Military Could Lead in Commercializing Clean Transportation
Rear-View Mirror Doubles as Solar Panel »
Energy | March 27, 2012 |
New EPA Rules Will Limit CO2 Emissions from Power Plants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to impose a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, a strict new regulation that could prevent conventional coal-fired power plants from being built. In new rules to be announced as soon as Tuesday, the EPA will require that new power plants generate no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. While the typical natural gas plant — which emits 800 to 859 pounds of CO2 per megawatt — would meet the new requirement, coal plants, with an average of 1,768 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, would fail to meet the standard, according to the Washington Post. The rules would exempt coal plants that are already permitted and scheduled to begin construction within a year. About 20 additional projects are seeking permits, two of which would meet the new standard because they would employ pollution control technologies. Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, hailed the rule, saying the it marked the “end of an era” during which coal has provided about 40 percent of U.S. electricity. Photo by Scott Smithson/flickr/Creative Commons
Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
ShareThis
Comments By Readers
Right on, Dave! This article is ftuhrer proof the NYT is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy! The little voices in my head were saying Bogus, and Stupid, and one was just doing a continuous Bronx Cheer for the NYT! Seriously though, without seeing the raw data from the NAS, it's impossible to say how much of the article is Mr. Wald's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the study. I get the feeling there's more spin than fact. The main argument against this clean form of energy seems to be it would make too little difference. Had the article talked about the amount of pollution produced in the construction of a windmill vs. its expected energy output, one might be able to decide whether it was a viable alternative to coal or not. The most absurd paragraph was the one in which the author brought up the harm to bats and raptors, albeit unmeasurable, as an excuse for not building the windmills. Had it compared the damage to bats from windmills vs. the damage to bats from the pollution produced by dirty coal-fired plants that would have been something else (I'm not even sure that's possible). But to claim the environmental highground in relation to birds and bats, in order to justify spewing soot into the atmosphere made me groan.
Post Your Comment