Companies call for tougher climate action

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by cassandrabandra, Oct 24, 2011.

  1. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry.. there are NO supply shortages..

    Are you sitting in gas lines? Any rationing going on?

    Are any of your local gas stations closed?
     
  2. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    AEP to retire 6,000 MW of U.S. coal generation

    HOUSTON | Thu Jun 9, 2011 11:37pm BST

    (Reuters) - American Electric Power, one of the country's largest coal-burning utilities, said on Thursday it plans to retire nearly one-quarter of its coal fleet and retrofit other units at a cost of as much as $8 billion to comply with proposed environmental regulations.

    To meet stricter pollution limits for air, water and coal waste, AEP said it will retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation in Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio in 2014.

    It also plans to upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW, convert 1,070 MW of coal generation to 932 MW of natural gas capacity and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation.

    The Columbus, Ohio-based company, which operates utilities in 11 states serving 5 million customers, warned that costs of the proposed regulations to customers and local economies have "been vastly underestimated," especially in Midwestern states that rely heavily on coal to produce electricity.

    "Because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants." said Michael Morris, AEP's chairman.

    Duke Energy, Dominion Resources, Progress Energy, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other utilities have already identified coal units they expect to retire in the next few years.

    Industry studies have indicated that between 30,000 and 70,000 MW of coal-fired generation in the U.S. may be forced to shut, depending on the final EPA rules.

    While supporting the environmental benefits of the regulations, Morris said AEP electric rates could jump from 10 percent to 35 percent as its utilities comply with the rules.

    AEP utilities currently own nearly 25,000 MW of coal-fueled generation, about 65 percent of AEP's 38,000-MW generating capacity. Coal's share would drop to 57 percent of AEP's total generating capacity by the end of the decade, the company said in a release.

    Morris also said electric reliability in the Midwest could be affected as utilities juggle the need to retire plants, shut others to install new pollution equipment and develop new gas generation.

    "The proposed timelines for compliance aren't adequate for construction of significant retrofits or replacement generation so many coal-fueled plants would be prematurely retired or idled in just a few years," Morris said.

    Morris said the company will work with the EPA "with the hope that the agency will recognize the cumulative impact of the proposed rules and develop a more reasonable compliance schedule."

    "With more time and flexibility, we will get to the same level of emission reductions, but it will cost our customers less," Morris said.

    "You could save billions in capital costs if you had until 2020 for compliance as opposed to the timeline in the proposed rules because you can stagger the work, you won't have to idle plants or buy power on the market." said AEP spokeswoman Melissa McHenry.

    However, several EPA deadlines have been set by federal courts and are beyond the EPA's control, said Mark Griffith, a managing director of Black & Veatch, a global consulting, engineering and construction company,

    "Asset owners have been aware of this for several years and have been making plans," Griffith said.

    "This can be done," he said. "It's a matter of spending money and managing the process. It's not simple and it's a lot of changes in the generation infrastructure in a relatively short period of time."

    The EPA has four proposed rule changes. They are:

    * New mercury emission limits under the Clean Air Act

    * New limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions under the Clean Air Transport Rule

    * Additional federal coal-ash disposal rules

    * Use of cooling water towers under the Clean Water Act.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/09/us-utilities-operations-aep-idUKTRE75877620110609
     
  3. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll continue to post articles, read them at your leisure...
     
  4. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Refitting or closing antiquated power plants is suddenly a bad idea???
     
  5. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    scaremongering.
     
  6. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL This article states less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming. lol. talk about shot through the heart...

    Science Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
    Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

    IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.
    Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

    These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

    By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

    http://www.dailytech.com/Survey%2BLess%2BThan%2BHalf%2Bof%2Ball%2BPublished%2BScientists%2BEndorse%2BGlobal%2BWarming%2BTheory/article8641.htm
     
  7. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    And scaring the general public that the world is gonna burn up isnt scaremongering right?
     
  8. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must have missed the part where its costing them billions, and they are passing the cost to the consumers... Just what America needs, higher bills...
     
  9. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    who has said that the world is going to burn up?

    I mean ... apart from in the bible?
     
  10. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL thats off topic might i refer you to The religion forum
     
  11. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ... someone who doesn't maintain his car and check for bald tyres quite possibly doesn't understand that infrastructure also needs to be repaired and replaced ... and that this costs money.
     
  12. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,072
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is beginning to sound like an all or nothing sort of conspiracy..
     
  13. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so who has said that the world is going to burn up?
     
  14. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
  15. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it goes with the territory.

    you see Margot ... according to lolcatz people like me want everyone to live in caves and eat grass because ... well - without excessive amounts of fossil fuels ... what alternative can there be?

    :mrgreen:
     
  16. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    LOL...


    Dismissing me as a Conspiracy Theorist, only proves im right. its a well known defense mechanism.
     
  17. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Wow, you must be paid very well.

    Oh, and you know very well, the agenda behind the EPA forcing the powerplants to upgrade...
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Hmmmm - considering that they have not bothered to do so for too many years - guess Americans must like high mercury level eh?

     
  19. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    most likely I do earn more than you, but when I was younger I figured that maintaining a car properly was safer (and cheaper) than not - and so always factored that in to my budget. Even on a low income you can do this.

    governments sometimes have to think about the same sorts of things.
     
  20. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  21. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, i mean its hard for me to buy things that enhance my safety, when i have to pay for things that enhance the trees safety.
     
  22. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama issues global warming rules in January, exempts GE-powered plant in February
    By: Timothy P. Carney | 02/02/11 5:50 PM
    Senior Political Columnist

    Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.

    This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:

    The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.

    According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

    There's something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:

    The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.

    Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt's closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama's agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration's record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn't trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.

    On the upside, at least Job Czar Immelt is creating jobs!

    ---

    CORRECTION: My headline on this blog post originally stated that GE itself was getting an exemption, which is not correct. GE is slated to provide the turbines for the power plant, which is being grandfathered-in. The body of the blog post was accurate. See GE's response here.


    http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/obama-issues-global-warming-rules-january-gives-ge-exemption-febr
     
  23. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I doubt that the solution is either/or. both the CC and the tyres would be required to pass a vehicle inspection.

    maybe you shouldn't have taken a standard item off the vehicle in the first place?
     
  24. lolcatz

    lolcatz New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no, see thats the other thing. the performance exhaust actually gave me better mpg's...
     
  25. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Back to topic:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-climate-companies-investors-idUSTRE79J00T20111020

    companies call for tougher climate action for a no of reasons from what I can tell.

    1. the costs of not acting will far outweight the costs of acting on this (in terms of the costs caused by damage tot he environment)

    2. to provide certainty for the business environment

    3. because they are afraid of losing business as consumers make "green" choices where these are available

    4. because emerging nations are moving ahead on this, and smart businesses don't want to be behind the game
     

Share This Page