Answer to Andrew's well asked question: Over the past 25+ years, coal power plant regulation, via EPA and State Air Quality regulations has become increasingly draconian, To such an extent that a new coal fired generation facility could not be approved, and modification of existing coal fired generation reached the point of "no economic return".
The lead time for approval for a new coal fired electric facility escalated so more than 25 years of applications followed by rejection for each element of the plant, all the while, tying up investment resources of the power company. Finally, in the past 8 years, coal was "outlawed completely" as a power source for new plants, by being "out regulated".... The common wisdom, of those who follow such things, was that decision was done to force the acceptance of wind, solar and alternate sources, which were at the same time given special pass in tax incentives, government grants, and near lack of regulation, by comparison to coal or gas fired plants. In 1982 I was involved in the design , development and production of scrubber systems for coal plants to reduce emissions. This was mandated by regulation from EPA and each system cost multiple millions to install and further millions to maintain, while being continually monitored by EPA staff and government regulators. If the plants failed inspections, fines were mandated, on a per day basis for each day out of compliance... and they were not "parking ticket fines"... thousands of dollars per day. Meanwhile consumer price for electricity kept rising to cover all the costs of compliance. New plants were proposed, with newer tech designs.. but never approved to be built. Alternate energy plants, by comparison, have been "fast tracked". Just my views, based on my experiences in the field building systems to work within the regs... As a comparative, look at China, which has opened a new coal plant each week for the past, I believe, 5 years... No EPA there....;)) On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 7:58 PM Andrew Strasfogel via Mercedes < mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > Well I have a geology degree but that is equally irrelevant. > > Let the market dictate and set the politics aside. Why would for-profit > utilitiesclose down their coal plants if they could make money by keeping > them open? Why are all new power plants wind and solar where the resource > is plentiful, and natural gas otherwise. > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 3:31 PM Craig via Mercedes <mercedes@okiebenz.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 10:31:54 -0800 Karl Wittnebel via Mercedes > > <mercedes@okiebenz.com> wrote: > > > > > Seems like people on the list have been chiming in about windmills and > > > the need for ongoing coal plants etc. from time to time, so I though it > > > might interest the group to hear from someone with skin in the game, > > > e.g. a utility. I typically listen to stuff like this in the car on my > > > phone. > > > > To date, the electricity from alternate sources has been much more > > expensive than from conventional sources -- if you eliminate the > > subsidies. One of the reasons for increased costs is that utility > > companies have to have a traditional source on line and spinning to > > make up for the dropouts of the alternate sources, thus wasting the > > traditional source fuel source. > > > > The driving factor is getting something for "free" and a mistaken > > belief that anthropogenic CO2 is the only knob controlling the global > > climate -- it, at best, runs a distant second to the most powerful > > climate-controlling gas, water vapor. > > > > For most of those who push anthropogenic CO2 and curbing fossil fuels it > > is a religion -- that's the only way one can explain their fervor and > > refusal to consider different viewpoints (including very scientifically > > based ones). > > > > The rest of those pushing curbing fossil fuels are doing so for the cut > > of the revenue they will receive from building alternate sources and from > > carbon cap/trading taxes. Fortunately for Washington state, it's voters > > recently soundly rejected their carbon cap/trading ballot question, > > precisely because of that. > > > > Utilities in California have to work in and with the liberal California > > world view -- they know which side their bread is buttered on. Given a > > level playing field, they might sing a different tune. > > > > > > Craig > > > > P.S. In case you missed it, I have a Ph.D. in physics, something very > > relevant to this discussion. > > > > _______________________________________ > > http://www.okiebenz.com > > > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > > > _______________________________________ > http://www.okiebenz.com > > To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
