Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumLarge coal power plants getting life extensions (Midwest US)
http://www.startribune.com/business/219501741.htmlBIG STONE CITY, S.D. The nations big coal-burning power plants are not ready to become dinosaurs.
Utilities are making substantial investments to keep their largest coal generating stations operating for decades and emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Upgrades planned or underway at more than 100 Midwestern coal power plants will reduce emissions of mercury or other air pollutants. But they wont affect greenhouse gas emissions that the Obama administration says it will regulate in 2015 to address climate change.
Utilities are making substantial investments to keep their largest coal generating stations operating for decades and emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually.
Upgrades planned or underway at more than 100 Midwestern coal power plants will reduce emissions of mercury or other air pollutants. But they wont affect greenhouse gas emissions that the Obama administration says it will regulate in 2015 to address climate change.
Fuck.
Though they do give a tiny bit of hope halfway through the article:
Greenhouse gas regulation likely will focus on energy conservation and expanding clean sources like wind power strategies already employed in Minnesota, Lashof said.
On average, you would run coal plants less, he said.
On average, you would run coal plants less, he said.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 667 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Large coal power plants getting life extensions (Midwest US) (Original Post)
NickB79
Aug 2013
OP
kristopher
(29,798 posts)1. I dont understand your "Fuck."
There have been a large number of articles being written lately about the head-in-the-sand way fossil fuel investment is proceeding. The term that has been coined for it is "carbon bubble". The OP article is a great example of the problem.
Things to consider:
The EPA's authority to regulate GHG emissions has now been made rock solid by the courts.
They have significantly raised the 'social cost of carbon' used in benefit/cost analyses. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
They are in the rule making stages of policies to regulate carbon.
Being in denial of those developments prohibits clear understanding of the issues involved.
Carbon bubble makes Australia's coal industry ripe 'for financial implosion'
Much of the nation's coal reserves will be worthless if world's governments fulfil pledge to cap emissions, warns report
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 April 2013
Australia's huge coal industry is a speculative bubble ripe for financial implosion if the world's governments fulfil their agreement to act on climate change, according to a new report. The warning that much of the nation's coal reserves will become worthless as the world hits carbon emission limits comes after banking giant Citi also warned Australian investors that fossil fuel companies could do little to avoid the future loss of value.
Australia is already the globe's biggest coal exporter and "mega-mine" plans in Queensland for more extraction are identified as the world's second biggest "carbon bomb" threatening runaway global warming.
"Investments in Australian coal rest on a speculative bubble of climate denial, indifference or dreaming," said John Connor, one of the new report's authors and CEO of The Climate Institute, an independent research organisation based in Sydney. "Investors, governments and even some coal companies say they take climate change seriously, but this report shows they do not or are taking risky gambles."
James Leaton, at thinktank Carbon Tracker and also another of the report's authors, said: "Investors need to challenge the assumption that coal demand will continue to rise in China and elsewhere, otherwise billions of dollars of taxpayer, superannuation and shareholder funds will be wasted in assets linked to unburnable carbon."
Carbon Tracker's recent global report found that at least two-thirds of existing fossil fuel reserves will have to remain underground ...
Much of the nation's coal reserves will be worthless if world's governments fulfil pledge to cap emissions, warns report
Damian Carrington
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 28 April 2013
Australia's huge coal industry is a speculative bubble ripe for financial implosion if the world's governments fulfil their agreement to act on climate change, according to a new report. The warning that much of the nation's coal reserves will become worthless as the world hits carbon emission limits comes after banking giant Citi also warned Australian investors that fossil fuel companies could do little to avoid the future loss of value.
Australia is already the globe's biggest coal exporter and "mega-mine" plans in Queensland for more extraction are identified as the world's second biggest "carbon bomb" threatening runaway global warming.
"Investments in Australian coal rest on a speculative bubble of climate denial, indifference or dreaming," said John Connor, one of the new report's authors and CEO of The Climate Institute, an independent research organisation based in Sydney. "Investors, governments and even some coal companies say they take climate change seriously, but this report shows they do not or are taking risky gambles."
James Leaton, at thinktank Carbon Tracker and also another of the report's authors, said: "Investors need to challenge the assumption that coal demand will continue to rise in China and elsewhere, otherwise billions of dollars of taxpayer, superannuation and shareholder funds will be wasted in assets linked to unburnable carbon."
Carbon Tracker's recent global report found that at least two-thirds of existing fossil fuel reserves will have to remain underground ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/28/carbon-bubble-australia-coal-industry
kristopher
(29,798 posts)2. Obama Quietly Raises 'Carbon Price' as Costs to Climate Increase
Obama Quietly Raises 'Carbon Price' as Costs to Climate Increase
By Mark Drajem - Jun 12, 2013 3:52 PM ET
Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. governments accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.
With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions -- anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans -- will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.
As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up, Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-regulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.html
By Mark Drajem - Jun 12, 2013 3:52 PM ET
Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. governments accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.
The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.
With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions -- anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans -- will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.
As we learn that climate damage is worse and worse, there is no direction they could go but up, Laurie Johnson, chief economist for climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an interview. Johnson says the administration should go further; she estimates the carbon cost could be as much as $266 a ton...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/tougher-regulations-seen-from-obama-change-in-carbon-cost.html