Category Archives: cap and trade

Where Are The “Consensus” Scientists Hiding?

Posted on February 24, 2013 | Leave a comment

Dr Rajendra Pachauri admits that there has been no global warming for 17 years.  Dr Pachauri is, if you don’t know, the leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a branch of the UN.  The IPCC has issued reports on climate change which conclude—- burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 causing a “dramatic” increase in global temperatures.  The IPCC documents have had widespread influence. For example, the US EPA successfully used these reports as the technical justification to declare CO2 a hazardous pollutant that needed to be regulated. The IPCC’s belief is that natural forces are inconsequential.
For the last 17 years, CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel burning have increased.  The measurement of atmospheric CO2 has climbed steadily over these 17 years and yet the global temperature has not risen.  Proving that the natural forces indeed are consequential.

Leave a comment

Posted in Al Gore, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, IPCC, Renewable Energy, Solar Cycle 24, Solar Cycle 25

President Obama’s War On Fossil Fuels Slips Into High Gear

Posted on November 28, 2012 | Leave a comment

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) summarizes some major Obama Administration regulations (economically significant rules that impose annual costs of $100 million or more) that are soon to be released.  These are largely rules written earlier this year but held up because they were potential liabilities for the Obama presidential campaign.  Now that he has won re-election,  its Katy bar the door.  This posting will feature those that affect energy.  There are others that will also have a very big impact such as Obamacare.  The WSJ’s summary of those can be seen by clicking here.   
The Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels goes on.  Fracking is not safe even though it has the potential of lifting the economy out of the dole drums.  One has to wonder where the President’s priorities lie.  Is it bring about a recovery or to bring about a socialist state?
The WSJ Energy Rules Summary: 
 
• Energy. In the lead-up to November, the Environmental Protection Agency stood down under White House pressure, delaying rules for ozone air quality and industrial boilers, and deferring carbon standards. Now EPA chief Lisa Jackson has the run of the place.
She will resume the Administration’s anti-carbon agenda through “new source performance standards,” which will set greenhouse gas emissions for new power plants so low as to prevent their construction. Look for this early in 2013.
She’ll follow with standards for “existing” sources that make coal-fired plants uneconomic to run. Inside of a decade, Ms. Jackson may wipe out what used to make up more than half of U.S. power generation. Environmentalists will write books about it, even if her agenda has received almost no public scrutiny or debate.
The oil and gas industry is also targeted, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in particular. The EPA has already issued a rule on shale production emissions and has one coming on diesel fuel in fracking. The Interior Department is promulgating rules on fracking on federal lands, and other rules can’t be far behind, probably using the pretext of drinking water under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA’s sleeper issue is the National Enforcement Initiatives agenda, which is designed to use the agency’s existing legal powers for inspections, requests for information, penalties and so forth to make new de facto rules. The EPA now blackmails businesses into “super compliance,” or settlements far more stringent than the law requires, or else risk years of expensive litigation.
 
cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Fracking/Shale Gas, Government Regulations, US Manufacturing Companies

World And USA CO2 Emissions

Posted on November 25, 2012 | Leave a comment

Two good posts accounting for the past and recent CO2 emissions (man-made only, no natural CO2 emissions included).

The first posting has charts prepared by Ed Hoskins and appeared on the WUWT website.

This chart shows that China is now the no. 1 source of man-made CO2 emissions.  Other charts illustrating change in emissions since 1965 can be seen by clicking here.

Another interesting posting is that the US has, over the past six years,  reduced its carbon emissions more than any other nation in the world.  This did not happen because of the Kyoto Protocol.  It occured due to a combination of factors, e.g., natural gas replacing coal, improved efficiency and  lower output resulting from the recession.  Remember that the recession has been a common factor for virtually all nations.  More about this can be read in a posting by Jack Spencer on the CAPCOM Michigan Capitol Confidential website titled “Shhh, US leads World in Carbon Emissions Reductions”  Click here to read more.  It has not been a result of the installation of alternative energy sources.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, CO2, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels

President Obama’s Pants-On-Fire Acceptance Speech

Posted on September 11, 2012 | 2 comments

The President’s acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention last Thursday was a pants-on-fire moment when it came to his energy program. (There were other topics besides the energy program in that speech that also rated high on the pants-on-fire meter—but this is an energy blog.)

The President claims responsibility for the decline in the use of imported crude oil.  “In the last year alone, we cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day, more than any administration in recent history”. There are two primary reasons for this decline. First is because the manufacturing sector is still suffering from this less than robust economy—here his claim rings true as he is responsible for this economy.  The second is that the States and Private property owners have managed to overcome his and his administration’s efforts to stymie the development of oil and natural gas fields. Yes, oil and gas production are up but not on Federal lands where the President has the “say so”.  Oil production declined 11% and natural gas declined 6% on Federal lands from fiscal year (FY) 2010 to FY 2011.  At the same time on State and Private Lands’ oil production increased by 14% and natural gas by 12% over that same period.

 He said: “…. where we develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone”. While he is claiming credit for the natural gas, it really is No Thanks to Obama who has sent the EPA out to find reasons to rein in (i.e., reasons to stop fracking of shale) this State and Private land activity.  

Oil and natural gas production from State and Private Lands will continue to increase and will be the driver of the US economic recovery.  Not the “green” jobs that he has been promoting.  “We have doubled our use of renewable energy, and thousands of Americans have jobs today building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries”. While Obama wants you think that wind and solar are soon to replace fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) that is not happening. Fossil fuels supplied 78% and nukes another 11% of the US energy needs in 2010.  Wind supplied about 2% and solar was barely above 0 %. That they are that much is a testimonial to the crony capitalism being practiced by the Federal government by subsidizing the capital cost of renewables installation. This practice leaves the rate payers holding the bag for the high cost of the electricity that renewables create.   It looks like the US will be joining most of the rest of the world that have become disillusioned with wind and solar when Congress doesn’t renew the subsidies next year.  Adding to their dismal performance is the fact that for every new Kw of wind and solar power, a corresponding amount of fossil fuel supplied energy must be built because wind and solar are too unreliable (the wind blows sometimes and not at others and we know the sun is not always shining) for the nation’s power grid to rely upon.  So not only are these unreliable renewables not competitively priced, the global warmers don’t get a reduction in CO2 emissions.

“After 30 years of inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next decade, cars and trucks will go twice as far on a gallon of gas”. Despite the implication that he has accomplished something, this new standard is in effective 2025 and there are many reasons to question if it can be met. This will only be realized if significant numbers of electric vehicles replace gasoline based vehicles.  And how is that program going? The hybrid Chevy Volt, the leading US manufactured vehicle, has sold through August about 13,170 making it unlikely they will meet the 2012 forecast of 45,000. The Volt is brought to you by Government General Motors (GM).  Through August, the best-selling all-electric car, the Nissan Leaf, had sold 4,228 vehicles versus the 2012 forecast of 20,000.  The electric vehicles are neither affordable nor efficient for the overwhelming majority of consumers who commute for work.  The Volt’s selling price is about $45,000 before the Government tax incentive of $7,500.  Even at that price, a recent report says: “Nearly two years after the introduction of the path-breaking plug-in hybrid, GM is still losing as much as $49,000 on each Volt it builds, according to estimates provided to Reuters by industry analysts and manufacturing experts.”  A little perspective, the projected US  2012 sales of vehicles is about 14 million.  There are something like 250 million registered vehicles in the US.  Even if the Volt were to sell 45,ooo it is drop-in-the-bucket. 

He says that man-made global warming is “not a hoax“.  He is wrong.  His EPA is writing regulations that will imposed a “cap and trade” program on the use of fossil fuels.  Cap and Trade failed attempts at passage in Congress.  Here he is usurping the legislative role of Congress.

The President’s energy program is a threat to all of us, and especially our children who are going to have to pay higher energy cost while having to cope with the massive debt this Administration has racked up.  

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Nuclear Energy, Oil and Gas Exploration, Personal Automobiles, US Auto Manufacturers, Windpower

Massive Canadian Shale-gas Field Discovered

Posted on June 20, 2012 | Leave a comment

In a remote corner of northeastern British Columbia, a massive shale-gas field has been discovered by the Apache Corp.   The field is estimated to have 48 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.  According to Reuters:

The company has drilled three wells into its holdings in the Liard Basin in British Columbia, just south of where the province’s northern border meets the borders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Only one of the three wells drilled in the region was treated with the multiple-stage hydraulic fracturing process that has been key to unlocking North America’ prolific shale-gas reserves. That well, which was “fracked” six times, delivered 21.3 million cubic feet of gas per day over its first thirty days of production, which Apache said was the most prolific shale-gas test well ever drilled.

This announcement of the shale-gas find was part of a presentation made by Apache Corp’s John Bedingfield, VP for Worldwide Exploration.    At that presentation he also discussed other activities as follows:

Along with its Liard field, the company said its 580,000 acres of land in the Mississipian Lime field in Kansas and Nebraska could contain as much as 2 billion barrels of oil while its holding in Montana’s Williston Basin may hold another 1 billion barrels.  As well, it’s targeting as much as 1.3 billion barrels of oil in Alaska’s Cook Inlet and 1.4 billion barrels from its holding off the shore of Kenya. It will drill in both regions later this year.  Apache said its holdings in western Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle could also hold another 5.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent while the Permian Basin in west Texas and New Mexico hold 3.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

As the supply of natural gas and oil increases, the prices are sure to drop. The price of natural gas in the US has already taken a header as major discoveries have been made in recent years.  Fuel for the production of electricity is tending away from coal to natural gas.   This move is more than just low natural gas prices as it is also being force by new EPA regulations (which may be reversed if Mitt Romney wins the upcoming election.).

Crude oil is more readily transportable from wellhead to the user giving it a wider world market.  But fracking discoveries in other parts of the world may bring supplies that exceed demand and thus lowering of crude oil prices as well.  Then the floor price will probably be set by the cost to produce and make a profit when getting oil by fracking.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, EPA, fossil fuels, Oil and Gas Exploration

Climate Model Forecasts Proven Wrong

Posted on June 17, 2012 | 4 comments

Where would the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW, aka: man-made global warming) be if it weren’t for the climate models that forecast devastatingly high temperatures, sea level change that will make hundreds of millions of people homeless, mass extinctions of all manner of creatures, etc? What if those forecasts consistently were in error?  You would have to conclude, that the warmers don’t have a viable theory and they would quickly fade away.  Well, the forecasts are consistently in error and warmers still have not faded away.  So what is going on?

Because it is Father’s Day, let’s look at James Hansen’s (father of the current man-made global warming cult) forecast presented to the US Congress in 1988:

Chart from: James Hansen et al. Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model journal of Geophysical Research.

The chart forecasts a global temperature increase that will be caused by different levels of CO2 emissions.  Scenarios “A” (blue) which postulated an increase in CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year
 and “B” (green): constant increase in CO2 emissions after 2000
 and “C” (red): no increase in CO2 emissions after 2000.  The black line is the actual global temperature.

Since 2000, the CO2 emissions have increased about 2.5% per year.  So one would expect the observed temperature to have exceeded the blue line “A”. Yet we see the actual temperature increase matching or perhaps coming in lower than that forecast by the red line “C” that was based upon a forecast of O% per year increase in CO2 after 2000. How many ways can you say FAIL!!!

Hansen’s influential presentation was widely broadcast and had a profound effect on Congress.  If you had been in the Capitol that day, you might have become concerned.   But with time, the Hansen forecast has been demonstrated to be very wrong.   The Chart above came from Wattsupwiththat (WUWT) blog and the comments by readers to the WUWT posting are quite interesting.  The warmers that commented essentially said—well, sure, it was wrong but some things happened; volcanoes, less fluorocarbons in the atmosphere, less methane in the atmosphere and the positive feedback he used is now imagined to be less than it was imagined to be at the time of the Hansen forecast.

Wow, that is a lot of things going wrong considering we are still being told that only CO2 really matters.  Isn’t it amazing that when the forecasts play out for a lot of years (in Hansen’s case, 24 years), only then can you find out if they are really any good.  Forecasting today what the world will look like in 2100 is an interesting exercise but only fools would believe that it was likely to be accurate.

We know that money and control drives the warmers and the politicians to continue this charade.  But the media has bought into this lock, stock and barrel.  What drives them?  I know that bad news (fear of global warming caused catastrophe) sells more papers than good news.  And the falling readership that the mainstream media is experiencing, makes them desperate to continue echoing everything the green alarmists say.  Why are there no latter-day Woodwards and Bernsteins that want to expose the lies after some 20 years of flat global temperatures and failed predictions?   Skeptics are gaining the upper hand with regard to public opinion, but if the media owned up to the facts and began questioning the AGW theory, this round of Lysenkoism could be ended.

cbdakota

  

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, Environment, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, IPCC, Sea Ice

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act”—Part 2.

Posted on May 11, 2012 | Leave a comment

The Democratic polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates at the request of the “Vote Solar Initiative” organization polled some 400 Los Angles residents and found according to an Aol Energy blog posting:

“The vast majority of Los Angeles residents are demanding more renewable energy, especially solar power, according to a new survey. Around 87 percent of voters want solar energy to generate more electricity and 79 percent welcome more wind power. Around three out of four voters (76 percent) say the solar power should be generated from rooftop panels.”

Aside from a pro-solar organization hiring a liberal Democrat polling organization to fashion a poll to get them the answers they wanted, the poll results show how far removed from reality are the LA citizens.  They are clamoring for more government intervention which is what has given California the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country,  the 9th highest electricity rate and the 3rd highest gasoline cost. It’s the poorer people that are suffering the most.  This will be made even worse as the price of electricity continues its climb as they force in more uneconomical solar based production and drive out much lower cost fossil fuel production. This conclusion is also dawning on the Germans according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: “The current funding of Germany’s green energy transition is anti-social, according to a new report by the Institute of the German Economy. The economic burden due to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) is up to 10 times higher for low-income households than for high-income households.”

The preliminary 2012 Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) estimates for levelized costs per kilowatt-hour in 2017 are 15.7 cents for a photovoltaic solar plant and 25.1 cents for a thermal solar plant.  That is far more expensive than the 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional combined cycle natural gas and the 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional coal in those same EIA estimates.  Also,  the EIA inflates the cost of coal by the equivalent of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted to represent the difficulty of obtaining financing for coal plants. Further, it does not appear that the EIA levelized cost for conventional combined cycle natural gas plant is getting credited for the lower price of natural gas resulting from fracking shale.

The survey also said that:

“Most voters believe Los Angeles should create 1,200 megawatts of power from the sun, which is LADWP’s percentage of the state goal of 12,000 megawatts of local clean power by 2020.”  

And they inform us that 1200megawatts is enough to power 260,000 homes.  The calculation for number of homes powered  is suspect as it is varies from solar power promoter to promoter.  Without power storage, some other source of electricity most likely from a fossil fuel powered source is necessary because the lights would go out on these homes at night when the sun is no longer shining.  So much for reducing carbon emissions.  I wonder if California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put that in their solar energy calculations?

More on Solar cell reliability, etc. in my next posting on this topic.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, solar cells

California Law “Global Warming Solutions Act”—Is It A Black Hole?

Posted on May 6, 2012 | Leave a comment

The California environmentalists got Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislators to pass the “Global Warming Solutions Act” in 2006.   The law called “AB 32” is sweeping in its authority to regulate fossil fuels.  The stated objective of AB 32 is to implement a “transformative” standard that will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  In 2013, electric power and major industrial emitters of about 160million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) will be compelled to begin reductions. This will require fuel-switching, new lower-emitting plants and contracting for lower-carbon generated power form out of state. The program is essentially Cap and Trade.  In 2015, transportation, natural gas, smaller emitters, etc accounting for about 230MTCO2e will be required to begin reductions.   How this sector is to accomplish this is not clear and what ever it is, is expected to be expensive.   Off-sets seem to be one way but these are limited and further, no emitter can use more than 8% offsets to comply with the law.

AB32 has not gone unchallenged.  For one challenge, the Renewable Fuel Association (RFA), mainly representing ethanol producers say they will be ruled out of the California market.  The law is based on the study of total emission from “seed to wheel” and California Air Resources Board (CARB) sets a standard that the ethanol producers say makes compliance too expensive.  The RFA  got an injunction to stop implementation saying that the law was  unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause which was intended to stop states from introducing laws that would discriminate against businesses located in other states.  But the US Court of Appeal (9th District) has now lifted the injunction.  The ruling on AB 32’s constitutionality is expected soon and the lifting of the injunction probably indicates they will say it is constitutional.

AB 32 was the product of Western Climate Initiative (WCI) that was formed in 2007.  The partners in the WCI were California, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington and later expanded by the addition of Montana and Utah plus the Canadian Provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec 2008. Each State or Province would not bound by AB32; they would have to pass similar bills in their respective legislative bodies.

All the US states dropped out when AB 32 was passed obviously not on-board with the size and scope of the act and that it was unlikely to get passed in their respective states.  The four Canadian Provinces have remained and have issued AB 32 as guidelines.   It would seem that the tar sands oil in Canada would be negatively affected by these guidelines if they become law in the four Provinces.

The trend for California to get their electrical power from out of state will be affected by this law as well.  CARB wants to limit “leakage” where emissions drop only because the generation source is out of the state.  So any emissions that occur in the process of generating the imported electricity are to be accounted for.

So why the comment about a black hole?  The size of the California market is huge. In the years past,  if California made an environmental change, the nation often followed. The Federal Clean Air Act was pretty much a product of California. Before retirement I pushed a program to amend the Clean Air Act to permit the use of up to 5% methanol mixed with ethanol in gasoline.  It was necessary to work with CARB if you wanted to do business in California. At that time they wanted to use methanol but not as a low level blend but as the primary fuel.  I think CARB and California have become too zealous.  The fact that all the states dropped out of the WCI is pretty telling.   When the price of electricity, gasoline, and other fossil fuel associated products get way out of step with rest of the nation and more industries flee the cost burden to more friendly states, I hope California residents get the message.

Next posting will look at the Californian’s wanting more solar power.  I don’t believe they know how costly this will be.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Energy Development, Environment, fossil fuels, Government Regulations, Personal Automobiles

Pres. Obama– “Government By Regulation, Not Legislation”

Posted on April 26, 2012 | Leave a comment

This Administration has never made secrete its wish to put coal, oil and natural gas out of business.  Energy drives our economy and that energy comes from those fossil fuels.  And if the Administration is successful, the US will become a second-class nation with an impoverished citizenry.

They cannot achieve their wish legislatively, so they have employed Executive branch regulators to accomplish their goals.   The EPA is not the only part of the Administration employing “government by regulation not legislation”, but they are the major force.  Now we have a new insight on how the EPA goes about coercing business and local governments into doing their bidding.   The Foundry site posted these comments:

A video surfaced on Wednesday showing a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency comparing his agency’s philosophy with respect to regulation of oil and gas companies to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission.

EPA’s “philosophy of enforcement,” said EPA’s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, is “kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them.”

“That town was really easy to manage for the next few years,” Armendariz added.

The Armendariz video can be seen by clicking here.

This destruction of our economy will not stop unless we can vote Obama out of office this coming November.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Energy Development, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations

Bogus Mercury Scare Used To Shutdown Coal Electricity Generating Plants

Posted on April 1, 2012 | 2 comments

Before he was elected, President Obama said that he would bankrupt anyone who built a new coal-base power generation plant.  He planed to do this by enacting Cap and Trade legislation that would target coal-based facilities. Because coal-based plants emit more CO2 than do natural gas-based plant per kW of electricity, the CO2 tax levied on coal-based facilities would make them uneconomical to build and operate.  However a bill for his signature could not get out of Congress.  (A little discussion of the regulation of CO2 later.) The administration refocused their efforts to put coal out of business by issuing new regulations that reduced the amount of mercury and other air pollutants in coal plant emissions (CO2 was not included).   Mercury is clearly the poster child for these new regulations and that is obvious by the many press releases and stories in the media. According to the EPA, children exposed to the reduced mercury levels will be healthier and have higher IQs.

How solid is the contention that it will make our children healthier?   A posting by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen, titled “US: The myth of killer mercury” shows the EPA’s actions to not be based on good science:

According to the Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which actively monitors mercury exposure, blood mercury counts for US women and children decreased steadily 1999-2008, placing today’s counts well below the already excessively “safe” level established by EPA.

A 17-year evaluation of mercury risk to babies and children, by the Seychelles Children Development Study, found “no measurable cognitive or behavioral effects” in children who eat five to twelve servings of ocean fish every week, far more than most Americans do.

The World Health Organization and US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry assessed these findings in setting mercury risk standards that are 2-3 times less restrictive than EPA’s. Even under WHO and ATSDR guidelines, no American children are even remotely at risk from mercury.

EPA ignored these findings. Instead, the agency based its “safe” mercury criteria on a study of Faroe Islanders, whose diet is far removed from our own. They eat few fruits and vegetables, but do feast on pilot whale meat and blubber that is high in mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) – but very low in selenium. The study is clearly irrelevant to this rulemaking.

Finally, EPA maintains that mercury deposition, its conversion to methylmercury, and MeHg accumulation in fish and humans is a simple process that can be controlled by curtailing emissions from US power plants. That is not correct. In fact, mercury emissions (from all sources) and raw mercury levels in fresh or ocean waters are only part of the story.

Complex, nonlinear interactions among at least 50 natural variables control the biological and chemical processes that govern elemental mercury conversion to methylmercury and MeHg accumulation in fish. Those variables, and selenium levels in fish tissue, are beyond anyone’s ability to control.

So clearly the EPA has grossly exaggerated the threat of mercury.

Another question that needs to be asked is how much mercury is released each year and how much of that comes from US coal-based plants.

Mercury Emissions – Natural and Man-Made

Source Emission Quantity, Mg/Year % of Total
Natural 5207 69
Manmade 2320 31
            TOTAL 7527 100
North American Coal Plants 65 0.9

 Data From “Global mercury emissions to the atmosphere from anthropogenic and natural sources” Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5951–5964, 2010 by N. Pirrone, S. Cinnirella, X. Feng, et al.

The mercury emissions total from the North American coal-based plants are less than one per cent of global emissions!!  So the effect on the health of people in the US through reduction of some fraction of the coal-based plants mercury emissions is essentially too small to measure.  However the effect of the increased cost of electricity will directly affect the health of the people in the US and especially the poorest among us.

See this posting by the Institute for Energy Research to get a sense of the loss of generating capacity that this EPA regulation will cause.

Willis Eshenbach developed two charts for his posting “The EPA’s Mecurial Madness” on the WUWT website.   They visually illustrate the futility of the EPA action to make any difference in mercury levels.

The EPA has more “kill coal-based power generation capacity” arrows in its quiver, and I plan to post on this soon.  As a preview, they are proposing a standard that will not permit the installation of new coal-based plants.

cbdakota

2 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, EPA, fossil fuels, Government Regulations