Energy Experts Say EPA Regs Will Shut Down Coal Plants [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

The Institute for Energy Research projected that coal plants in Lansing, Litchfield and Holland would “likely” be shut down due to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations by 2016. The three Michigan plants were part of a nationwide look at coal plants expected to be impacted by new regulations recently enacted or proposed by the EPA.

Ten percent of the country’s coal energy capacity is expected to go offline by 2016, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

via www.michigancapitolconfidential.com

Comments

[nordstrom prom dresses]

I have often debated the points you made in your article with others. You did however, make some points I missed and I appreciate the fresh perspective on this subject.

[Arry]

Call me wind beucase I am absolutely blown away.

[Kaylynn]

I have been so bweildered in the past but now it all makes sense!

[Srvibhwz]

http://ocultoycurioso.com>http://ocultoycurioso.com

[otauzBn]

http://monclerbabyschneeanzug.com>Moncler JtZpFb http://monclerbabyschneeanzug.com>moncler sale SdUpQv http://monclerbabyschneeanzug.com

[Wholesale Jerseys]

Superb! Generally I never read whole articles but the way you wrote this information is simply amazing and this kept my interest in reading and I enjoyed it.
http://www.discountchristianlouboutinnews.com
http://www.cheapoakleysunglassesnews.co.uk
http://www.nfljerseyswholesalefactory.com

[Tsuyoshi]

Fran Barlow @48, agree that we could use lignite to make syangs, to produce fuel via F-T. However, it is an expensive process and it generates a byproduct piles of environmentally unfriendly and unsightly crud. NIMBY comes into it, even for the usual chemical dumping companies.It would be much simpler and cheaper to use some of our NW Shelf gas (including Gorgon Gas) to make synthetic diesel essentially an F-T process also, but without the lignite front-end. It would be a cleaner process than using lignite, and we have sweet natural gas (lucky us) which could make a clean-burning diesel, with negligible NOx and SOx.There is an immediate large market for diesel in the Pilbara for the large mining fleets. It would be easier and cheaper to transport diesel to the east cost than LNG. Australia would have security of supply in a fuel-constrained future, and reduced crude imports would significantly improve our trade balance in a world of high crude oil prices.On the environmental side, the new diesel cars have similar fuel efficiencies to the hybrid petrol cars (4-6 L/100km). This would be a significant improvement for our carbon footprint, compared to the current average fuel efficiency.The purely electric cars are at best going to come onto the market in 2012, with many manufacturers promising that date. However, similar claims of 3-5 years were being made back in 2000, and every year since then. I'm taking that 2012 figure with a grain of salt, until further evidence is available. It seems like diesels and hybrids (either petrol-electric or diesel-electric) are going to be the dominant design for the next decade, barring some kind of calamity.The Aussie car fleet probably cannot be changed out in under 15 years, without some draconian legislation from the government, or an equally diabolical fuel price rise. It is a simple case of 1 million new cars per year, and about 15 million cars in circulation.Apparently about one third of new cars bought in Australia are diesel, so a home-grown supply would significantly improve our fuel efficiency (thus national carbon footprint), as well as our trade balance and energy security.I really wish the government, state and federal, would make sure adequate natural gas is reserved for Australian use and not committed cheaply to the Chinese on long-term sale contracts. Rudd could also show some green leadership on the issue of developing a home-grown supply of clean synfuel from our abundant natural gas.

[Suraj]

I think the political and diliamotpc issues surrounding nuclear are far more of an obstacle to it. People just don't want it. And even when we want it for ourselves, we're not willing for everyone to have it. So we do a big build-out of nuclear and fast breeders and have great piles of plutonium to be the seeds for thorium reactors in the West, but then wave our fingers at and perhaps drop some bombs on Iran, Libya, Sudan, Ghana, Argentina and so on for doing the same.That's not what I'd call an optimal global solution to our problems. I hope for something a bit more equitable and peaceful.Wilful in #42 gets upset at rude words, and more upset at contending with what I actually said, rather than some other stuff he made up. I never said gas, oil or coal would run out. I said they would decline in availability, and rise in price. If for example we have 1,000 coal-fired stations burning 1 million tonnes of coal each annually, we need 1,000 million tonnes of coal to feed them. When world production is 2,000 million tonnes, that's not a problem; if world production drops to 800 million tonnes, that's a problem. Someone misses out, and the rest have to pay a lot more for their fuel.Last year this was seen with oil. Many Third World countries have oil-fired generation, and when oil leapt up to near $150/bbl, places like Ghana simply couldn't afford to keep fuelling their electricity generation. So they had blackouts. What happened to them last year could happen to us in 10 or 20 or 30 years. (Obviously, it's unlikely to happen to Australia with coal, unless the NSW govt gets its way and manages to export it all before Aussies have a chance to use it. By us I mean the First World generally.)Wilful also gets upset with my saying, There has never been a time in recorded Australian history when it was dark or overcast with still air across the whole country at once. Never. He points out that it gets dark once a day. And indeed it does. But it is not dark and with still air across the whole country at once , that is at the same time. Across the country there's always some sun or some wind.Wilful further writes, What you’re saying is that there needs to be multiples of total Australian demand available in each and every State. Crazy stuff, and at what cost. Yes, there'd need to be multiples. It's called backup , and is a well-known and well-practised principle in engineering generally.What cost? Well, a lot. But what are our alternatives? The fossil fuels won't last forever, even if they did we'd have to stop using them because they're screwing our climate, and the world won't accept everyone having nukes. So we can have expensive renewables, or have no electricity at all. I think that most people would rather have expensive electricity than none at all.If you feel differently, switch off your computer and don't post again

[Anderson]

Thanks for the extra info BilB!I also need to qualify my pruivoes sentence about Australia being the biggest user of coal-fired power. It should read in percentage terms, i.e. about 85% of our electricity generation.The other totally absurd thing about geosequestration/CCS is the number of power stations and the shear volumes of CO2 in the flue gases, which are going to be pumped somewhere every year, presumably for decades. If you think about the volumes involved, it just boggles the imagination how they could argue such nonsense.I reckon there are at least 3 different aspects on which geosequestration/CCS could be challenged: economic, technical, and logistical.The economic aspect is the enormous costs for drilling and completing (lining) wells @ $millions per well, then fine filtering to remove particulates and compressing the gas with massive high-performance compressors (you need MPa to pump the stuff into the ground).The technical problem, as I wrote before, is how to plug the well to prevent leakage into eternity, and monitor continuously for leakage.The most mind-boggling aspect though is the logistical problem of the quantity to be shoved under the carpet EVERY YEAR. Think how many power stations all over the world, and how many tonnes of coal are burnt each year to become more tonnes of CO2 to compress and hold underground For a wild thought experiment, imagine we decided to run a big pipeline from each coal-fired power station into outer space, to get rid of the CO2. The earth would look like a porcupine, with pipelines from all the power stations.The coal lobby guys have the same idea in the other direction (downwards), EXCEPT they would have to keep drilling NEW HOLES every few years to find a new volume of rock to fill with CO2.Most rock isn't all that porous, and even our aquifers and oil reservoirs have less than about 20% porosity (i.e. hole space) most of which already has fluid in it, so you need a LARGE VOLUME of rock to take a given volume of CO2. The absurdity of the volumes required is mind-numbing. The outer space disposal concept at least only needs one pipeline, you have 100% porosity, and not least a huge empty volume to fill! (Jus' kidding not a serious proposal) Even a back of the envelope calculation can show that geosequestration/CCS hasn't a prayer of working, for the massive global CO2 output. We haven't got enough suitable porous rock to take those volumes every year.No wonder a CSIRO chap that was working on it some years ago looked so depressed, when I spoke to him privately about it. Pity that he didn't have the courage to speak up, for fear of losing his research job. Presumably his boss either has no integrity in taking the money for the project, or is also desperate to keep his job. Or have they subdivided the CCS task so finely that few see the overall picture?Honestly, how do Rudd and Wong keep a straight face when telling us that bull about international leadership on climate change? Same way Rudd and Gillard keep a straight face with the bull about education revolution with extra school halls, perhaps?In view of Australia's role in supporting and supplying coal-fired power, it is an absolute joke for Rudd to suggest that he is leading the climate change field, unless he means leading from near the absolute back of the pack.

[Maria]

Thanks BilB. I'm sure that some configuration along these lines would sniiifncagtly reduce Australia's carbon footprint. It is about time it was implemented, as the technology is already available. Rudd could then really claim to have achieved a measurable difference, not just symbolism.The old coal-fired power stations have a thermal efficiency of about 40% I believe, and CCGT has efficiencies up to 75%, to say nothing of reduced particulates and reduced NOx and SOx from burning natural gas. This would give a MASSIVE reduction in emissions already. Then if say, conservatively 6 hours/day was met by solar (& perhaps wind), rather than carbon-based energy, you would have a further significant reduction of total emissions.I can imagine a range of reasons the Rudd government is handing $billions of our tax money to the coal companies, rather than walking his talk about the environment.The first and most obvious is that almost all pollies are technologically-challenged. They could easily have the wool pulled over their eyes with bull about clean coal and geosequestration/CCT.Another related reason is that big money and multinationals are behind coal and nuclear. These types of power-stations are essentially large monopoly systems. By contrast, gas turbines and solar arrays are modularisable, decentralisable, and less amenable to milking for monopoly rents (ask Trujillo how that works ). Obviously these guys (coal and nuclear) are going to argue VIGOROUSLY for their power system, and AGAINST anything which competes. They have the money to buy bright technical people, to argue their cause. The technologically-challenged ones would have no show against a barrage of forceful arguments.Another possible reason, I reckon, is politics and conmanship. For example, imagine that Bush wanted to claim that they were leading the world in gun control . Yeah, I know it's a stretch, but it's just a thought experiment. Now, say the US is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of guns. So, he marches off to the equivalent of Kyoto/Copenhagen to argue that they are a world leader in gun control. He would look like a hypocrite, right? Everyone would say he wasn't leading any damn thing at all he was actually increasing the number of guns, by being a major supplier.So, what to do? Bush could claim that the US is working on a special, safe, non-killing kind of gun for the future. And back it up with an impressive pile of money MUCH less than they would make from selling the guns, of course but nonetheless a suitably impressive pile, and a new research institution to match. Then Bush could do a Madoff or FirePower style of confidence trick, where you get people to imagine that such a possibility (special, safe, non-killing guns) exists, and get them to buy into it heavily. Having invested, they are then psychologically hooked into his fantasy. Would people fall for it? Did they fall for Madoff's Ponzi scheme and FirePower's bull story about engine pills? Sheesh How does this relate to Rudd? Well, he wants to get global recognition for being a leader in climate change. Australia is THE biggest user of coal-fired power, and THE biggest exporter of coal. Oh, bugger. Now starts the conmanship How long does he think he can get away with it, before he gets found out? How long did Madoff think he could get away with pulling the wool over people's eyes? As long as Rudd and the coal companies all sing from the same songsheet, and as long as they can get others to buy in, thus psychologically committing We could hope that Rudd is only technologically-challenged, but I do strongly speculate he may be playing the conman also.

[Fabiola]

August 26, 2010 at 4:10 pmXON brings alarintteve energy solutions to marketXON has launched its Alternative Energy division, XON AE, which brings to market a range of alarintteve energy solutions based on solar, wind and geothermal power heat pumps and green building solutions. The division’s solutions range across the rural, agricultural, retail, and manufacturing sectors. “South Africa is in the grip of an energy crisis,” says Carel Coetzee, CEO of XON. “Eskom has been given the go-ahead to increase the price of electricity by 25% for the next three years, which means the price will effectively double. They’re also building more coal power stations that will produce more pollution. Yet there are people living in informal settlements who do not have electricity for simple lights and cellphone charging.” Product-agnostic XON AE, headed up by Marnus Pieterse, will provide a range of solutions, from alarinttevely powered street lights to security lights, reading lamps, cellphone chargers, power for TVs, radios, water pumps and more, through to fully capable off-the-grid manufacturing solutions. “There will only ever be a market for green or alarintteve energy once it becomes affordable and it makes business sense. If you cannot prove an ROI of around 24 months or less, there is no market for a solution. This rule also applies to our solar light and cellphone charging solution for informal settlements and low-cost housing areas. We estimate the saving on candles, paraffin and cellphone charging costs means our solution will pay for itself within 24 months. In addition, customers will derive many safety benefits,” says Coetzee. One of the initial products on offer to developers of low-cost housing and local government as well as the retail market is a packaged 12V lighting and cellphone kit in a box that has five lights for general lighting, reading, and security, plus a point for charging a cellphone, all for around R2 500. “We have a full research and development facility staffed by electrical engineers that bring solutions specifically to the African and South African environment,” says Pieterse. “With their expertise and our access to a wealth of specialised technology, we can design any application in terms of alarintteve energy for the local market to optimise energy use and cost savings.” XON has a national footprint of sales offices and service centres and a distribution channel already established to bring solutions to market countrywide. “We see the informal and low-cost housing markets in Africa and South Africa as being the initial focus of our efforts because these people have the biggest need for simple affordable off-the-grid power solutions,” says Coetzee. “They have no power in their homes and they are being inconvenienced when they have to pay between R14 and R20 just to charge a cellphone once. At the once off cost of around R 2 500, this solution also represents a business opportunity for the entrepreneurial market in rural areas that will benefit all communities.”

[OBD2 Scanner]

Hello, I must say that this is a smart place. Of course, in the near future I will work on this site again. xyj

[Louis vuitton Outlets]

Hello there, I should say it is a clever posting. I'll certainly be seeking in on this web site yet again soon.

[coalportal]

Have you seen whats been reported in coal industry and coal reports lately? The latest coal market news is that emerging countries are predicting to use large amounts of thermal coal for power generation and coal mining for steel production and they are investing heavily onshore and offshore to secure the coal they need so that they can meet increasing demand for electricity and steel. Cherry of www.coalportal.com