- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
US EPA defends carbon capture tech underpinning new power plant rule
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:33 am
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 on 4/30/24 at 8:36 am to ragincajun03
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 on 4/30/24 at 8:39 am to ragincajun03
The EPA shouldn't even exist.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:40 am to ragincajun03
There’s no need for any of this carbon capture nonsense.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:41 am to No Colors
quote:
A tax on energy is the most brutally regressive tax you can have.
But muh record profits!
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:46 am to ragincajun03
quote:
But muh record profits!
Biden saying that big corporations will pay this energy tax is the exact same thing as Trump saying China will pay for the tariffs.
Like all politicians they're so disconnected from the real world that they think we don't know that it's us who pays. Like "transitory" inflation.
They think we're idiots. And I guess to an extent they have a point.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:47 am to White Bear
We have plenty of carbon capture on the surface - called trees. Plant more of them and stop clear cutting forests to install solar panels.
Underground carbon capture may be the biggest scam of all the “green” energy movements - there is no way they can guarantee what they inject stays in the area intended.
Underground carbon capture may be the biggest scam of all the “green” energy movements - there is no way they can guarantee what they inject stays in the area intended.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:24 am to White Bear
quote:
There’s no need for any of this carbon capture nonsense.
Based on some info I have found, we are sitting at around 480 ppm carbon in our atmosphere... We know that there has been periods where the carbon has been as high as 8000 ppm. During those times life of all forms thrived across the planet.
On the other hand, at 180 ppm plant life begins to suffocate and die off quite rapidly. That would truly be a catastrophic for all life on our planet. 480 ppm is much closer to the catastrophic side of this scale.
So yeah, saying there is "no need" for this is an understatement.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:38 am to LazloHollyfeld
quote:
We have plenty of carbon capture on the surface - called trees. Plant more of them and stop clear cutting forests to install solar panels.
The obvious solution, but no one can get rich from that.
The damage to the environment caused by solar and wind farms far outweighs their benefits.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:41 am to ragincajun03
It's not about the environment. It's about control.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 10:44 am to ragincajun03
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.
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 on 4/30/24 at 10:53 am to ragincajun03
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.
Anything else is dis-information automatically and should be scrubbed for the information shpere.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:12 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
The EPA shouldn't even exist.
You clearly don't hold much value for rivers and streams.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 12:25 pm to ragincajun03
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 on 4/30/24 at 12:40 pm to ragincajun03
Or we could plant trees.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:02 pm to ragincajun03
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 on 4/30/24 at 1:06 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:
You clearly don't hold much value for rivers and streams.
Your assumption that the federal government values literally anything, other than control, is flawed.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 4/30/24 at 1:32 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
The EPA shouldn't even exist.
Agree to disagree. Their limits on suspended solids, biological oxygen demand, lead, benzene and many other dissolved chemicals have lead to cleaner water ways. Regulations on NOx and SOx and airborne particulates have lead to cleaner air around industrial sites.
However, the political crusade against CO2 is not something they should be attacking in my opinion.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News