33
votes
New EPA regulation requires coal plants in the United States to reduce 90 percent of their greenhouse pollution by 2039 (gifted link)
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- New Biden Climate Rules Could Shutter Remaining American Coal Plants
- Published
- Apr 25 2024
- Word count
- 2133 words
Exempt and 15 years in the future. How to say you did something, without really doing anything.
Comment box
Gas is a different energy source than coal. It has different characteristics both environmentally and health-wise. EPA has already signaled that they are skeptical of methane gas as an energy source for environmental reasons and the current administration has halted permitting of new gas plants. But the article does say that future (hypothetical) gas plants are seeing new regulations, which will limit future emissions:
Emphasis is mine. The purpose of this rule's application to future gas projects is to discourage utilities from switching from coal to gas. The goal is to get them to switch from goal to something actually green.
As for the coal plants, this regulation compresses the timeline for 90% emissions reduction by a year (from 2040 to 2039). That is not "nothing." Remember that an EPA decision that would immediately put an economically significant corporation out of business would, generally speaking, be overturned in court just as quickly.
But technically, the paragraph you're looking at is misleading. The real timeline is this:
Emphasis is mine. The regulation compresses the categorization of plants with different life expectancies, but still presents a timeline for the near future. Plants that expect to exist for a long time have until 2032 (that's 8 years, not 15) to get to a 90% emissions reduction. And obviously that is not going to happen all at once; it will be incremental over the next eight years. That means that in as little as, say, one or two years, we could start to see some reductions.
The article also writes:
That is significant. Again, hardly "nothing." And this part of the regulation would go into effect much more immediately than the emissions limits.
It's worth reiterating that the overarching reason the EPA has to take such an incremental and narrow approach to regulation is that, as the article mentions, the Supreme Court restricted the EPA's ability to mandate a move away from coal.
What are you expecting? National infrastructure change take time. Yes, decades for stuff like this.
Is 15 years really necessary to install a smoke stack scrubber?
Most coal plants already have scrubbers. This new requirement goes beyond those scrubbers, and would require full CCS systems. This requires the infrastructure for transportation and long-term storage or disposal of compressed CO2.
Yes (and probably more), since we still need to figure out where we're going to put all that CO2, how to get it there and whether it will stay down there. Not least of which how inefficient and costly current capture methods are.
We're going to land on Mars and stop global warming; it's just that we'll do it two or three presidents from now. No way anything will change.
Let's terraform Earth before terraforming Mars. :-)
Technically we’ve already terraformed Earth. Just not on purpose.
One of my favorite parts of this is the impact container ships have on ocean temperatures https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/ships-emissions-used-to-estimate-cloud-seeding-impact
De-terraformed Earth. Industrialists have made the planet less habitable.
We have had housing on the moon since the 50s according to the documentary series “Hello Tomorrow!” On Apple TV+.
I am really curious if this ends up like a California bullshit "we're going to say this but we can't actually do it" sort of proposition or if the industry will really be able to adhere to it.
Comment box
In what ways has California demonstrated its environmental propositions to be infeasible? It is my impression that the deadlines that are in the public consciousness have not yet come to pass.
They have rescinded a few that were due in 2030 and aren't possible. Some that actually got my company another foothold into a contract that will reach 2030.
That being said, an easy find is here: https://calmatters.org/environment/climate-change/2024/03/california-climate-change-mandate-analysis/
Another (and I was looking for the original ones that made me cringe a year or two ago, but apparently it's still sadly ongoing): https://www.ocregister.com/2024/03/21/state-failing-to-meet-costly-climate-goals/
One along the lines I have been looking for: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-09-08/what-is-the-california-climate-credit-does-it-cut-pollution.
Also feel free to check your "sarcasm" box, because I originally hailed from CA and hate that it's turned into what it has... ;)