End of Coal Power Plants? EPA Proposes New Rules

[Y@]

Maybe this winter was to make up for last winter, as we here in S MI had about 10 ft of snow last winter, but the current winter so far has given us only about 2 ft. There's still some potential snowfall, as winter totals include Oct-May. April snow is not uncommon, and May snow is rare.

Oh yeah, I'm sure we'll get some freak blizzard in the middle of April. Probably a good 6-8 feet of snow.

I never said we were going to have 6 to 8 ft. of snow, but a snowstorm with several inches is not out of the question this time of the year. In 1993, in March, Atlanta was hit with a blizzard, which was only about 4 inches, but crippling for a Southern town.
http://web.me.com/atlwx/wxhistory/files/19930313-blizzard_93.html
Based on the weather this past winter, if it does snow again, it will be minor and melt within a few hours of the storm.

I was being completely sarcastic Jeff.

[ns8401]

1. I can't predict next winter, but I can say with some certainty this may become more of a norm over time...

And that certainty is based on what? We are one year removed from one of our snowiest winters (and it was pretty darn cold), yet you're using THIS year's model as a basis for future prediction? Interesting.

One year would be an anomaly but the average trend is UP, we have not nailed down why by any stretch of the imagination but the general temperature trend is upward. That is a fact, if you look at the top 10 warmest years on record many of them have occurred since 2000.

[AARR]

One year would be an anomaly but the average trend is UP, we have not nailed down why by any stretch of the imagination but the general temperature trend is upward. That is a fact, if you look at the top 10 warmest years on record many of them have occurred since 2000.

Its actually a 20 year trend of the average earth temperature moving up but that was after a trend of downward temperatures (caused by increased volcanic activity). The average temperature of the earth has not moved more than 1 degree from the mean temperature over the last 100 or so years which is when they started tracking temperature using modern techniques.

[PerRock]

I don't see where it says we have to move to NG. The existing Coal plants can stay as-is. New plants can be coal as well, they just have to have the same emission levels as a NG plant. There are also other options out there for power beyond Coal & Nat. Gas. We can still have: Hydro, Solar, Currents (Wind & Deep-sea), Nuclear, Geo-Thermal, Bio-Mass (garbage), etc.

peter

[ns8401]

One year would be an anomaly but the average trend is UP, we have not nailed down why by any stretch of the imagination but the general temperature trend is upward. That is a fact, if you look at the top 10 warmest years on record many of them have occurred since 2000.

Its actually a 20 year trend of the average earth temperature moving up but that was after a trend of downward temperatures (caused by increased volcanic activity). The average temperature of the earth has not moved more than 1 degree from the mean temperature over the last 100 or so years which is when they started tracking temperature using modern techniques.

Right, around 1875 is when the climate records start. It doesn't really need to move more than one degree to cause significant problems though. As a result of these increases, regardless of the causes, Man, nature, flipping a coin whatever they may be, the average temperature is increasing. We will not really know the extent of this for a few hundred years though... we need more data to say accurately whether this is a result of the greenhouse effect or lack of major volcanic eruptions or what have you. Because of these slight (.3 degrees since 1975) increases in the mean earth temperature the strength and duration of droughts, heatwaves and floods is getting more and more severe. Just because the global temperature is only up .3 degrees does not mean that locally (say antarctica or the saharra desert) the increases have not been far more significant (hence melting polar ice caps).

[MQT3001]

I don't see where it says we have to move to NG. The existing Coal plants can stay as-is. New plants can be coal as well, they just have to have the same emission levels as a NG plant. There are also other options out there for power beyond Coal & Nat. Gas. We can still have: Hydro, Solar, Currents (Wind & Deep-sea), Nuclear, Geo-Thermal, Bio-Mass (garbage), etc.

peter

1. existing plants must upgrade to meet these new requirements, and it ain't cheap
2. We have all of the energy alternates you named, but we basically have a ban on: New hydroelectric plants, Nuclear, as well as the established ones: Coal, OIL...

the only fossil fuel being accepted for new plants is Natural Gas.

So, we are left with: Solar, Currents, Wind, and Geo-Thermal. ( Bio Mass isn't a clean energy because it still create soot, CO2, and other contaminants).

Quick run down of the 3: Solar CANNOT power the entire US. Wind power generators are annoying to look at, and kill thousands of birds, even though they are somehow hardly ever hit with fines . Currents are still in basically the proving phase. Geo- Thermal is a good one though, especially out west. It's just not that cost-effective yet.

Keep in mind that companies invest with their profit. Because energy prices are high, they are less willing to risk money they haven't earned.

bottom Line: The Feds have effectively left us with no cheap source of power because of regs



climate Change Note: Global Temps have actually STABILIZED over the last 50 years....before that, there was a steady rise, again it was the end of a cool period due to several other natural phenonima....The higher temps we saw in the early 2000s can be attributed to high sun spot activity, which diminished for the last half of the decade and are now again on the rise......

[AARR]

[quote="ns8401]It doesn't really need to move more than one degree to cause significant problems though. As a result of these increases, regardless of the causes, Man, nature, flipping a coin whatever they may be, the average temperature is increasing.[/quote]
YOu and I agree 99.9%. I am skeptical if thew warming trend is a "problem" though. There are many good things that will happen with a warming trend.

I have been following politics since the 1970's so I have seen the Demoncrats try to scare us about global cooling, over population, trees, dolphins, spotted owls, homelessness, rain forests, etc. Everytime their answer is that we (the 99%) need to give up our rights and freedoms to eliminate the "problems". The 1%ers never downscale their life style or live under the mandates the want to impose on the rest of us. So far not a single one of their predictions have come true. So maybe they will be right about global warming but based on their past predictions being completely wrong of doom and gloom I am skeptical.

[Jochs]

I live between two nuclear plants, and am looking forward to the day when I can glow in the dark.

[ns8401]

I don't see where it says we have to move to NG. The existing Coal plants can stay as-is. New plants can be coal as well, they just have to have the same emission levels as a NG plant. There are also other options out there for power beyond Coal & Nat. Gas. We can still have: Hydro, Solar, Currents (Wind & Deep-sea), Nuclear, Geo-Thermal, Bio-Mass (garbage), etc.

peter

1. existing plants must upgrade to meet these new requirements, and it ain't cheap
2. We have all of the energy alternates you named, but we basically have a ban on: New hydroelectric plants, Nuclear, as well as the established ones: Coal, OIL...

the only fossil fuel being accepted for new plants is Natural Gas.

So, we are left with: Solar, Currents, Wind, and Geo-Thermal. ( Bio Mass isn't a clean energy because it still create soot, CO2, and other contaminants).

Quick run down of the 3: Solar CANNOT power the entire US. Wind power generators are annoying to look at, and kill thousands of birds, even though they are somehow hardly ever hit with fines . Currents are still in basically the proving phase. Geo- Thermal is a good one though, especially out west. It's just not that cost-effective yet.

Keep in mind that companies invest with their profit. Because energy prices are high, they are less willing to risk money they haven't earned.

bottom Line: The Feds have effectively left us with no cheap source of power because of regs



climate Change Note: Global Temps have actually STABILIZED over the last 50 years....before that, there was a steady rise, again it was the end of a cool period due to several other natural phenonima....The higher temps we saw in the early 2000s can be attributed to high sun spot activity, which diminished for the last half of the decade and are now again on the rise......

Two things here: from 1920 to the mid 1950's there was a steady period of warmer than normal temps as well. This came to light when I was analyzing data from the record heat wave we just had (where consecutive 80 degree days, all time march highs were shattered. Even all time highs for April were approached.) never in the 135 year history of tracking climate has that kind of heat wave happened this early in the Great Lakes region. The earliest comparable period was previously mid April in 1942. Sun spots share some blame for both occurces. As for the birds thing, there are no studies that show a large number of birds actually die from windmills, that's a common NIMBY argument.

[legostudios34]

Yes, but it's EXTREMELY inefficient. Pipelines move things constantly, while trains are one block at a time...

They should use trains just because trains are cooler than pipelines.

Fine, you pay for the extra billions per year....

Maybe we at RRfan.com could raise that money, LOL.

[J T]

One year would be an anomaly but the average trend is UP, we have not nailed down why by any stretch of the imagination but the general temperature trend is upward. That is a fact, if you look at the top 10 warmest years on record many of them have occurred since 2000.

And some in the 1920s. Listening to the weather geeks last week, many of them were saying "This will break a record set in 192_" Well, I wonder what was happening in the 1920s that made the temperature shoot up into the 80s in March.

[J T]

Even all time highs for April were approached.) never in the 135 year history of tracking climate has that kind of heat wave happened this early in the Great Lakes region.

And what happened in the millions of years before that 135 year history? No one knows because accurate records weren't kept of the temperatures. We don't.

How we do know that in the early 1800s there weren't some 90 degree days in March? Or back in the 1600s there weren't some 80 degree days in February? 135 years is a blip in the history of this planet. Heck, it's even a blip in the history of how long man has roamed the earth.

[ns8401]

Even all time highs for April were approached.) never in the 135 year history of tracking climate has that kind of heat wave happened this early in the Great Lakes region.

And what happened in the millions of years before that 135 year history? No one knows because accurate records weren't kept of the temperatures. We don't.

How we do know that in the early 1800s there weren't some 90 degree days in March? Or back in the 1600s there weren't some 80 degree days in February? 135 years is a blip in the history of this planet. Heck, it's even a blip in the history of how long man has roamed the earth.

I know all that, I totally agree to boot, not enough data, we can appoximate the growing season with tree rings but that only goes so far as well, I said above the 1920's to the 1950's as well, many of the weather geeks at NWS were saying 194_ (usually 2 or 3 or 5) for the all time records, 1910 and 1899 as well as 1886 popped up in there too, the only really consistent newer year that was popping up a bunch in my analysis of the data from NWS was 2000. Im a weather geek as well as a railfan

[MQT3001]

Even all time highs for April were approached.) never in the 135 year history of tracking climate has that kind of heat wave happened this early in the Great Lakes region.

And what happened in the millions of years before that 135 year history? No one knows because accurate records weren't kept of the temperatures. We don't.

How we do know that in the early 1800s there weren't some 90 degree days in March? Or back in the 1600s there weren't some 80 degree days in February? 135 years is a blip in the history of this planet. Heck, it's even a blip in the history of how long man has roamed the earth.

I know all that, I totally agree to boot, not enough data, we can appoximate the growing season with tree rings but that only goes so far as well, I said above the 1920's to the 1950's as well, many of the weather geeks at NWS were saying 194_ (usually 2 or 3 or 5) for the all time records, 1910 and 1899 as well as 1886 popped up in there too, the only really consistent newer year that was popping up a bunch in my analysis of the data from NWS was 2000. Im a weather geek as well as a railfan

1946 was the last time we had a long string of 80s in March

These numerous years only confurm the fact that quite often weather patterns align to give us warm temps in MI. The same goes for the rest of the world: there are so many weather pattern outcomes, chances are you'll see the same thing twice or more.....

[ns8401]

No, we've had an 80 or maybe two at the most in March as a string, we have never recorded a string like this recent one before, not even 1946. APRIL is the comparable month previously on record for 70 plus degree temparatures in a 10 day string and even then it was more like 6 or 7 in a row in April. Not saying it hasnt ever happened just not since 1875 or there abouts. NWS was using the word unprecedented to describe this event.

[MQT3001]

No, we've had an 80 or maybe two at the most in March as a string, we have never recorded a string like this recent one before, not even 1946. APRIL is the comparable month previously on record for 70 plus degree temparatures in a 10 day string and even then it was more like 6 or 7 in a row in April. Not saying it hasnt ever happened just not since 1875 or there abouts. NWS was using the word unprecedented to describe this event.

They will call just about anything unprecedented.....they called the blizzard of 2011 that....we'd done it 30 years before though.....apparently they must all be to young to remember the last ice age, where MI was under 1 mile of glacier...O how time flies

I bet ya Pat C remembers those days....

[ns8401]

No, we've had an 80 or maybe two at the most in March as a string, we have never recorded a string like this recent one before, not even 1946. APRIL is the comparable month previously on record for 70 plus degree temparatures in a 10 day string and even then it was more like 6 or 7 in a row in April. Not saying it hasnt ever happened just not since 1875 or there abouts. NWS was using the word unprecedented to describe this event.

They will call just about anything unprecedented.....they called the blizzard of 2011 that....we'd done it 30 years before though.....apparently they must all be to young to remember the last ice age, where MI was under 1 mile of glacier...O how time flies

I bet ya Pat C remembers those days....

Probably so... they are sticking to the last 142 years though...
Maybe pat will chime in with an eyewitness account?