery aside. For whatever reason, I decided to take a close up of Battersea through Google earth. It looks pretty awesome, really. I think it a bit humorous that they guy who designed the power station is the same guy who designed the red telephone box - lots of similarities there, right?

          From there, I passed through Wikipedia, and hit a couple other short articles. That's one heck of a landmark!

          Thanks for mentioning it, whoever.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @05:55PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @05:55PM (#780010)

    Smoke with mercury and other shit in it IS BAD! Don't try and downplay it. We need to stop burning coal, period.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:06PM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:06PM (#780013) Journal

      It seems we need to stop burning all fossil fuels. Are you, personally, ready to swear off of fossil fuels, completely? If your electricity comes from a plant that burns fossil fuels, are you going to do without?

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:41PM (1 child)

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday December 30 2018, @06:41PM (#780025) Journal

        Are you, personally, ready to swear off of fossil fuels, completely?

        No, but I am ready to reduce CO2 output. Coal produces more CO2 per Joule than other fuels.

        I put my money where my mouth is: I drive an EV, I have solar panels. Very little, or perhaps no, electricity in the grid where I live is generated using coal.

        We know that the current levels of CO2 emissions are bad for the environment. We know that there are ways to produce electricity that result in less CO2 emissions and pollution. We know that coal is expensive.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @07:48PM (#780044)

          We know that the current levels of CO2 emissions are bad for the environment.

          not so sure about that, bad for human living in costal area and hotter climate is not the same as bad for nature. We don't have a clue if the climate change will be a net plus or a net loss in 100y, let's imagine that climate change kills 50% of humans over 100y. This would be a tremendous relief on the earth ecosystem, would it be that bad in the long run? I don't think so.. I think that the best course of action is to assume it is going to be bad an prepare contengency mesure for when shit it the fan. Here in Canada we should reinforce our southern border while nobody look at us and start a serious artic lands occupation strategy

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:37PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @08:37PM (#780052)

        We do need to, but this is one of those things that requires serious backing by the government to accomplish.

        And how many of those power plants would be in operation without the government subsidizing them and or obstructing alternatives? It's gotten to the point where despite the best efforts of government officials that wind and solar energy are competitive with fossil fuels. Sure, we aren't to the point where it's viable to completely abandon fossil fuels, but that won't happen if we keep propping them up.

        If we had stopped subsizing fossil fuels and switch that funding over to renewable sources we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Because the share of energy coming from fossil fuels would already be dropping even more than it is now.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:00PM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:00PM (#780060) Journal

          Nice rant, I guess. Unfortunately, you didn't say anything more substantial than most candidates for public office. Seriously, read over that. There's nothing more than a big bag of wind there.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:42PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:42PM (#780074)

            yeah, but you say that as if your "trump is right, EPA regulations don't always make senses" mythology has any meat on it

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:49PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 30 2018, @09:49PM (#780080) Journal

              So, uhhhh - you're saying that the EPA can make no errors? They have something like the Papal Infallibility? Got it - I'm dealing with a zealot here.

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday December 31 2018, @06:42PM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday December 31 2018, @06:42PM (#780344) Journal

            Well, he is right about one thing. No major industry can survive without being propped up by the government, energy, agriculture, transportation, your tax dollars at work there. On the other hand, price stabilization is a thing, but I would also like to see the petrol industry compete on even footing with the alternatives. Petrol has the advantage of being easier to control and ration, so it's easy to understand why it is promoted more than the others.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..