

E.P.A. to Seek 30 Percent Cut in Carbon Emissions - cjdulberger
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/politics/epa-to-seek-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html

======
phkahler
Cap and trade is stupid. It's a form of "carbon credits" designed to create a
market for the likes of wall street while allowing for politics to also play a
role. The simplest thing to do is TAX the carbon coming out of the ground (oil
or coal) or coming into the country. This cost will automatically be passed on
to whomever uses that fuel in direct proportion to how much the use. However,
we continue to subsidize some carbon producers, so you can clearly see that
reducing emissions is NOT the primary agenda here.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
More to the point: a carbon tax introduces price certainty, which (naively)
allows efficient long-term planning. (Carbon _caps_ set volume by fiat; carbon
_taxes_ set price by fiat. The other variable floats with the market).

You can look at the EU carbon market's total failure as an example. It's a cap
system, where the price collapsed almost immediately, and so to date it has
had zero effect of any sort [0]. The cap right now is way above what the
market actually wants. It's useless.

The opposite -- price overshoots because of a too tight cap + demand
inelasticity -- could also be a _really bad thing_. Both directly from the
pain it causes, and indirectly from the predictable political backlash, which
would screw up something else in a new & more creative way.

[0]
[http://www.economist.com/node/21548962](http://www.economist.com/node/21548962)

~~~
smsm42
I'm not sure - how arbitrarily setting prices introduces certainty? Today the
Congress or EPA decides the price is X, tomorrow Republicans take the Congress
and the presidency and appoint the head of EPA which drops the price to Y,
then next cycle Democrats take the power and rise the price to Z, etc. etc. -
where's certainty in that? I don't see any objective way of setting such
taxes, and as such - any reason why they would be stable is the price is
purely arbitrary and thus subject to political games.

~~~
throwaway_yy2Di
Well it doesn't, no. IF you have stable government policies, than a carbon tax
would be a predictable cost, where a cap would be highly volatile. Obviously
if the policies are changing too, then you can't predict much of anything.

" _I don 't see any objective way of setting such taxes,_"

How about: estimate the economic damage of a marginal kg of CO2 (external
cost), and set the tax equal to that? [0]

As an order-of-magnitude guess: [total climate change damage] / [total CO2
emitted], both discounted to present dollars.

Not an economist.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax)

~~~
bastawhiz
> stable government policies

You're a funny one.

------
spenrose
"Accounting for the damages [of unpriced externalities] conservatively doubles
to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated"

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract)

~~~
rustyconover
All of our lungs should breathe a collective sigh of relief for not having to
deal with so many particulates from coal burning after these rules go into
force. Not to mention saving our water from pollution of coal ash.

It will be pleasant to have less of these types of plants in operation:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Scherer)

And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need to
have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers
running.

~~~
smsm42
Is there any data that our lungs are seriously hurt by these particulates
right now?

>>> And this country will be just a little bit greener knowing, we don't need
to have trains crossing the country 24/7 from Wyoming just to keep the boilers
running.

We will have to get the energy from somewhere. The only viable alternative on
that scale that I can see is nuclear energy, but given current panic mood
about it, does not seem very likely. If not, are we ready to seriously cut
energy consumption and accept the accompanying life standards drop? I don't
think so.

~~~
mrbabbage
> Is there any data that our lungs are seriously hurt by these particulates
> right now?

There's a lot. From a health perspective, PM is _way_ worse for human health
than carbon dioxide. Here's two EPA fact sheets and a well-cited article:

[http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particulatematter/health.html](http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particulatematter/health.html)

[http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/quality/pmhealth.htm](http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/quality/pmhealth.htm)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969799...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969799005136)

> We will have to get the energy from somewhere. The only viable alternative
> on that scale that I can see is nuclear energy, but given current panic mood
> about it, does not seem very likely. If not, are we ready to seriously cut
> energy consumption and accept the accompanying life standards drop? I don't
> think so.

Easy answer: natural gas. It's already a bigger source of electricity than
nuclear, and it'll inevitably play a large role in the grid in the future as
it neatly solves the dispatch problem (renewables can't really be controlled,
but NG plants can be dispatched at a moments notice to make up for lost
capacity).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States#Electricity_generation)

~~~
smsm42
I agree that gas is more clean then the coal, but speaking in context of
carbon emissions, does it really change that much? It's still burning
hydrocarbons.

~~~
mrbabbage
Yeah, it's a huge difference, and all you need is high school chemistry:

\- gas is CH4 (four hydrogens for every carbon). Oil is approximately CH2 (in
reality, it's slightly higher than two). Coal is approximately CH.

\- a CH bond has about 410 kJ / mol; a CC bond has about 350 kJ / mol
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-
dissociation_energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond-dissociation_energy))

\- thus, you can calculate approximately how much energy is stored in each of
the above fossils per mole of carbon dioxide:

\- methane = 4CH = 1640 kJ / mol CO2

\- petrol = 2CH + CC = 1170 kJ / mol CO2

\- coal = CH + CC = 760 kJ / mol CO2

This is obviously a gross simplification, but hopefully you'll see the outline
of why gas is much cleaner than coal. Methane, since it's a gas, also burns
much cleaner than liquids or solids since you can better mix the fuel with
oxygen, so methane tends to produce much less particulate matter, soot, and
other products of incomplete combustion.

EDIT: spenrose below has a great point about uncombusted methane in the
atmosphere. Methane is a NASTY greenhouse gas, so it's absolutely worth taking
into account how natural gas production affects methane levels in the
atmosphere. Namely, there was a worrying metastudy a few months ago about how
natural gas production is quite leaky, which has nontrivial greenhouse gas
considerations: [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/methane-leaky-
ga...](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/methane-leaky-
gas-021314.html)

------
cwal37
I actually wrote something up on indirect carbon pricing in the US yesterday.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7829683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7829683)

TL;DR

EU carbon is trading at $6.88/tonne. Working back from an enrollment mailer I
found that TVA's green power program prices it at $42/tonne (in terms of lbs
of CO2 emissions avoided by purchasing blocks of renewable generation).

------
nospecinterests
When it comes to coal these efforts and those who support them seem to always
make the assumption that there is nothing that can be done to make burning
coal "cleaner". After working with the utilities industries (mostly natural
gas industries) I can tell you with 100% certainty that more than 80% of the
by products from the burning of coal, including CO2, can be removed using
scrubbing technologies and filters. In many cases the cost to install these
technologies are lower than the costs to convert a plant to natural gas. The
problem is that EPA regulations on coal are driving the costs up (by making it
harder to mine and transport) to the point where in the long run natural gas
is cheaper (though get a change in the US administration and that could sway
the other way again)(Edit: Which is why a lot of coal plants are being
converted to natural gas). My point is that if coal didn't cost as much as it
currently does (because of federal regulation) a number of technologies could
be installed that would enable coal plants to continue to be used with much
much less environmental impact.

~~~
pyk
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of CO2 is still in very early
development and pilot testing, so costs are quite uncertain, and it is not in
use in any reasonably sized coal plant in the US. For all plants >60MW planned
to have CCS, they are either still in planning or under construction [1] (note
that 60MW is a relatively small power plant).

Quite separate from CO2, there are NOX wet/dry scrubbers and flue gas
desulfurization units (removal of SO2). While having a very helpful large
reduction in fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone downwind health impacts (SO2
and NOX form PM2.5 and O3 downwind), it unfortunately does not remove CO2
emissions.

In talking to power companies, my guess is that natural gas is being switched
out for coal for many reasons, some more subtle. In part due to new PM2.5 and
ozone regulations, in part because in some years it has been cheaper than coal
due to new extraction techniques (fracking), and in part because it is easier
to dispatch natural gas plants (ramp up and down) to meet electricity demand
or high variance renewable energy generation like solar and wind (large spikes
in generation).

[1]
[http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.ht...](http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html)

~~~
nospecinterests
Natural gas is not being switched out for coal. At least not in the USA. I
think that might be a typo. I unfortunately can not site a fancy link like you
have but from experience I can tell you that the actual costs I have
encountered for projects showed that the price of scrubber tech/equipment (and
installation) was less then the cost of a plant conversion from coal to
natural gas.

The costs of coal are higher than they were before and are growing. This is a
direct result of government regulation. The other problem is that these
regulations and the continual call for more is causing a great deal of market
uncertainty, which is also driving up costs (not just for the coal but for
equipment). Natural gas is currently not in the same position, it is cheaper
and less regulated (no mining regulations/legislation). Further, because there
has been so much drilled for there is a surplus (supply and demand ==> gas
costs are lower). This is mostly because of the lack of good, viable, stable
export terminals. So when some terminals open in the future we will see higher
natural gas prices.

~~~
pyk
Coal is being switched out for natural gas here in the US... as a specific
example, in 2012, see Plant McDonough right next to Atlanta, GA [1]. As I
stated before, the reason is in part due to the effects on air quality (an
externality), not just price. For Atlanta with this switch over, it has proven
air quality improvements (and no one was surprised by this since it was a coal
plant operating full blast right there next to Atlanta!).

I actually agree with you on several points. Agreed that the economics are
uncertain, and agreed that scrubbing is very useful, and is definitely worth
the cost vs. a full switch over to natural gas (but that doesn't ignore the
fact that a switch to natural gas happens for other reasons). And I agree with
you that natural gas has higher variance (historically at the least), and
higher future expected prices, particularly with exports.

[1] [http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-
sources/natu...](http://www.georgiapower.com/about-energy/energy-
sources/natural-gas.cshtml)

~~~
nospecinterests
I replied the way I did because you wrote "my guess is that natural gas is
being switched out for coal for many reasons". That is not true. That is why I
said it might have been a typo. This is clear because in your reply above your
write the opposite, that coal is being replaced by natural gas. I agree with
this, and as you wrote above, 100%.

~~~
pyk
Can't edit now, but you're 100% correct, my typo was overlooked by me... three
(or more) times!

------
crazy1van
What's the deal with using 2005 as the reference date for the 30% cuts? Do we
not have more accurate carbon measurements since then? Is it to make the cuts
seem smaller since 2014's emissions are probably bigger than 05. There must be
some specific reason to pick a reference date of almost a decade ago. Any
thoughts?

~~~
cwal37
A few things:

1\. Your intuition about emissions being higher now is wrong. For NOx and SOx:
[http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15611](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15611)
CO2:
[http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html)

2\. The recession messed with a lot of energy and consumption so that the
years from 2008-2012 or so are something of anomalies.

3\. There have been significant rollbacks and cuts to getting datasets
complete. It used to be we were only a year or two behind in lots of the
published federal data. I've found it to be far more scattershot today, and
sometimes just cross my fingers and hope they have managed to stay up to date.
That said, the EIA has mostly managed to stay on top of their annual
publications.

4\. Natural gas prices bottomed out a couple years ago, and we'll have a glut
of it for a while, keeping prices much lower than they were in the early
2000s.

5\. Coal plants are getting replaced with natural gas combined cycle because
of the fuel costs, and also because of new regulations on the new MATS stuff
(also in the link above).

6\. "Clean" coal has mostly been a bust. Duke Indiana's been trying to get
their gasification plant to full capacity for a while, and cost ovverruns has
resulted in them asking for rate increases. Also, carbon capture still isn't
up to snuff, and underground gasification never took off.

~~~
crazy1van
Interesting. Any idea why they picked the 2005 date to be the reference?

~~~
cwal37
Sorry it took a few days, but I couldn't get the numbers to work (couldn't
tell that they were using 2005), and now I know why.

[http://common-resources.org/2014/2005-vs-2012-in-epas-
propos...](http://common-resources.org/2014/2005-vs-2012-in-epas-proposal/)

And here's a good general breakdown of the proposed rule.

[http://www.vox.com/2014/6/4/5779052/how-to-figure-out-
which-...](http://www.vox.com/2014/6/4/5779052/how-to-figure-out-which-states-
get-hit-hardest-by-obamas-climate-rule)

------
waps
This is not true at all, or at least it's only true from a narrow US view of
the world :

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-step-
forward-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-step-forward-on-
carbon-undone-by-china-s-steps-back.html)

And let's not get any illusions. One of the main real changes in the world
that make this possible is outsourcing of production to China, where instead
of a mix of oil, nuclear and coal, goods will be produced with nearly
exclusively coal. Obama is not an idiot and knows this.

His voters seemingly are not so aware.

So what it should really say is something along the lines of "in an attempt to
improve earbon emission numbers in the US, the EPA doubles worldwide carbon
emissions, in cooperation with it's European counterpart, moving the emissions
where they are not counted on his report card".

~~~
spenrose
Outsourcing manufacturing to China can increase emissions; closing coal plants
in the USA does not affect in or outsourcing; therefore your summary is false.

~~~
ams6110
Expensive energy here vs. cheap energy in China certainly would factor into
outsourcing decisions.

~~~
Daishiman
Energy is going to get a lot more expensive in China from here on too.

------
melling
So, by 2030 even if the US cuts emissions by 30%, aren't there going to be 2-3
billion people in emerging markets moving up the economic ladder who will use
a lot more energy.

Sure 300 million Americans are currently using a lot of energy but we're going
to be much smaller part of the problem by 2030.

~~~
mhurron
It doesn't solve it all, so we shouldn't do anything?

~~~
crazy1van
That's a false choice. There are more options than either doing nothing or
doing something predictably ineffective.

------
tgb
Does anyone know of a study on how effective such programs have been in the
past (assuming it passes and isn't significantly overturned by the courts)? As
in, what is the expected success rate of long-term plans of the US government
(or other nations)?

~~~
paulyg
Look at Germany and Canada (specifically Ontario). Not so good.

------
Zak
Good plan. Let's build some nuclear plants.

Oh, wait. Not politically viable? It should be:
[http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-
so...](http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html)

~~~
anigbrowl
Actually it is politically viable, we're building the first new addition to
our nuclear fleet for 30 years: [http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-
news/a-65b-federal-loa...](http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-
news/a-65b-federal-loan-guarantee-jolts-ga-nuclear-powe/ndWgF/)

~~~
paulyg
That plant broke ground before Fukushima. How many permits have been issued
since then: 0. Perfectly good nuclear plants like Vermont Yankee have been
shut down (decided not to renew operating license) due to "concerned citizens.
We were headed to a nuclear power renascence until that accident happened and
took the wind out of the sails.

~~~
anigbrowl
If it had taken the wind out of the sales then we could have skipped the $6.5
billion federal loan guarantee we issued last February, which is mentioned in
the article I linked to.

As for Vermont Yankee, the operating license was renewed in 2011 and remains
valid until 2032, but Entergy said that a mix of price controls and economic
inefficiency for a small single-reactor design made it uneconomical to
continue operations:
[http://www.entergy.com/news_room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=2769](http://www.entergy.com/news_room/newsrelease.aspx?NR_ID=2769)

Vermont's senate voted against a future renewal of the plant's license, but
since this wouldn't have been an issue for almost two decades I don't think
it's that big of a deal:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Pl...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Controversy_and_operations)

The fact is that the federal government is putting its money where its mouth
is as regards Georgia, and with the President about to announce a target of
cutting US CO2 emissions by 30%, the door is open for other nuclear projects.
A bigger problem for the industry has been the fall in power prices due to the
huge surplus of natural gas that currently obtains in the US, with no sign of
decline any time soon.

------
rrggrr
I hypothesize that with two years remaining, President Obama is again
delivering big for the Futuregen 2.0 project in his home state. I mean, if he
was really looking to reduce carbon emissions he might make that a priority in
his dealings with China and Russia and the developing world. This is politics,
not policy in my opinion.

~~~
anigbrowl
Why, so he can get re-elected? Absurd. the sticking point with getting the
BRIC and other developing nations to cut emissions has been the US failure to
lead in doing so. The recent Supreme Court ruling that the EPA is authorized
to regulate pollution that crosses state lines is a sea change and has been a
long time coming.

~~~
rrggrr
He is unemployed in two years. The BRIC sticking point is reality. Economic
reality.

