Thread: EPA to shut down Coal Plants: Job Losses, Blackouts and Soaring Bills expected

Originally Posted by flounder

It kills me, they have no decent replacement at all but they want to close the Industry and have people lose their jobs...Liberals never put their money where their mouth is.....THEIR IDEA;;;
HEY LETS JUST CLOSE THEM CAUSE WE CAN,,,,,,We will figure it out later..and spend Trillions...

All these plants need to do is update their pollution controls. I have worked on numerous scrubbers and bag-houses that clean up coal plant smokestacks to almost all steam.

Not cheap, but there is no need for them to close.

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

You obviously didn't read my OP.

There is no evidence that these so-called "pollutants" are harmful.

Also, the government is the largest polluter in the country. How can you trust the largest polluter to protect you from pollution? LMAO!

YOU obviously did NOT read YOUR OP!

Here are the parts you saw fit to exclude, logically I guess, because it made ALL of your arguments into BS.

A newly-released report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which conducts policy research for members of Congress, acknowledged EPA regulations will predictably force many coal plants to close through the year 2017.
However, it noted 'In most cases... the benefits (of new regulations) are larger.'

The EPA estimates that an air-transport rule to regulate smog-causing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would help prevent 21,000 cases of bronchitis and 23,000 heart attacks, and save 36,000 lives.

That could result in $290 billion in health benefits, compared with $2.8billion per year in costs by 2014, according to the EPA.

The country's oldest plants are expected to be the first casualties. According to the report, one-third of all coal capacity became active between 1940 and 1969 and about two-thirds of them do not have scrubbers.

The CRS report states: 'Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel - natural gas - continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.'

The CRS staved off arguments coal plant closures would result in a catastrophic affect on the U.S. power grid. According to the report,coal plants that came online before 1970 are in use, on average, only 41 per cent of the time. Electric plants have the added ability of increasing power relatively quickly.

'There is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present,' it reads, noting the affect of the recession and the growing use of natural gas plants.

Originally Posted by fiddlerdave

All these plants need to do is update their pollution controls. I have worked on numerous scrubbers and bag-houses that clean up coal plant smokestacks to almost all steam.

Not cheap, but there is no need for them to close.

That's the problem, the cost makes it prohibitive. Unless you have a perfect replacement this is pure foolish...

Originally Posted by TheLastBoyScout

In the end, this is a scare tactic being promoted by coal lobbyists.

With the profitability of coal, the cost of scrubbers is well within their ability to buy......and if forced, they will take the hit and stay in the profitable business.

Sure, and pass the extra costs along to consumers.

We don't just need abundant energy but it should be affordable also.

Originally Posted by Mac-7

Sure, and pass the extra costs along to consumers.

We don't just need abundant energy but it should be affordable also.

These plants are past their lifetimes by DECADES!

They have been saving a fortune keeping them going, but they haven;t been passing THOSE savings on to customers!'

They pocket every dime they can get away with charging. Building some pollution controls will only raise prices if people willingly pay those charges, but you ignore the references!

We have a GLUT of power plants since we have sent all our manufacturing to China!! They simply can just turn them off if its all too expensive.