Posted on 01/16/2014 10:27:10 AM PST by thackney
The Environmental Protection Agency didn’t let a Clean Air Act requirement that mandated technologies be “adequately demonstrated” hinder their new performance standards ruling that puts a 1,100-pound limit per megawatt hour on carbon emissions from new coal power plants. Not only is there no scientifically-supportable climate benefit for limiting such emissions, there is no viable commercial-scale technology to achieve that ideological pipedream. Even if it mattered, the most modern coal-fired plants can only reduce CO2 emissions to 1,800 pounds. What’s more, they already knew that.
Or at least they certainly should have after a fact-finding working group within EPA’s own Science Advisory Board (SAB) informed them that such systems have never been proven outside the laboratory, and that pilot demonstration projects under development are over budget. These discoveries led SAB to issue a November 12 memo which raised questions regarding the technical feasibility of “sequestering CO2” (removing and storing it). Challenging the credibility of research EPA was supposed to use for rule justification, the communication noted that “the peer-review of scientific and technical information presented for coal-fueled sources appears to be inadequate.”
The SAB working group observation contradicted EPA’s claims based upon found that “peer-review “ for some of those Energy Department studies was conducted by none other than EPA itself over a brief few-week period, and that the rest never received unbiased scrutiny either. As reported, Energy could not provide “a documented or publicly available description of the peer review process”, and EPA refuses to share such information with SAB.
speculative studies and models produced by a Department of Energy research unit that sequestration works. EPA had assured the SAB panel that those studies had been vetted by “industry experts, academia and government research and regulatory agencies.” Yet upon further investigation the SAB.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Our December light bill came in and it was waaaay higher than usual. We have gas heat and usually during the winter the electric bill is lower......................
What area of the country?
NW Florida, Ft. Walton Beach.......................
Florida? you actually have to use heat there?
;-)
I don’t know the December costs. In October it was showing essential no change for the state per kWH from last year.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/xls/table_5_06_b.xlsx
Maybe I have a leak...................
If your wiring is leaking, you could be in serious trouble if the smoke gets out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.