9 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"The language the EPA wants would require quick action, stating that within three years, power plants that burn coal would have
to cut more than 90 percent of the mercury from their exhaust.

They'd also have to slash arsenic, acid gases and other pollutants that cause premature
deaths, asthma attacks and cancer.
But even now, some power companies have been furiously fighting the EPA's rule — especially its deadlines."
http://www.npr.org/2...nts?ft=1&f=1001
Also has a toxic air map in the link.

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 13 December 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

.....But even now, some power companies have been furiously fighting the EPA's rule — especially its deadlines."....

In the linked NPR piece, the quote of the COO of Southern Company is interesting, but disappointly predictable. Congress told the EPA in 1990 to come up with new regulations for air pollutants.  Got stalled in the Bush administration (anybody surprised?) but not recinded.

Guess Southern Co. excutives thought they didn't need to deal with the problem even if action was delayed.  Did they think the problem would go away by itself?  Or that they'd be retired soon enough and someone else could handle it?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Re: Southern Co.- where's that head in the sand smilie icon when I need it the most?

[artistry]

These companies have known for years, what they needed to do to be in compiance with the standards of the EPA. The 3 years they are given to reduce the levels, requested by the rules should be enough to comply. They never want to follow the rules.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

artistry, on 14 December 2011 - 08:35 PM, said:

These companies have known for years, what they needed to do to be in compliance with the standards of the EPA. The 3 years they are given to reduce the levels, requested by the rules should be enough to comply. They never want to follow the rules.

It all comes down to money.
It cuts into their bottom line of the shareholders to build safer plants that capture the emissions .
They "have to have" enough extra $$$ to buy those gold bracelets, don't ya know?

[artistry]

Exactly, cry babies over the EPA trying to take their goodie bags, full of excess dead presidents. All the while allowing chemical overloads into the environment. They should be crying for the children, being contaminated by the results of their greed.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

artistry, on 15 December 2011 - 08:16 AM, said:

Exactly, cry babies over the EPA trying to take their goodie bags, full of excess dead presidents. All the while allowing chemical overloads into the environment. They should be crying for the children, being contaminated by the results of their greed.

I know the EPA is an easy target but they're been hamstrung by the previous administration i.e. chaney
(the real president) that didn't want them to do anything to protect the environment and the
current crop of "do-nothings" in the congress that are hell bent on reversing many set standards
for their oil/coal buddies.
If their policies and monies are cut off at the knees, how can it work effectively? It can't.
Thank the "policy" makers for those decisions, imo, not the epa itself.

[artistry]

Not really blaming the EPA, as I see it, whatever the EPA is doing, is better than allowing the plants to keep doing what they want to. I give the EPA credit for whatever they are doing to make the plants get some things in order. The plants don't want any controls or restrictions. They want business as usual.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

WASHINGTON — "More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an
additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants – some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country – produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found.
But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.
Combined, the rules could do away with more than 8 percent of the coal-fired generation nationwide, the AP found.
The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.
These plants have been allowed to run for decades without modern pollution controls because it was thought that they
were on the verge of being shuttered by the utilities that own them.
The two rules will cut toxic mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent, smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution by half,
and soot-forming sulfur dioxide by more than 70 percent.
The impact is greatest in the Midwest and in the coal belt – Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia – where dozens of units probably will be retired."

http://www.huffingto..._n_1157506.html

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"The Obama administration Wednesday issued the first U.S. standards to cut mercury and other toxic emissions
from coal-fired power plants, winning praise from health advocates who say the step is long overdue.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule, the most expensive under review by the administration,
would force producers such as Southern Co. to install pollution-control devices or close coal plants and substitute natural gas or wind generation.
Most of the 1,100 U.S. plants already comply.
"This has been 20 years in the making," Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, said at Children's National Medical Center in Washington. "This is a great victory for public health, especially for the health of our children."

The rule, proposed in March, caused a split within the electric industry, with companies such as Atlanta-based Southern and American Electric Power Co. saying it would force them to retire needed plants. Proponents such as Chicago-based Exelon Corp. say they spent billions of dollars on pollution controls and natural-gas plants, anticipating new rules, and want competitors
to make the same investments.
The EPA says the standard, estimated to cost $9.6 billion a year, will save lives and create $90 billion in annual benefits.
It will also boost employment as power producers install scrubbing systems made by companies such as Babcock & Wilcox Co. or Alstom, the agency said."

http://www.sfgate.co.../MN991MFDVU.DTL
http://www.epa.gov/mats/actions.html