H- wrote:
This is a great one for some serious discussion by all the intelligent folks here. The EPA administrator announced that he was
rescinding the Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan. This was with the rhetoric that the war on coal was over.
Leaving out politics (I'm trying to quit politics), lots of fodder for discussion.
Was the Clean Power Plan going to survive judicial review -- having quite a convoluted and fascinating procedural history in the courts? Has the Supreme Court really ruled that the EPA is required to address climate change and regulate CO2 emissions as the WaPo article claims? (I haven't checked but I'd be surprised if that is the case, because that question was not before the court afaik.) Is the Clean Power Plan the way we want to reduce CO2 emissions?
More generally, does this expose a weakness or problem with our current system of governance by administrative agency? Our governing system of environmental regulations has stood the test of time and many administrations after being put in place primarily during Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan administrations. These regulations by EPA followed specific mandates from Congress during the 70s and 80s in the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act (CWA and FWPCA), Haz. waste/Superfund (CERCLA), Pesticides and Insecticides (FIFRA), Safe Drinking Water (SDWA), Oil Spills (OPA), and others.
If one administration's EPA can make law and another one take it away, does that point to a weakness? Obama's EPA used a statue enacted some 45 years earlier in 1970 (CAA) as a basis for EPA action on CO2. Do we need Congressional action with regard to CO2 emissions?
In general, looking back at the federal environmental laws that I've listed above, which are very detailed, specific, and well conceived (albeit complicated -- but the complication is excusable as they do so much in a complicated arena), I have to ask myself: How did these laws come to be? How did we once have a Congress that could do something?
There have been some constructive comments elsewhere in this thread but I just wanted to point something out: at this point, short of a massive
direct subsidy, nothing can save coal in the U.S. New coal cannot compete with new natural gas in most power markets and it's basically impossible to finance a new CFPP in the U.S. What will be interesting, to me, is what the future backbone of baseload generation will be in twenty years. Gas won't be cheap forever.
Nuclear: The regulatory and logistical burdens for building a new LWR/BWR nuclear power plant in the U.S. (and most developed nations frankly) are so monumental that I doubt they'll ever make a comeback. That said, there's a lot of promising alternative reactor designs out there. India has a pressurized heavy water reactor designed to run on thorium that has a lot of potential. Maybe GE will finally sack up and build a PRISM reactor or perhaps some other conglomerate will take on the task of commercializing the LFTR. In the more distant future we might see some sort of a fission direct energy conversion reactor.
Solar: PV solar will never provide baseload generation but CST could in the southwest. Unfortunately, Ivanpah was absolutely botched so it will be a while before utilities are willing to touch that technology again.
Wind: will never be able to provide baseload generation and will likely never contribute more than 10% to the NA grid.
Geothermal: viable for baseload but costs in the U.S. are much higher than what the economy is accustomed to.