Report: EPA regs will shut down 28 GW of energy production

posted at 3:30 pm on October 8, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

Last month we told you about energy plants in both Kentucky and Indiana which are facing the prospect of shutting down far ahead of schedule because of pending EPA regulations. These closures come at a tremendous cost which, as always, will be passed on to the consumer. We also noted that these were not isolated examples, and more of the same should be expected. Now a new report from the Institute for Energy Research has identified an alarming number of additional plants which face a similar fate. The total cost to the power grid is a staggering 28 gigawatts of production.

Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy. According to our report:

EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity

EPA modeling and power-plant operator announcements show that EPA regulations will close at least 28 gigawatts (GW) of American generating capacity, the equivalent of closing every power plant in the state of North Carolina or Indiana. Also, 28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.

Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted

EPA’s power plant-level modeling projected that Agency regulations would close 14.5 GW of generating capacity. That number rises to 28 GW when including additional announced retirements related to EPA rules, almost twice the amount EPA projected. Moreover, this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.

Announced and Projected Retirements Higher Than Worst Case Scenarios

Analysis by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the entity in charge of grid reliability, projected that EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule would close 20 GW of generating capacity. This list indicates that at least 28 GW will retire. EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule push U.S. energy security past the NERC worst case scenario.

Each closure represents less available energy which translates into higher utility bills for consumers, not to mention the possibility of new rolling blackouts during periods of high demand. This is above and beyond the costs incurred by producers to replace these plants where possible – costs which will also be passed on to you. Lest you think this is a problem mostly being faced by Texas, think again. Is your home state on this list?

  • Ohio: 2,894 MW retired, 8.6% of state total generating capacity.
  • West Virginia: 2,448 MW retired, 14% of state total generating capacity.
  • Indiana: 2,168 MW retired, 7.5% of state total generating capacity.
  • Tennessee: 1,376 MW retired, 6.2% of state total generating capacity.
  • Missouri: 1,325 MW retired, 6.3% of state total generating capacity.
  • Wisconsin: 902 MW retired, 5% of state total generating capacity.

The map included in the report contains targets all the way from Vermont to Washington State and from Wyoming to Louisiana. This is not a localized problem, but rather one which will affect nearly everyone in the country. And it’s beginning as soon as January of this coming year.

As I’ve pointed out before, it’s not like I’m a cheerleader for coal fired plants. They will eventually be largely closed down in favor of natural gas and other domestic energy sources which are currently available to us. But the process takes time and the industry needs to be able to do it on a schedule which doesn’t cripple them in terms of either production capacity or costs. When the government seeks to force an acceleration of this schedule for partisan purposes, the result is predictable. And you’re going to foot the bill for it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hurry we much.

pambi on October 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM

The first words out of the mouth and EO the new r president does is get this gosh horrible agency defunded or put a stop to what they are doing! You haven’t seen anything yet if bho is re-elected what this agency will be doing!
L

letget on October 8, 2011 at 3:35 PM

We need more solar panels and we need them NOW! Maybe if we gave Solyndra another half a billion dollars we could save them and ourselves. Pass Obama’s Bill!!!

Cindy Munford on October 8, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Get ready for brownouts.

Yakko77 on October 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM

28 gigawatts?! Ben, how are we going to generate that much power?!

suburbanite on October 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

The Whine

rbj on October 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Sure do miss the days when DEMAND powered the economic engine, not the EPA..

pambi on October 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Hurry we much.

pambi on October 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Heh.

Tim_CA on October 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM

The EPA and CDC should shut down the WS protesters. They sure have their priorities messed up.

Obama is full of sh*t and his followers dwell in it, including the media.

Schadenfreude on October 8, 2011 at 3:44 PM

28 gigawatts?! Ben, how are we going to generate that much power?!

suburbanite on October 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Flux Capacitor?

Tim_CA on October 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM

“Energy prices would necessarily skyrocket”

-Barack Obama (A.K.A. SCOAMF)

Aquateen Hungerforce on October 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Its all part of Jugears re-election strategy.

As the campaign gears up for 2012, we’ll see massive rolling blackouts that coincide with “prime time” political advertising on TV.

“If the folks can’t watch TV or get on the internet, they can’t find out what we’re doing.”

We’re going to be denied access to basic communications at the whim of government.

“No, thats not the gubbamint restricting freedom of speech…its BIG OIL and BIG COAL shutting down their power plants. Blame them”

BobMbx on October 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Jobs down and costs up. I wonder why. /

CW on October 8, 2011 at 3:47 PM

I though it was the legislature that made laws. Isn’t that why we elected them in the first place? How did this country come to be run by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats? The more important question is. What are we going to do about it?

Tommy_G on October 8, 2011 at 3:49 PM

28 gigawatts?! Ben, how are we going to generate that much power?!

suburbanite on October 8, 2011 at 3:41

The Obama couple wind (bag) power should easily fill the void.

clnurnberg on October 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

This is a good thing.
It will show exactly how fcuked up our gub’ment is.

And people need to know that ethanol and other regulations, EBT and other subsidies not only squander our tax dollars but also cause the price of food to sky rocket.

esnap on October 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Not a problem, really, Solyndra is going to make up the difference with clean, cheap, ready to use solar energy, right?

coldwarrior on October 8, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Bring it on. It will only advance the cause of the socialists and revolutionaries.

Stock up. Food and weapons. It’s only a matter of time…a short time.

Twana on October 8, 2011 at 3:57 PM

If only there was some way we could’ve foreseen this.

rogerb on October 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM

And West Virginia has a new, smiling, democrat governor.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM

2012 can’t come soon enough. Dear God, deliver us from this maniac in the white house.

stenwin77 on October 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM

My guess is that implementation of these regulations will slow down between now and the November 2012 election, in an Obama administration effort to hide their ball.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Good. More fuel for people to get the vote out next year.

bridgetown on October 8, 2011 at 4:05 PM

What is required is for the states to defy the regulations, plain and simple.

Not ignore them. Defy them, openly. Say to DC, the energy companies within the borders of our state will not comply with non-legislative edicts handed down from distant regulatory bodies. We do not recognize the authority, and our energy producers will be protected by the full force of our state police and national Guard if necessary.

IronDioPriest on October 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Lefties always want people to consume less.
Solution ?

Make sure that people have less to consume.

They are creating an artificial shortage to further the notion that we consume more than our own resources can handle.

They create the crisis so they can solve the problem.

NeoKong on October 8, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Although Obama has accelerated this exponentially, and bears a large chunk of the blame, its not all him, there are a number of regulations set to be enforced. the left has been laying the groundwork for this for years. Dont forget that after Jan 1 the 100W incandescent (if you can even find one now) is gone with the rest of the wattages to follow.

Koa on October 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Look up this….

http://www.ge-energy.com

Now let’s see…….GE is poised to be the “clean” energy provider with this new technology. Now let’s use Foreign Trade Zones like the one in Idaho and have the Chinese Communist govt in Bejing build power plants that can supply power to…….

See where this is going?

All courtesy of our Ruling Class overlords who know besties.

And who….is…..there…..to….stop…this?

PappyD61 on October 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Good. More fuel for people to get the vote out next year.

bridgetown on October 8, 2011 at 4:05 PM

The blame will be placed on big cororations and the State Run Media will play along and echo the storyline.
They control the disemination of information and thus they control the people.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:11 PM

IronDioPriest on October 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Good thought.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 4:11 PM

big corporations too

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM

IronDioPriest on October 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Good thought.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 4:11 PM

This is what it is going to take if we expect to see things turn back.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

By the way……he is the DOTUS.

No doubt.

PappyD61 on October 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

PappyD61 on October 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM

I share your concern: Which of the Republicans now in the presidential race has the fortitude to stop this, along with Obamacare and other ill-advised Obama America-destroying programs?

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Coal fired plants are dirty and release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This, to say nothing of cadmium, lead, arsenic and mercury. It’s time to move on to other energy sources and phase out the heavy polluters.It is entirely sane to want nothing to do with coal any longer (or at least to entertain the concept of better technology, including carbon sequestration).

We need to go full-throttle on second generation nuclear fission plants and, the ultimate, nuclear fusion.

Solar and wind simply don’t pack the punch that the consumer would demand, though there are always possibilities that solar will finally make itself competitive. We shouldn’t discount the eventual benefits of tapping the sun, the air currents and the tides.

So, phasing out of coal plants needs to be on the agenda, and needs to begin. It may take slow weaning, but weaning is what we need to do.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

We need more solar panels and we need them NOW! Maybe if we gave Solyndra another half a billion dollars we could save them and ourselves. Pass Obama’s Bill!!!

Cindy Munford on October 8, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Even though were are set to lose 7.5% of our coal powered electricity (all electricity in Indiana is from coal). We have a brand new wind farm. 121 turbines providing up to 199Mw, with an additional 66 turbines being built to provide up to 99 additional Mw. That 1% of the total we’re going to lose. Looking on the bright side. It may be less energy at higher cost, but at least it will be green. And isn’t that what’s most important here in Obamas declining America.

Tommy_G on October 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM

It may be less energy at higher cost, but at least it will be green. And isn’t that what’s most important here in Obamas declining America.

Tommy_G on October 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM

If one is a windmill battler like some here seem to be.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

We need to go full-throttle on second generation nuclear fission plants and, the ultimate, nuclear fusion.

Solar and wind simply don’t pack the punch that the consumer would demand, though there are always possibilities that solar will finally make itself competitive. We shouldn’t discount the eventual benefits of tapping the sun, the air currents and the tides.

So, phasing out of coal plants needs to be on the agenda, and needs to begin. It may take slow weaning, but weaning is what we need to do.
oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

It’s going to take a lot of energy to build just 1 nuclear plant. Wait to “wean” us until we get several online.

Qzsusy on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Well when people start dying from the cold or lack of refrigeration for food due to the blackouts that last for days not just brownouts due to rationing utopia will be here. At least when they cremate the bodies they should get some heat redistribute. Or a new food source to eat.

To bad they can’t outsource power generation. Have all the dirt coal plants in China that put out more evil gas in one hour than the clean US plants in their lifetime, and run a very long extension cord over to the US.

tjexcite on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

It’s going to take a lot of energy to build just 1 nuclear plant. Wait to “wean” us until we get several online.

Qzsusy on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

NO! We must create an energy vacuum before we develop a viable way to fill it.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
-Obama, January 2008

He couldn’t get cap and trade so he’s going with the EPA instead. Finally, a promise that Obama is keeping!

Queasy on October 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

I read in a story once, or saw it in a movie when I was a child. Where the hero exposed that “Lost Causes are the only ones worth fighting for.”

Tommy_G on October 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM

It’s going to take a lot of energy to build just 1 nuclear plant. Wait to “wean” us until we get several online.

We’ve already begun planning for two more units here in this state – paid for by a surcharge on the electric bill.

Second-generation nuclear is coming, and it’s the most intelligent way to go at this point. Hopefully, power companies will see the need to finance a consortium dedicated to nuclear fusion (we need to stop with the baby steps there and take some real strides).

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Even though were are set to lose 7.5% of our coal powered electricity (all electricity in Indiana is from coal). We have a brand new wind farm. 121 turbines providing up to 199Mw, with an additional 66 turbines being built to provide up to 99 additional Mw. That 1% of the total we’re going to lose. Looking on the bright side. It may be less energy at higher cost, but at least it will be green. And isn’t that what’s most important here in Obamas declining America.

Tommy_G on October 8, 2011 at 4:18 PM

There is also the problem that not all megawatts are created equal.

A wind or solar megawatt are not reliable all the time. Sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and sometimes the sun don’t shine. Nukes (90%) and coal plants (85 to 90%) run close to capacity most of the time except for downtime for maintenance or fuel reloading.

Solar capacity is only about 10 to 25% with wind farm capacity being 20% or higher (though Perry’s wind farm doondoggle in Texas was 9%).

So a 100 megawatts of solar power cannot replace a 100 megawatts of nuclear.

sharrukin on October 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM

NO! We must create an energy vacuum before we develop a viable way to fill it.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Hindsight never works out too well. Intelligent planning and execution in response to conditions that are obviously going to change rapidly in the carbon world is what needs to take place.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:30 PM

What is required is for the states to defy the regulations, plain and simple.

Not ignore them. Defy them, openly. Say to DC, the energy companies within the borders of our state will not comply with non-legislative edicts handed down from distant regulatory bodies. We do not recognize the authority, and our energy producers will be protected by the full force of our state police and national Guard if necessary.

IronDioPriest on October 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Exactly. F’ the Feds!

Dandapani on October 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM

“Energy prices would necessarily skyrocket”

-Barack Obama (A.K.A. SCOAMF)

Aquateen Hungerforce on October 8, 2011 at 3:46 PM

THIS, he is keeping his campaign promises, this piece of $hit.

On a side note, FoxNews Peter Doocy just reported on the Solyndra scandal – the loan was actively pushed by campaign bundler, Steve Spinner, who was appointed to a top Dept of Energy position. Then it turns out that Spinner’s wife worked for the law firm representing Solyndra.

Crony capitalism and corruption at its finest.

karenhasfreedom on October 8, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Intelligent planning and execution in response to conditions that are obviously going to change rapidly in the carbon world is what needs to take place.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:30 PM

This whole ‘carbon world’ as you call it is nothing more than social engineering. When the world can no longer clean its atmosphere we will have problems but we are just a flea on the back of this planet. When we have overstayed our welcome the planet will shake us off.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM

So a 100 megawatts of solar power cannot replace a 100 megawatts of nuclear.

sharrukin on October 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Nobody’s expecting it to, sharrukin.

Future energy sources are going to be a package – like they are now, only more diversified.

We’ve put all our eggs in the carbon basket for too long, and we’re going to be high and dry very soon without investing in alternatives. I think energy companies are starting to get that message.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM

When we have overstayed our welcome the planet will shake us off.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM

You first. I like it here just fine.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Why do we no longer build hydro generating plants?
I’ll tell you why:treehugging greenies who will not let us log or mine. We have a nation with an abundance of resources that have been locked up by progressives of both political persuasions.
Hydro is clean and another thing we need to live, water, can be stored behind the dams. But we must protect the newts.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Nobody’s expecting it to, sharrukin.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Yes, actually a great number of lunatic leftists are expecting exactly that. We pay 2 to 3 times as much for ‘alternate energy’ per megawatt and often get four times less for each megawatt.

Al Gore and his wacked out cultists have a great deal of influence.

Solyndra didn’t happen in a vacuum, nor did Perry’s wind farms, the ethanol subsidies, the drilling bans. Economics and reality have left the building.

sharrukin on October 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Treasonous.

stefanite on October 8, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Why do we no longer build hydro generating plants?

Hydro is a temporary solution. Reservoirs behind the dams fill in, and also cause massive disruption of the fishing and oystering down river (things that rob people of their livlihood).

And, the alternative opening and closing of the gates causes massive erosion problems downstream, which is something that farmers and homeowners don’t find very endearing.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Yes, actually a great number of lunatic leftists are expecting exactly that.

You shouldn’t be intimidated by those folks.

Economics drives all, and those that deny it are deceiving themselves.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM

You first. I like it here just fine.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:37 PM

That’s the thing though, we are only here for a very short time and our time on earth will be erased in the blink of a geological eye.
We have the cleanest air of all industrialized nations and the EPA continues to strangle us in the name of social engineering not protection of the environment. All 3 states on the west coast require emissions testing for vehicles but studies show that nearly all cars now pass the testing. The states could discontinue the testing but it is a revenue stream forother projects having nothing to do with clean air.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM

EO’s still leave the EPA in place. Also the parts of the Interior overseeing oil and gas exploration. Plus the Dept of Energy.

Better ‘oversight’ leaves these tentacles in place and only for as long as a ‘good manager’ is around as President.

The tentacles must go so the abuse cannot even be made to start with. Any candidate that is not serious about cutting off, not just managing better, these departments cannot be seen as serious. This election isn’t just about Obamacare and Dodd-Frank but the entire size, scope and power of the federal government. EO’s are a temporary measure, a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. The ‘efficient manager’ types leaves the Nation at the mercy of these bureaucracies and just one election in which a ‘poor manger’ or someone with an agenda to exploit them can cause such damage.

These horrors must go.

Not just the regulations, but the regulators and agencies behind them. Lock, stock and two smoking barrels.

ajacksonian on October 8, 2011 at 4:46 PM

I just hate the liberal ideology, and everything it stands for!!!

capejasmine on October 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM

we are only here for a very short time and our time on earth will be erased in the blink of a geological eye.

I am not interested in how quickly we vanish in terms of geologic time. I just want my stay here to be long and pleasant by my own reckoning.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Hydro is a temporary solution. Reservoirs behind the dams fill in, and also cause massive disruption of the fishing and oystering down river (things that rob people of their livlihood).

And, the alternative opening and closing of the gates causes massive erosion problems downstream, which is something that farmers and homeowners don’t find very endearing.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Balderdash, lefty talking points all. There are dams built over 70 years ago that are still serving.
Huggers don’t want people fishing or oystering either

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM

. I just want my stay here to be long and pleasant by my own reckoning.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Then you clean up after yourself and try not to force your ideals on the rest of us.

darwin-t on October 8, 2011 at 4:49 PM

How many people will be put out of work because of these closings?

Dr Evil on October 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You shouldn’t be intimidated by those folks.

Economics drives all, and those that deny it are deceiving themselves.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Toilets and light bulbs suggest that the government is intimidated by those folks and economics are taking a back seat.

Where were the economics for Solyndra?

sharrukin on October 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Besides an energy shortage in the form of less electricity available, those of you who live in the SW will soon be facing water shortage very soon. Technology is great in that it allowed people to live in what was once desert. Too bad that all that air conditioning will not give you extra water you will need.

ny59giants on October 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM

We need more solar panels and we need them NOW! Maybe if we gave Solyndra another half a billion dollars we could save them and ourselves. Pass Obama’s Bill!!!

Cindy Munford on October 8, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Drive the price of coal through burdensome regulation and subsidize the solar industry, that is the only way to make those worthless solar panels economically viable. Yet they still don’t work.

Daemonocracy on October 8, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Instead of defunding the DOJ for not upholding DOMA, Boehner needs to defund EPA, now! Maybe I’ll go chop some more fire wood.

Kissmygrits on October 8, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Field Marshall Obama has taken out his enemies electrical power grid with an EPA Bombing campaign.

He is a great warrior. But why do we let him attack us??

That was Treason the last time I heard about AlAwaki waging war upon the USA.

jimw on October 8, 2011 at 5:33 PM

28 Gigawatts?!

Great Scott!!

That’s… 23.14 bolts of lightning.

Or one unicorn fart.

Left Coast Right Mind on October 8, 2011 at 5:53 PM

What do all these states have in common? They are either conservative or conservative -leaning battleground states. The liberals who know the damage these regulations will cause do not CARE if the people in these states suffer as a result. Call me cynical, but that’s how I see it.

Animator Girl on October 8, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I’d shut the coal powered plants that supply energy to the liberal environmentalist cities – i.e. those who support Cap and Trade and all the other nutty environmental ideas — and let them tell us how it’s working out for them. No heat; no A/C; no place to charge their IPADs and iPhones not to mention the high energy bills. Make them squeal like stuck pigs.

I’d also time it to take place a few months before the election so the liberal left can feel the Hope and Change Obama said he’d bring them.

iamsaved on October 8, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I share your concern: Which of the Republicans now in the presidential race has the fortitude to stop this, along with Obamacare and other ill-advised Obama America-destroying programs?

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Herman Cain

College Prof on October 8, 2011 at 6:25 PM

What’s wrong with you people, don’t you know that the most important thing is religion and who G-d really likes!
Obama will make energy so expensive that people will die, but don’t worry – obviously it’s ok, because we can’t talk about rev wrong or the “SWEETEST SOUND” but we sure as h@## can’t have a fake “Christian.”

Bambi on October 8, 2011 at 6:26 PM

FU America,
Love,
The Obamas

bloviator on October 8, 2011 at 6:31 PM

And West Virginia has a new, smiling, democrat governor.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Stockholm syndrome. Vote for the idiots that tell you they are going to keep you in captivity. Either that or the inbreeding coefficient for W.V. is a lot higher than anyone expected.

chemman on October 8, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Coal fired plants are dirty and release millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

My favorite AGW hypocrite is back. Still torturing electrons powered from the bosom of big energy I see.

chemman on October 8, 2011 at 6:40 PM

We’ve put all our eggs in the carbon basket for too long, and we’re going to be high and dry very soon without investing in alternatives. I think energy companies are starting to get that message.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Compared to the age of the earth I guess the 3-4 centuries of coal we have is very soon. I’ll ask you again do you live on the current alternatives or do you continue to suck on the teat of the same big energy you like to trash. Practice what you preach and I just might begin to believe you are sincere.

chemman on October 8, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Well when people start dying from the cold or lack of refrigeration for food due to the blackouts that last for days not just brownouts due to rationing utopia will be here. At least when they cremate the bodies they should get some heat redistribute. Or a new food source to eat.

tjexcite on October 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM

SOLIENT GREEN IS . . . . . . . . . .

listens2glenn on October 8, 2011 at 6:47 PM

Am I evil for investing in energy stocks now?

VikingGoneWild on October 8, 2011 at 6:51 PM

At the same time they are pulling the equivalent of 28 AP1000 nuclear plants offline, they want people to convert to electric cars? If we divert energy from gasoline to electricity at the same time they are pulling generation capacity offline, where the hell are we going to get the power for that?

What we need right now is a massive nuclear power construction program along with fuel recycling. “Spent fuel” has used only about 5% of the available energy. Spent rods can be recycled and used again and again.

These people are absolute morons.

crosspatch on October 8, 2011 at 7:03 PM

28 gigawatts, huh? Guess Barry and the EPA better start rounding up all those unicorns. We’re gonna need to collect every carbon-free fart we can.

GarandFan on October 8, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Hydro is a temporary solution. Reservoirs behind the dams fill in, and also cause massive disruption of the fishing and oystering down river (things that rob people of their livlihood).

And, the alternative opening and closing of the gates causes massive erosion problems downstream, which is something that farmers and homeowners don’t find very endearing.

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Funny, Hydro may be a inadequate solution but temporary? LOL

If not maintained, everything is temporary. Who’s talking points are you spouting?

whbates on October 8, 2011 at 7:10 PM

28 gigawatts?! Ben, how are we going to generate that much power?!

I wonder how many BTUs are in one 170 lb, unwashed, smelly hippie soaked in Pachouli oil?

Wyznowski on October 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM

So which governors are going to simply say “thanks, but we’ve decided you can screw yourselves, we’re not shutting down our power plants. Have a nice day.”?

They had better…

Midas on October 8, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Unicorns and happy thoughts will provide all the energy we need once we rearrange every building in the country according to Fung Shui.

emerson7 on October 8, 2011 at 8:10 PM

So a 100 megawatts of solar power cannot replace a 100 megawatts of nuclear.
sharrukin on October 8, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Nobody’s expecting it to, sharrukin.
Future energy sources are going to be a package – like they are now, only more diversified.
We’ve put all our eggs in the carbon basket for too long, and we’re going to be high and dry very soon without investing in alternatives. I think energy companies are starting to get that message.
oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I give you Oakland, the cdeven of energy

funny how the rest of the world, including our enemies don’t constrainthemselves like we do

We have resources to the extent that ending the insipid regulations put on them would turn our economy
around quickly

of course totalitarians aren’t interested in independent population so any form of such must be locked away

hey oak, when I see china closing their crap coal plants then harp here

until then, shove it where the sun roesnt shine

Sonosam on October 8, 2011 at 9:01 PM

How wonderful.

JellyToast on October 8, 2011 at 9:08 PM

oakland on October 8, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Considering where you live…no wonder you have that attitude. “Greenhouse gases” and no concept of a rational timetable, not to mention the cost of implementation. Kooklafornia water seems to affect you people like that.

lovingmyUSA on October 8, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Hydro is a temporary solution that we’ve been using for two millennia.

rogerb on October 8, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Intelligent planning and execution in response to conditions that are obviously going to change rapidly in the carbon world is what needs to take place. …

Economics drives all, and those that deny it are deceiving themselves.

Quotes from oakland.

Economics isn’t driving any of this.

Nor are the people at this forum obstacles to nuclear power.

Meanwhile, there has been no demonstration that the amounts of cadmium, lead, mercury, etc put into the atmosphere by coal plants are toxic to life. “EPA regulators don’t like it” is not evidence that something is toxic, nor is “media reports distort empirical findings.” Nor, for that matter, is “search engines turn up 100 junk-science reports for every skeptical report that links the actual source data.”

If economics were driving “all,” in the case of sources of power, we would default to the cheapest, most efficient source, and require it to limit its emissions only to the extent that those emissions did empirically demonstrable damage. That is the opposite of what’s happening here.

Eliminating 28 gigawatts of power production will have an enormous, deleterious impact on the availability of electric power and on its price per unit. The whole point is that nothing is driving that decision except an ideological certainty. Economics would never produce the set of circumstances we will see if all the plants on the list really are shut down. Only politics can do that.

J.E. Dyer on October 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM

I see liberals embracing nuclear power for the giant lights in front of the solar panels for 24 hour output.

roy_batty on October 8, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Societal suicide.

Well I, for one, would prefer not to kill myself. Can we consider some alternatives?

Jaibones on October 8, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Thank you President Obama.

crr6

fossten on October 8, 2011 at 10:31 PM

I sure hope that morons who bought electric cars are paying attention.

Kermit on October 8, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I work in power generation and all of us in the industry are hoping for a little change come 2013. If not, well, energy prices WILL skyrocket. That is, if there’s enough being produced near you.

Physics Geek on October 8, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Energy Usage is Economic Activity. There is a direct correlation between GDP growth and Energy usage.

Anything that threatens our energy supply directly hurts the economy.

So picture… 28 GW…

Last year we used 3300 GW of energy. As a DIRECT result the EPA will reduce the size of the economy by just under 1 percent. That’s not an effect on GDP growth… that’s total GDP. You could consider it for economic growth purposes a -1% to GDP growth this year.

That doesn’t sound like much, but to directly act to decrease the GDP at a time when unemployment is at 9.1… 9.2 percent… that could be just enough to bump us into the high 9′s… or low 10′s.

If the Obama admin really wanted to help the economy he’d put a stop to this.

Chaz706 on October 8, 2011 at 10:50 PM

I work in power generation

Physics Geek on October 8, 2011 at 10:47 PM

What do you do and where?

Oldnuke on October 8, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Dr Zarko: “Bruce! The power of the universe is at our fingertips! Where’s the extension cord?”

Lanceman on October 8, 2011 at 11:22 PM

Report: EPA regs will shut down 28 GW of energy production

Legislating us back to the days of living in caves….

rukiddingme on October 8, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Legislating us to where they are the only game in town

!number 9!

Sonosam on October 9, 2011 at 12:12 AM

ObamaPower, activate !!!

pambi on October 9, 2011 at 12:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2