Tom Raftery's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
RT @JaymiHeimbuch: #Coal Ship Runs Aground, Destroys Coral Reef in Philippine Marine Sanctuary http://bit.ly/kSctuc #oceans
... emerging EPA regulations on air quality and water for coal-fired power plants could result in over 50,000 MW of coal plant retirements and require an investment of up to $180 billion for remaining plants to comply with the likely mandates.
Both those numbers go up substantially -- retirements by 11-12 GW and needed investment by $30-50 billion -- if EPA requires cooling towers in addition to smokestack scrubbers. (This is consistent with the FBR Capital Markets report, which finds a total of up to 70,000 MW of coal on the line.)
By 2020, the authors say, coal plant closures will reduce coal demand by about 15 percent, increase natural gas demand by about 10 percent, and (assuming the coal is replaced by gas) reduce CO2 emissions by 150 million tons.
Pollution from Chicago’s two coal plants has created up to $1 billion in health and related damages in the last 8 years, according to a report released today by the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC).
The report uses data from the National Research Council that found that particulate matter, or soot, from the Fisk and Crawford coal plants in Chicago created $127 million in health and related damages in 2005.
Using that model, ELPC analyzed pollution emissions data and found that the two plants have created between $750 million and $1 billion in public health damages since 2002.
The Spanish plan centres on giving preferential access to the wholesale electricity market for power plants that run on domestic coal, and was announced by the government in February, after months of behind-the-scenes tussling with Brussels.
At the same time, the Spanish government wants to retroactively cut previously agreed tariffs for its €20bn photovoltaic solar energy sector by 30 per cent. As FTfm reports, such a move could be devastating for investors in highly-leveraged solar photovoltaic projects.
Right now, in the Malaysian state of Sabah on the island of Borneo, locals are in a David vs. Goliath fight against a 300 MW coal fired power plant. The proposed site for the plant? A pristine strip of beach on the edge of a rainforest that overlooks the Coral Triangle, one of the world's most bio-diverse marine environments.
Greenpeace activists have boarded the 290-meter long coal ship Orient Venus on the high seas. Joanna Jones, Mor Levy and Jense Loewe arrived in inflatable boats and climbed up the side of the huge vessel. They have built a camp on the ship's mast in order to stop the coal shipment from entering Israel.
There's some interesting new data out on recent shifts in electricity demand and consumption, courtesy of the DOE/EIA.
In 2008, total U.S. power generation was 4.1 million GWh. In 2009, that fell by 4 percent, to 3.9 million. That's a 4 percent reduction -- clearly the result of the economic slowdown. Nothing surprising there.
What's interesting, though, is how generation shifted by fuel type. Over the same year, coal-fired power generation fell by 11 percent, from almost 2 million GWh to just under 1.8 million.
TVA may have weakened the Environmental Protection Agency's stance on regulating coal ash when it was allowed to comment before the public on the issue, a government watchdog group says.\n\nAn accidentally released internal federal document shows that the public power producer, still cleaning up from a massive coal ash spill in 2008, criticized EPA's original draft proposal, which said coal ash should be classified as a "special" waste, making it fall under hazardous waste rules.
Interesting historical perspective on coal's part in the onset of WWII
Unfortunately, when trying to make the case in favor of a dirty and dangerous source of power like coal, Mr. Palmer strayed from the truth. There were two factual errors in particular I wanted to mention here.
This is an horrific article on the consequences of lack of oversight and greed in the US
In what really seems like stating the obvious, or at least stating what has been said many times before, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that water quality downstream from mountaintop coal mining operations in West Virginia and Kentucky is highly toxic. The Charleston Gazette reports that EPA data from 14 of 17 sampled sites were up to 50 times more toxic that guidelines permit.
The UK's most eminent engineers have warned that the biggest set of investments and social changes ever seen in peacetime are needed to meet the country's energy needs in the coming decades, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The changes include a transformation of the nation's draughty homes and cuts in how far people commute to work, as well as a vast expansion of wind and solar power and dozens of new nuclear or "clean coal" power plants.
An analysis of water tested downstream from mountaintop removal mining operations in Appalachia shows high levels of toxins, with some samples testing 50 times the U.S. safety guidelines, according to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The independent analysis of previously unreleased data suggests that 14 of 17 sites tested in West Virginia and Kentucky in 2007 and 2009 exceed federal standards for toxins such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and chromium.
The UK's carbon capture and storage (CCS) sector will be able to sustain 100,000 jobs by 2030 and generate up to £6.5bn a year, the government claimed today.
Unveiling a new strategy to encourage the growth of CCS, the energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, said it represents a "massive industrial growth opportunity".
By 2030, we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases from coal. That conclusion is most famously associated with NASA's climate chief James Hansen, but Hansen is not alone. In a recent paper, nine other climate scientists -- David Beerling, Robert Berner, Pushker Kharecha, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Paganini, Maureen Raymo, Dana Royer, Makiko Sato, and James Zachos -- joined Hansen in identifying a 2030 phase-out as the "sine qua non" for avoiding dangerous climate change.
In 2007, the Sierra Club brought the state of Wisconsin to court over emissions from some state-run coal plants used to provide heat and power to some university buildings and a hospital (UW-Eau Claire, UW-La Crosse, UW-Oshkosh, UW-River Falls and Mendota Mental Health Institute). The Department of Natural Resources sided with the Sierra Club, and the state now has a choice between installing pollution-control equipment to greatly reduce emissions, reducing the use of coal by displacing part of it with other fuels, or simply eliminating the use of coal completely
Last month, Facebook announced that it was building its first data center, in Prineville, Oregon, in the northwest of the US. Unfortunately for the climate, we soon found out that instead of renewable energy, Facebook chose to operate its data center with energy from Pacific Power, a utility that is fueled primarily by coal. Last Friday, Greenpeace responded by challenging the company to become a climate champion and dump coal
Data centers are some of the most notorious energy-guzzlers around, which is why it's so exciting when companies like Google reveal innovative designs to cut down on data center power use. It's also why its so disappointing to learn that the company behind the number two most popular Web destination, Facebook, powering its first custom data center with coal.
According to CQ Politics, between 2002 and 2007, the coal advocacy group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, the predecessor of American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, spent an average of $93,000 each year on federal lobbying. In 2008, ACCCE spent $9.9 million on federal lobbying in addition to $38 million for an ad campaign promoting "clean coal."[1]
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) estimated ACCCE's lobbying expenses at a somewhat higher amount: $10,465,276 in 2008.[2]. CPI's "The Climate change Lobby" database lists ACCE's 2008 lobbyists, based on public records, as:
* ACCE staff spent $9,945,276 on in-house lobbying costs. The listed lobbyist was Stephen Miller[3];
* Quinn Gillespie & Associates who were paid $480,000 for lobbying services of Christopher McCannell, Jeff Connaughton, Manuel Ortiz, Mike Hussey, Patrick Von Bargen, Dave Hoppe.[4]
* The Keelen Group, LLC which was paid $40,000 for the lobbying services of Paul Bailey.[5]
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Coal (63)
greenmonktv (25)
greennumbers (9)
CO2 (7)
climate change (6)
carbon capture and storage (6)
coal fired power stations (6)
ccs (4)
kingsnorth (4)
pollution (4)
co2 emissions (3)
clean coal (3)
Nuclear (3)
coal burning (3)
tva (3)
greenpeace (3)
appalachia (3)
mountain top removal (3)
epa (3)
oil (2)
Top Contributors
Groups interested in coal
-
Essay #3
Items: 27 | Visits: 22
Created by: Dina Goheen
-
Clean coal
Items: 7 | Visits: 17
Created by: eco nerd
-
Energy
Findings and facts about the...
Items: 17 | Visits: 28
Created by: Tarmo Toikkanen
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo