Started By
Message

US EPA defends carbon capture tech underpinning new power plant rule

Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:33 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
21491 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:33 am
quote:

The fight over new CO2 limits for power plants is coalescing around a debate over carbon capture, with the US Environmental Protection Agency defending the technology's readiness despite industry groups' arguments to the contrary.

The EPA finalized a rule on April 24 that sets a carbon emissions standard for coal- and new gas-fired generation, effectively mandating carbon capture technology for many power plants. The standards prompted criticism from trade groups questioning the feasibility of capturing and storing power plants' CO2 emissions, echoing similar feedback after the EPA's initial proposal in May 2023.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) "is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment, nor is there sufficient time to permit, finance and build the CCS infrastructure needed for compliance by 2032," Dan Brouillette, president and CEO of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), said in an April 25 statement.

CCS refers to scrubbing CO2 from emissions sources, such as power plants, for permanent storage about a mile underground. Carbon capture technology is currently operating at one utility-scale US power plant, W.A. Parish 5-8, but owner JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corp. uses the captured gas for oil extraction. Another carbon capture project in Kemper County, Miss., was abandoned before ever coming online, forcing Southern Co. to write off billions in project costs and spurring skepticism over CCS.

Technological advancements and federal incentives have since made CCS more economical, the EPA said in its final rule. The federal agency noted the US Inflation Reduction Act's expansion in 2022 of tax credits for carbon capture, now worth up to $85 per metric ton of CO2 stored. Process improvements learned from earlier deployments of CCS have also helped lower the cost.

"Some companies have already made plans to install CCS on their units independent of the EPA's regulations," the agency noted in its final rule.

The EPA estimated the rule could cost the industry between $7.5 billion and $19 billion through 2047 to comply. But the agency also estimated that the carbon limits will provide up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades. The rule is also expected to prevent 38 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2028 and 123 million metric tons in 2035.

The rule sends "an unequivocal signal to American power plant operators that the era of unlimited carbon pollution is over," said Mona Dajani, global co-chair of energy, infrastructure and hydrogen and co-chair of the energy sector at Baker Botts.


quote:

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to show that CCS is both technically sound and economically feasible, Carrie Jenks, executive director of Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program, said in an interview.

"And technically, I think the record is strong," Jenks said. "We know how to capture and store CO2 and there's projects that have done this."

Meanwhile, the Inflation Reduction Act's expansion of the 45Q tax credit program has improved the economics of CCS, Jenks added. Jenks also noted that carbon capture installation is not a requirement of the rule but merely an option for compliance.

Nevertheless, some industry groups challenged the rule's legality.

"The path outlined by the EPA today is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable," National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) CEO Jim Matheson said in a statement. "It undermines electric reliability and poses grave consequences for an already stressed electric grid."

The NRECA argued that the standards are an EPA overreach and dependent on technology that is "promising, but not ready for prime time."

"I think we can expect some fierce legal challenges by industry opponents who've already indicated that this new rule is in violation of the 'major questions doctrine,'" Dajani, who represents energy and utility companies, said in an interview.

The doctrine refers to the US Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, where, for the first time, it found that Congress must explicitly authorize agency actions of "vast political or economic significance."


quote:

Addressing concerns from grid operators and utilities, Biden administration officials said the EPA has added provisions to the final rule intended to ensure grid reliability.

The first is a short-term mechanism allowing units to respond to declared grid emergencies without being held accountable for their CO2 emissions. The second permits US states to postpone compliance measures for certain units due to unanticipated grid reliability issues. States may include both reliability exceptions in the plans they submit to the EPA for implementing the new rule, the EPA noted.


LINK

So there we have it. Doesn't matter if the technology has advanced to sequester CO2 effectively and in an environmentally safe manner, the EPA via this ruling is forcing industry to embrace and develop sequester and storage projects via its rules on emissions.
Posted by No Colors
Sandbar
Member since Sep 2010
10567 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:36 am to
A tax on energy is the most brutally regressive tax you can have. Money coming directly out of the pockets of working class Americans. Most of whom don't understand they're voting for the very policies that they can't afford.
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
51041 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:39 am to
The EPA shouldn't even exist.
Posted by White Bear
Yonnygo
Member since Jul 2014
14135 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:40 am to
There’s no need for any of this carbon capture nonsense.
Posted by LSUfanNkaty
LC, Louisiana
Member since Jan 2015
11145 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:04 am to
frick the EPA
Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
11792 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:41 am to
It's not about the environment. It's about control.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
55195 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:44 am to
I will say it again, the EPA is an unelected regulatory body that has been allowed to essentially make law. That is not their job, that is the role of the Legislature.

I don't need to concern myself with the particulars. The EPA should not be allowed to make law, even if they call it a "rule" instead.
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
13286 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:53 am to
Trust the experts... but ONLY if they are A) govt bureaucrats and B) have an ideologically motivated agenda.

Anything else is dis-information automatically and should be scrubbed for the information shpere.
Posted by CSinLC
Member since May 2018
696 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:52 am to
Build Nukes - Solved
Posted by geauxturbo
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2007
4196 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 12:25 pm to
quote:

o there we have it. Doesn't matter if the technology has advanced to sequester CO2 effectively and in an environmentally safe manner,


It can be, gas compression and pipeline isn't anything new. Oil and Gas moves WAY faster than 8 years to get it out of the ground, it ain't much harder to put it back in the ground. If there are billions to be made, someone will do it.

Its just stupid to waste resources to put CO2 in the ground when there are these naturally occuring werid things on Earth called plants and phytoplankton that turn Co2 into long chain carbon molecules and emit O2 in the process. That and any warming caused by man is miniscule and if anything, it helps life and biodiversity.

Posted by alphaandomega
Tuscaloosa-Here to Serve
Member since Aug 2012
13694 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 12:40 pm to
Or we could plant trees.
Posted by AllDayEveryDay
Nawf Tejas
Member since Jun 2015
7140 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:02 pm to
Another MTBE rule. Let's cost manufacturers millions to put technology in place that has limited understanding and results in more damage to the environment than the chemical or process it replaced.
Posted by GoldenGuy
Member since Oct 2015
10937 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:34 pm to
quote:

The EPA estimated the rule could cost the industry between $7.5 billion and $19 billion through 2047 to comply.


Apply this amount of money to China or India, and they might actually have breathable air.
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
64985 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:37 pm to
quote:

EPA


Sould not exist.

And add the Dept. of Ed, Labor, Heath & Human Svc., Energy, IRS, FBI, ATF, NSA, CIA, and Homeland Security to the list of things that should not exist while you’re at it.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119241 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:44 pm to
First of all this mandate by the EPA is likely illegal and will get overturned in the courts. Laws have to come from congress.

Second, depending the proximity to a CCS reservoir to new power plants the CCS project can be a money maker or money loser. The closer you are to a reservoir the less CCS infrastructure you need to build. Some power plants are just not close to geologic reservoirs and CCS is just not feasible. I hope EPA is taking this into consideration.
Posted by NolaLovingClemsonFan
Member since Jan 2020
1726 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

The EPA estimated the rule could cost the industry between $7.5 billion and $19 billion through 2047 to comply


Absolutely seems like this would reduce inflation

quote:

But the agency also estimated that the carbon limits will provide up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades.


Lololol who comes up with these analyses.
Posted by turkish
Member since Aug 2016
1810 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:33 pm to
The irony that the inflation reduction act includes steps to make energy multiples more expensive is not lost on me.

Wake up America!
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 5:35 pm
Posted by Tarps99
Lafourche Parish
Member since Apr 2017
7657 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:15 pm to
I am going to go out on a limb. I might not be a crack pot scientist, but in the years after we go total zero carbon emissions, and we still get hit by a Category 6 hurricane, I am going to call bull excrement on manmade climate change.
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11923 posts
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:52 pm to
The ultimate plan is to remove all fossil fuels from power production and go to renewables. Not only will it enrich China in the process (who is building coal plants like it's going out of style), but it will weaken our own nation and make us dependent on them. If Biden was deliberately trying to enrich China and make the US poor, there is not a more effective method than what the alphabet agencies under him are doing.

America needs exponentially more baseload power generation (natural gas, coal, nuclear, or hydro). There are some other technologies on the horizon like geothermal but it is far from scalable. And the industrial power storage with batteries has the same issue as wind and solar - low energy density. So we will spend billions of dollars cutting down hundreds of thousands of acres of trees to build intermittent, weather-dependent power generation that is reliant on material and processing from China.

The real battle on the horizon will be between tech bros and the climate change lobby. The amount of power that will be needed for data centers and artificial intelligence is orders of magnitude more than what our aging grid currently supplies. So they will build out their own on-site generation, likely in the form of combined cycle natural gas since permitting and construction of nuclear takes decades. I think small modular reactors (SMRs) are the future and are very promising but we are a long way off from NERC approving anything.

Reality is coming at us fast. Expect plenty of brownouts and crises in the future for areas heavily investing in renewable power. California and Germany are the poster children - if the climate really is changing, let's make our power generation dependent on it.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram