E.P.A. Chief Changing Rules

OriginalOscar · Jul 11, 2017

Long article with several key points.
- Backing off the Clean Power requirements Obama put in place is reasonable to protect American interests. Industry is already moving towards gas over coal and renewables for power. The Clean Power requirements were job killers. Clean Power falls in line with the Paris Accord and I agree with Trump; he was elected to represent Pittsburgh not Paris. We limited ourselves and accepted continued growth of emissions by China/India.

- Pesticides are a nasty reality for modern agriculture to grow what we require. Nature has the ability to concentrate in the environment like DDT back in the day. EPA needs to stand firm if something is suspect.

- Support his focus on Superfund sites in the U.S. We still have areas which suffer from past deeds. These have direct impact on water, soil, wildlife and our quality of life. Utah has several Superfund sites which have been completed and are now developed or returned to natural state.

- The article mentioned states rights. Air, water move so environmental regulations are national and international concern. EPA should regulate nationally and strive to work with international partners whenever possible; provided it's a fair arrangement. I would support states receiving federal grants to fund their state environmental office and oversight if they agreed to follow EPA rules. Duplication of federal, state, local government initiatives is a waste of resources.

- Nuclear (not mentioned) EPA should fast track nuclear projects as the best alternative to expedite truly Clean Power. Industry is developing reprocessing technology to reduce the waste.

Ben Lamb · Jul 11, 2017

Good post, DD.

I disagree w/ your #1. Gas is replacing coal for a variety of reasons, including regulation of CO2 gas from CA, WA & OR - leading energy markets. Similarly, gas production has outstrips demand significantly, leading to a depressed market and cheap fuel supply - for the time being, Couple these with the end of life plans for the majority of coal fired plants and previous regulations limiting pollutants and you have the changeover from coal to gas. CPP would have accelerated those change-overs and possibly contributed to more layoffs from coal, but the expanded job market from renewable is already swallowing those jobs up. Pittsburgh has also signed on to the commitment of Paris, btw. So if the president, along with the EPA, want to represent Pittsburgh, then they made the wrong play.

With you entirely on the pesticide thing. No good reason to roll that back other than corporate greed.

I too support focusing on superfund sights, unfortunately, the EPA budget slashes funding for them . This will hurt Montana greatly as we're still struggling to clean up the world's largest superfund site. It extends from Butte to Missoula.

Agree with 4 & 5. We're fools for not looking closer at nuclear energy.

JWP58 · Jul 11, 2017

Nuclear energy is fine and dandy, until you have to dispose of the radioactive waste. I'm glad there aren't more nuclear power plants in the U.S. Worst case scenario we have a massive grid failure due to a sun flare or terrorist attack, then we hope the back up generators don't fail (and stay fueled) to keep the reactor and spent fuel rods from melting down.

When you look at the radioactive half life of the waste from nuclear power plants, I fail to see how they are "clean energy".

We don't need a fukushima state side. I'd rather invest in the boondoggle know as wind/solar energy before nuclear.

airlocksniffer · Jul 11, 2017

JWP58 said:
Nuclear energy is fine and dandy, until you have to dispose of the radioactive waste. I'm glad there aren't more nuclear power plants in the U.S. Worst case scenario we have a massive grid failure due to a sun flare or terrorist attack, then we hope the back up generators don't fail (and stay fueled) to keep the reactor and spent fuel rods from melting down.

When you look at the radioactive half life of the waste from nuclear power plants, I fail to see how they are "clean energy".

We don't need a fukushima state side. I'd rather invest in the boondoggle know as wind/solar energy before nuclear.

Read up on thorium reactors. Considerably safer and substantially less waste:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/#.WWVPMNPyvUI

BigHornRam · Jul 11, 2017

Ben,

Combustion of natural gas to generate electricity gives off C02 just like coal does. You also give off C02 when you exhale. Should that be regulated?

Remember when Schweitzer was pushing to gasify coal then convert it to diesel? What ever happened to that idea? Now that natural gas is so cheap and abundant, would it make sense to skip the coal and use n. gas? Maybe use that methane we are flaring? Potential business opportunity here?

Ben Lamb · Jul 11, 2017

BigHornRam said:
Ben,

Combustion of natural gas to generate electricity gives off C02 just like coal does. You also give off C02 when you exhale. Should that be regulated?

Remember when Schweitzer was pushing to gasify coal then convert it to diesel? What ever happened to that idea? Now that natural gas is so cheap and abundant, would it make sense to skip the coal and use n. gas? Maybe use that methane we are flaring? Potential business opportunity here?

Methane: EPA is trying to eliminate the flaring rule, henceforth allowing that methane to escape unused - because it's cheaper to do this than capture it and ship it. The methane rule that the previous administration had put forth would have ended that practice, and forced industry to capture it and sell it, IIRC.

Combustion of Nat Gas versus coal is much different and Nat Gas is much more efficient than coal when it comes to producing electricity, especially in aging plants where the upgrade to current regs proves to be cost-inefficient. Nat gas also produces much less in terms of pollutants, including CO2 than coal. It's a good bridge fuel until a more sustainable energy source comes along (like solar or wind advancements we are seeing now that would create more reliability, especially in the storage areas). Anytime you place your energy needs on a finite resource, especially one that is more valuable overseas than in-country, you place your energy needs behind the financial needs of a private company (see oil export legislation from 2016). Rather than rely on 1 piece of energy, we need to be focused on a variety of sources with minimal environmental impact. Every energy source has an impact. From heavy metal mining to land usage - you cannot get away from it. You can plan more thoughtfully however, which is what the CPP was intended to do (It was not the end-all-be-all, but it was a good start). Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Gas, Coal, etc all should be on the table until we get to a place where fossil fuels can be replaced while still protecting jobs and ensuring energy security.

"clean coal" & gasifying coal are pipe dreams that are not financially feasible and create even more waste. Germany during WW2 gassified coal, but left a heck of a mess behind by doing it, and it's a net loss of energy. You use more energy to produce less gas. Clean coal gets trotted out every bust or market disruption as the saving gracie for coal, but in 30 years, no breakthroughs have occurred that would make it a reality.

BigHornRam · Jul 11, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
Methane: EPA is trying to eliminate the flaring rule, henceforth allowing that methane to escape unused - because it's cheaper to do this than capture it and ship it. The methane rule that the previous administration had put forth would have ended that practice, and forced industry to capture it and sell it, IIRC.

Combustion of Nat Gas versus coal is much different and Nat Gas is much more efficient than coal when it comes to producing electricity, especially in aging plants where the upgrade to current regs proves to be cost-inefficient. Nat gas also produces much less in terms of pollutants, including CO2 than coal. It's a good bridge fuel until a more sustainable energy source comes along (like solar or wind advancements we are seeing now that would create more reliability, especially in the storage areas). Anytime you place your energy needs on a finite resource, especially one that is more valuable overseas than in-country, you place your energy needs behind the financial needs of a private company (see oil export legislation from 2016). Rather than rely on 1 piece of energy, we need to be focused on a variety of sources with minimal environmental impact. Every energy source has an impact. From heavy metal mining to land usage - you cannot get away from it. You can plan more thoughtfully however, which is what the CPP was intended to do (It was not the end-all-be-all, but it was a good start). Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Gas, Coal, etc all should be on the table until we get to a place where fossil fuels can be replaced while still protecting jobs and ensuring energy security.

"clean coal" & gasifying coal are pipe dreams that are not financially feasible and create even more waste. Germany during WW2 gassified coal, but left a heck of a mess behind by doing it, and it's a net loss of energy. You use more energy to produce less gas. Clean coal gets trotted out every bust or market disruption as the saving gracie for coal, but in 30 years, no breakthroughs have occurred that would make it a reality.

Ben,

Natural gas is basically methane. I think the flaring is wasteful. We should be using it. Like maybe converting it into diesel? Good business opportunity?

3855WIN · Jul 11, 2017

The Clean Water Act was ambiguous on what consisted of waters. It essentially allowed a regulator to rule that the low spot on the farm was "water" and couldn't be touched. There weren't rules that the landowner could go by. It just came down to what the EPA employee ruled on. Not sure if the changes will provide clarity on this. I do know that something needed to change.

Ben Lamb · Jul 11, 2017

BigHornRam said:
Ben,

Natural gas is basically methane. I think the flaring is wasteful. We should be using it. Like maybe converting it into diesel? Good business opportunity?

If that were profitable, companies would be doing it. These guys aren't in business for altruistic reasons; they're in it to make the highest return possible for stockholders. That's why they fought the methane rule (and lost, for now). It's also why Pruitt was so keen to get rid of it: The collusion between this administration and industry makes the Bush II admin look like choir boys.

BigHornRam · Jul 11, 2017

Ben Lamb said:
If that were profitable, companies would be doing it. These guys aren't in business for altruistic reasons; they're in it to make the highest return possible for stockholders. That's why they fought the methane rule (and lost, for now). It's also why Pruitt was so keen to get rid of it: The collusion between this administration and industry makes the Bush II admin look like choir boys.

If the permitting process to build such a plant is a big unknown, no businesses would pursue it even if it were profitable. Converting waste methane into diesel fuel makes a lot of sense to me, and I bet a number of companies are now looking in to it.

Ben Lamb · Jul 11, 2017

http://fuelmarketernews.com/turning-natural-gas-into-diesel/

It is not profitable in the short term, and no O&G company has much strategy revolving around long term profits other than their current models, and since they now own the United States Gov't, they don't feel the need to change.

It's not the regulatory issue here, it's the overhead. $20 billion for a new, industrial scale plant that is still experimental is not in any company's strategic plan. There are some small producers looking at local scale, but this nation has decided that mega-utilities and effective monopolies are more important than real energy security.

If you want to solve the issue of clean power, require every new house built to be off-grid ready with roof-top solar, etc. But again, this is an area that utilities are actively trying to kill through state-based legislation and now, through the EPA, USDOE, DOI and soon, USDA.

Irrelevant · Jul 11, 2017

Go nuclear? Hanford reservation cleanup costs in 2014 estimated at $113 bil, and contaminated groundwater is anticipated to reach the river (2020 to 2050 depending on progress of treatment plant).

dcopas78 · Jul 11, 2017

The city I work for owns it's own electrical infrastructure and purchases the electric from DP & L (Dayton Power and Light) and resells to the residents. We have a large landfill on the edge of town that has permitted space to last for at least the next 60 years and will be producing methane for many years after. We pursued a gas-to-energy plant installation to generate our own green power, thereby cutting out the need for DPL. After all of our financial studies and cost analysis, it was concluded that it was cheaper to continue purchasing power from DPL than it was to install and operate a gas-to-energy plant. A resident would have absorbed a cost increase of about 15% to have made it work and keep it running. It sucks, but that is a reality of many green technologies. They aren't economically feasible in cases like ours. Fortunately, the waste company themselves built the plant and are selling the power to the grid.

E.P.A. Chief Changing Rules

OriginalOscar

Active member

Ben Lamb

Well-known member

JWP58

Banned

airlocksniffer

Member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Ben Lamb

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

3855WIN

Well-known member

Ben Lamb

Well-known member

BigHornRam

Well-known member

Ben Lamb

Well-known member

Irrelevant

Well-known member

dcopas78

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Share this page