Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Power

EPA Proposes Crackdown On Power Plant Carbon Emissions (reuters.com) 138

Posted by BeauHD from the one-step-closer-to-net-zero-emissions dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The Biden administration on Thursday unveiled a sweeping plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. power industry, one of the biggest steps so far in its effort to decarbonize the economy to fight climate change. The proposal would limit how much carbon dioxide power plants, which are the source of more than a quarter of U.S. emissions, can chuff into the atmosphere, putting the industry on a years-long course to install billions of dollars of new equipment or shut down. Environmental groups and scientists have long argued that such steps are crucial to curb global warming, but fossil fuel-producing states argue that they represent government overreach and threaten to destabilize the electric grid.

The proposal sets standards that would push power companies to install carbon capture equipment (CCS) that can siphon the CO2 from a plant's smokestack before it reaches the atmosphere, or use super-low-emissions hydrogen as a fuel. The Environmental Protection Agency projects the plan would cut carbon emissions from coal plants and new gas plants by 617 million tons between 2028 and 2042, the equivalent of reducing the annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles. "Today we're proposing new technology standards that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants, protecting health and protecting our planet," EPA Administrator Michael Regan told students at the University of Maryland on their last day of school on Thursday.

Regan said that the agency has wielded the power of the federal Clean Air Act to craft the new power plant rules, along with a suite of other measures aimed at tackling vehicle emissions, as well as potent greenhouse gases methane and HFCs, that would reduce the equivalent of 15 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2022 and 2055. The proposal, more than 18 months in the making, reflects constraints imposed on the EPA by the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the agency cannot impose a system-wide shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but can regulate plants by setting technology-based standards applied on-site.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Proposes Crackdown On Power Plant Carbon Emissions More

EPA Proposes Crackdown On Power Plant Carbon Emissions

Comments Filter:

  • Hydrogen is not a fuel. (Score:5, Informative)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Thursday May 11, 2023 @11:07PM (#63515543)

    The fine article claims that power plants could convert from natural gas to hydrogen as fuel to lower CO2 emissions but that's just nonsense. While hydrogen is something we could easily produce and burn this is not a process that has a net energy output, it consumes energy.

    Whenever hydrogen comes up as a fuel, such as for rocket fuel, there's many that assume this involves electrolysis of water. There's many processes we can use to produce hydrogen besides electrolysis, processes that are more energy efficient. Electrolysis is popular because it is simple, not because it is efficient. We can make the process more efficient but that just means if we burn the hydrogen as fuel we aren't losing energy as quickly, it is still a net loss.

    If the federal government is trying to tell us we can burn hydrogen instead of fossil fuels for energy then we have ignoramuses running the government. It's not only that they are ignorant but willfully so because this is something that should come up in discussion of options long before it makes it to some public statement by POTUS or some other official.

    What we need is more nuclear power. I'm seeing more discussion in favor of nuclear power recently, such as this recent YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    I can't take anyone seriously about lowering CO2 emissions if they can't bring themselves to mention nuclear power as part of the solution. We will still need things like onshore windmills and hydroelectric dams for energy but it is vital to build more nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs. If the federal government wants to lower CO2 emissions then they need to do something about the regulation of nuclear power. That is not a suggestion to lower regulation standards but a suggestion to update the regulations. Apparently it is near impossible to get a license for any kind of nuclear power plant that is not a light water uranium burner, there just isn't a process in place to license anything else. Write some regulations on heavy water reactors, molten salt reactors, or whatever else could get energy from nuclear fission.

    If we don't build more nuclear power plants soon then we are going to have a very serious energy problem in a few years. I'm quite certain many people in the federal government are aware of this problem but it is not politically correct to admit to it just yet.

    • Why do you think building wind+solar+nuclear is cheaper than building wind+solar+H2 for utility-scale storage and transport?

      • I don't believe that wind, solar, and nuclear is cheaper than other options because I have seen studies showing solar power to be very expensive. Just a quick search of Wikipedia gives some studies to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Solar power in any form is a bad idea for energy, at least for electricity on the grid. Solar power is fine for pocket calculators and communication satellites but if there is an electrical grid then there's almost certainly going to be lower cost options.

        Hydrogen

        • Re:Hydrogen is not a fuel. (Score:5, Informative)

          by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @12:14AM (#63515639)
          Your link says solar is cheaper than nuclear. (With only the exception of the outdated 2014 source... and look at the cost trajectory of solar on that graph at the top of your link!)

          Of course, that isn't a fair comparison since wind + solar also need storage. I do think synthesized hydrocarbons make the most sense for air transport for the foreseeable future. But it requires producing green hydrogen plus more steps, so it's more efficient to just go to hydrogen and back if transportability isn't such an issue. Natural gas plants can be converted to hydrogen pretty easily, then you build onsite green hydrogen production and storage for when there is excess wind power on the grid, and there you go.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Gonoff ( 88518 )

          Where did you get your, alternative, information that fossil fuel is cheaper?

          Try googling the phrase "comparison of renewable fuel VS fossil cost" and see what something outside your bubble says.

          I got https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

          Wikipedia has a nice table. As always, that is a good place to start your research, not end it!

        • You seem to be cherry picking data that supports the conclusions you have already made.

          Right now, data is showing that nuclear fission is very close to the most expensive power source. Nuclear advocates assert that next generation reactors will be less expensive. This may be true (and I honestly hope it is) but right now nuclear power is expensive. It has other problems, which I believe are solvable, but solutions are not yet implemented.

          As for solar and renewables, that depends very much on the case: wh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )
        For the same reason a car and two flowers can transport you several hundred miles. One of those things makes all the difference. The other two look pretty. Also, using H2 for transport instead of synthetic hydrocarbons is just silly. So you are going to rebuild the entire distribution system to use something with possibly marginally better emissions but you have to store it at several hundred degrees below 0. Um, I'm going to bet that won't work out. Fuel is just something that time and location shifts

    • Re:Hydrogen is not a fuel. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @02:50AM (#63515777)

      If the federal government is trying to tell us we can burn hydrogen instead of fossil fuels for energy then we have ignoramuses running the government.

      Per the actual proposal being put forth [epa.gov]. This is for a hydrogen co-fire setup with CCS in LNG power plants. The idea to keep the plants running is to require some of them to keep their turbines spinning with hydrogen. They can use any obtained from their process or via nuclear or other hydrogen storage. It's basically a way to keep the LNG plants going while at the same time reducing CO2.

      So we've got a few options. Do nothing about CO2 and not implement the new standards for emissions. Implement the new CO2 standard and just shutter these plants. Or give these plants a way to keep operating. And to make point, the co-firing requirements wouldn't kick in until 2032 and even then it's a mixture no less than 3% for base loads and in peak situation can be less if need be.

      As for the "dumb" of burning hydrogen. Yes I get the science behind it. The thing is human beings who vote work at LNG power plants and they would be awfully mad if someone pitched something that said, "Yep, you're all fired in ten years". But voters aren't incredibly upset if you tell them they will be paid to dig a hole to fill in some other hole, only to have them then dig that first hole back up and fill in the hole they just created. Yes, we all understand the science, you need to understand the politics. So that's where we get the burning hydrogen, it's something these plants can "convert to" and keep their workers. *cough cough* the keeping the workers employed is the key part here, just FYI.

      I can't take anyone seriously about lowering CO2 emissions if they can't bring themselves to mention nuclear power as part of the solution

      The EPAs standard indicates that it expects an expansion of nuclear power in the US. However, the EPA is not the DoE, the EPA cannot **fund** nuclear power nor do they create any operational regulations for nuclear facilities. Now as for the disposal of nuclear waste, the EPA has a bit of say on it, but due to the special nature of nuclear waste, the DoE also sets rules on the disposal that sort override the EPA. That said, the EPA's proposal is pretty reliant on an expansion of nuclear, like the EPA is really betting on nuclear to expand a lot in this proposal. But the EPA cannot tell the DoE what they can and cannot do, so if there's an issue with nuclear in the US, the EPA ain't your department to complain to. All the EPA can do is base things off of what the market and the DoE is telling them on the matter. But yeah, this whole proposal falls apart really fast if there isn't some increase of nuclear and the EPA in this proposal even mentions that.

      That is not a suggestion to lower regulation standards but a suggestion to update the regulations. Apparently it is near impossible to get a license for any kind of nuclear power plant that is not a light water uranium burner, there just isn't a process in place to license anything else. Write some regulations on heavy water reactors, molten salt reactors, or whatever else could get energy from nuclear fission.

      By all means, have at it. [energy.gov] Again, the EPA are not the people who set any of that.

      In short, the EPA cannot dictate how many new nuclear facilities to build, it's not their job. However, this proposal is absolutely banking on nuclear to go big.

      These projections are based on a combination of economies of scale as low-GHG production methods expand . . . largely powered by renewable energy sources and nuclear energy

      As you indicate the hydrogen is just storage of excess from nuclear that's sold off to LNG plants to keep them running by co-firing the stuff. Which is in

      • It doesn't make any sense to say that they're banking on nuclear to provide power for hydrogen, because it's easier, faster, and cheaper to do it with wind. The one big problem with wind is intermittency, but if you're producing hydrogen and storing it for later use to displace natgas then that becomes completely irrelevant. As such, it makes dramatically more sense (from The People's standpoint) to use wind to produce that excess power to make the hydrogen to sell to the LNG plants. The only people who ben

        • It doesn't make any sense to say that they're banking on nuclear to provide power for hydrogen

          It's me cutting pasting to answer the person. They are banking on nuclear and hydrogen is one of the storage methods they're looking at. They are also expect wind/solar/hydro and storage will also be Li-ion, Na-ion, and hydrogen. Additionally, that is not an exhaustive list that I just provided but examples they've stated.

    • While hydrogen is something we could easily produce and burn this is not a process that has a net energy output, it consumes energy.

      False. Hydrogen is very much a net energy positive, just not very.

      I can't take anyone seriously about lowering CO2 emissions if they can't bring themselves to mention nuclear power as part of the solution.

      I can't bring myself to take anyone seriously who thinks the solution to global warming is something that we may be able to turn on years after we have missed all emissions targets. Nuclear is a great thing to create a stable grid, in the future. It won't make even the slightest different to our emissions goals.

      If you're standing on a train track looking at an oncoming train you need to take action that has a chance of helping you, not sit ar

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        False. Hydrogen is very much a net energy positive, just not very.

        Well, there is a gotcha. It depends on where you get your hydrogen from. If you are getting the hydrogen from fossil fuel sources, then it can be net energy positive as its easier to separate from other elements. But this comes with other problems. As you need to separate the hydrocarbon elements, which leads to left over carbon from the extraction. If you just discharge the carbon into the environment, then you might as well just burn it and be done with it.

        Now, if you are separating the hydrogen f

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Malc ( 1751 )

      If you burn hydrogen to create heat or power, then it's a fuel.

      Perhaps you meant "energy source" instead of "fuel"?

    • "this is not a process that has a net energy output"

      The energy in petroleum is less than the incident solar energy used in the formation of the organic material from which the petroleum comes.

      Petroleum is not a fuel in the same sense that hydrogen is not a fuel, i.e. of course it's a fuel.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      The fine article claims that power plants could convert from natural gas to hydrogen as fuel to lower CO2 emissions but that's just nonsense.

      Yeah, not sure that makes sense. The energy is still coming from the fossil fuel if you have hydrogen as a intermediate stage.

      Actually, I suppose if you pyrolize the methane to release the hydrogen and then don't use the carbon, but instead just bury it, you're getting the energy out without releasing the carbon dioxide. But, of course, you're only getting half of the energy out.

  • Excellent move (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZipNada ( 10152669 ) on Thursday May 11, 2023 @11:12PM (#63515553)

    It's an audacious move, we've almost exhausted our global carbon budget. And politically appropriate because most people in the US think the government should do more to curb global warming. The transition to renewables will cost some money, but extreme weather costs a lot more.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0... [nytimes.com]

    Around the world, taxpayers are helping to support fossil fuels through
    subsidies when their money could be funding green energy transitions instead.

    Last year, countries spent $1 trillion subsidizing fossil fuels for consumers,
    according to the International Energy Agency. That was double what they spent
    the year before.

    When I.M.F. researchers counted the indirect costs of fossil fuel subsidies in
    a study published in 2021, the bill went up to $5.9 trillion.

    That includes losses sustained from weather disasters linked to warming and
    the diseases caused by dirty air.

    • What "green energy" should we transition to? You mention the International Energy Agency as someone to listen to and I remember what they suggested in the past. I thought I'd do a quick search of the internet for a recent article on what the IEA suggests and found this: https://www.iea.org/news/finla... [iea.org]

      The IEA is praising Finland for their investment in hydro, onshore windmills, and nuclear fission for energy. That's a wise option for most nations because those energy sources are low in CO2 emissions (lo

      • "This message was brought to you on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency, whether they asked for it or not. Please follow MacMann's account for further unabashedly pro-nuclear messages."

      • All of that has repeatedly been debunked here. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.

    • Re:Excellent move (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @12:12AM (#63515635) Homepage

      They could start by cutting the subsidies instead of spending extra.

      Money talks.

      • The trouble is that reducing the subsidies affects the people who can do the least about it the most, i.e. the poor. Higher energy prices push the cost of living up disproportionately more for people on lower incomes. Putting more incentives towards transitioning to low/zero carbon energy production as quickly as possible by increasing renewable capacity seems to be the best option so far. This looks like it's an additional incentive to try to speed up the transition but also to make big public announcement

      • How about switching the subsidies to something positive, so as to maintain job production? I mean, you could spend 'em on keeping people housed and fed instead, but I suspect there's more enthusiasm for full employment among The Deciders.

    • Hey ZipNada, what are you trying to say... that fossil fuels are socialism or something?!!

      "Hey, fossil fuels are big gubbermint socialism! Don't tread on me!! Freedom!!!"

      Maybe we could persuade Texas? Could it work?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Hey ZipNada, what are you trying to say... that fossil fuels are socialism or something?!!

        actually, given that there are big government subsidies for fossil fuels, you could indeed make that argument.

      • Feb 2022 article about 2021: Texas led the country in new renewable energy projects last year [cnbc.com]

        Texas installed 7,352 megawatts of new wind, solar and energy installation projects in 2021, significantly outpacing California, which installed 2,697 megawatts of storage projects. Oklahoma, Florida and New Mexico were the other top producing states.

        Texas also surpassed other states in the amount of storage it has under construction or in advanced development, reaching nearly 20,000 megawatts, followed by Califo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by amorsen ( 7485 )

        Fossil fuels aren't socialism, they're the typical privatize-the-profits, socialize the losses kind of capitalism.

        Nuclear on the other hand is communism. It is only viable when the government owns the means of production.

        Renewables compete on the free market without subsidies.

    • Around the world, taxpayers are helping to support fossil fuels through subsidies

      Taxpayers are great at supporting green initiatives directly, and not so great and appreciative of seeing inflation and cost of living rise. The average person isn't concerned about a few percent of their tax dollars going to green projects, but a few percent increase at the pump causes them to cry foul.

      Last year, countries spent $1 trillion subsidizing fossil fuels for consumers, according to the International Energy Agency. That was double what they spent the year before.

      I really wish people would forget 2021 and 2022 existed when they want to discuss literally anything related to comparative statistics. You can draw no conclusion what so ever from what you said, other than

      • While people are generally in support of green initiatives, no one gives a **** about CO2 emissions when faced with a winter without heating, or a car they can't afford to fill up to go to work and put food on the table. Humans have a basic hierarchy of needs and altruism takes a back seat when basic personal security is in jeopardy.

        Hear Hear!!

        THIS...so much THIS.

      • Subsidies generally hover around $600 billion annually. We wouldn't have to worry about fuel shortages if most energy came from renewables. Fortunately ICE cars will be phased out over the next ~10 years so you won't have to worry so much about filling up your tank.

    • How much extra do you want me to pay, and I don't have much left thanks to Biden's non-stop f-ups, to cover for China's massive emissions? Whatever we cut, they'll more than make up for it in a frikkin day.

      Why should I pay more to marginally reduce emissions when they're building hundreds of coal plants around the world? Do you think they're spending extra billions to make those plants as clean as possible? Of course not, they don't give a crap. They'll only spend extra if it goes to funding groups in

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by amorsen ( 7485 )

        You are producing way more CO2 than a Chinese person, and you are the one getting the benefit of the Chinese products causing the emissions there. Stop whining and start fixing.

      • https://www.scmp.com/news/chin... [scmp.com]

        "China is stepping up its push into renewable energy, proposing higher green power consumption targets and penalising those who fail to meet goals to help fund government subsidies to producers. The world’s biggest energy consumer is aiming for renewables to account for at least 35 per cent of electricity consumption by 2030"

    • "Weather disasters related to warming"? I challenge you to name a single one. My challenge to you has nothing to do with disagreeing on the basis of CO2 emissions and AGW science, rather, it's based on what I think is your misunderstanding of the facts and impacts.

      The added energy from AGW stays in the atmosphere or is collected in oceans, thus the first and most major impact we expect to see is in relation to storms (which added heat in those vectors produces). We have actually seen world cyclone/hurric

  • Worst of both worlds (Score:3)

    by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Thursday May 11, 2023 @11:22PM (#63515567) Journal

    It's hard to argue against anything that materially reduces emissions, but this is going to do nowhere near as much as building out more nuclear capacity.

    The way I see it, they've capitulated to both the fossil fuel industry by pretending it can be cleaned up, and to the subset of Democratic voters who are knee-jerk anti-nuke. Indulging, in a way, the worst of both worlds. (Same thing with the private health insurance they call Obamacare.)

    You haven't grasped we have a problem here that needed to be fixed, yesterday? Where is the vision? Why the fuck are they running Joe Blow again? "He's not a raging con artist" is frankly not good enough. If the Dems ever manage to run someone with balls, vision, and hair on the top of his head, they're going to completely mop the floor with the competition.

    • Re:Worst of both worlds (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @12:16AM (#63515641) Homepage

      Where is the vision? Why the fuck are they running Joe Blow again? "He's not a raging con artist" is frankly not good enough.

      THAT is the real question: Are Joe and Trump really the best, most qualified people the country has to offer us?

      The system is completely broken if so.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Where is the vision? Why the fuck are they running Joe Blow again? "He's not a raging con artist" is frankly not good enough.

        THAT is the real question: Are Joe and Trump really the best, most qualified people the country has to offer us? The system is completely broken if so.

        Insightful.

        Yes, the system for selecting candidates for the election is badly broken. Our current voting methods work poorly when there are more than two candidates.

        Unfortunately, with the current system, the choice we do get to make is "which candidate is least bad?"

      • Part of the problem is the moral purity everyone expects of their politicians, which simply doesn't align with what human beings are (having flaws and all). Trump is the perfect example - he says lots of crazy shit, which many find highly offensive, but that's comparing him to the peer group (and words of) other presidents. On a larger scale, his statements are not even anywhere near the range of offensive things I have heard uttered. He's has half a country digging into every minute detail of his past life
        • Remembered the amusing little story/anecdote that drove this home for me a few years ago: George Clooney was being interviewed and asked why he doesn't run for presidency (with the Democrats I believe?). I believe everyone was thinking the same thing - why doesn't one of the parties run someone who is very articulate, attractive (let's just say a bonus), ostensibly compassionate and inclusive, balanced and lacking extremism in their views, youthful and energetic (compared to 80 year olds)... they'd fucking

        • It is fine to think Trump is not a role model and that he's a sheister, but criminal wrongdoing is non-existent, except to those who are determined to see it. We have proof of him saying objectionable things, but the best evidence of a sexual assault is a he-said-she-said rape in a department store from 20 years ago? If he was a predator who engaged in that behaviour, there would be more evidence and victims - it just doesn't add up.

          Huh?

          The problem with trump is that he's a narcissist, he's a populist, he lies the whole time ("Mexico will pay for our Xenophobic wall!"), he's clueless about even basic science ("internal bleach") and basic history, he's mostly interested in making himself richer, and spent more time calling people names on Twitter at 2am than running the country when he was in office. He also has a history of not paying bills and and making bad financial decisions that lead to bankruptcy

          (and a million other things)

    • It's hard to argue against anything that materially reduces emissions, but this is going to do nowhere near as much as building out more nuclear capacity.

      Building nuclear capacity does nothing to reduce emissions in the time frame we need to reduce them. In fact in the time leading up to the emissions target all that it will achieve is additional emissions through both direct construction related emissions, and indirect emissions relating to diverting resources from other projects which actually *could* be commissioned in the required timeframe.

      The time for nuclear was 20 years ago. The industry missed the starting gun. A great technical solution is useless

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        The time for nuclear was 20 years ago. The industry missed the starting gun. A great technical solution is useless if not implemented in an appropriate timeframe.

        This is a long term problem. It needs a long-term solution.

        There is no "starting gun". The problem is now, and also the next twenty years, and also the next two hundred years after that.

      • Fastest decarbonization efforts in world history involved nuclear energy. And zero countries have deep decarbonized with only solar and wind. ZERO!

        The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is right now.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Nuclear is too expensive and too slow. The focus needs to be on rapidly building up renewable generation. The US is way behind on that, and has massive untapped resources. That's the fastest way to reduce the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ZipXap ( 2773541 )
      Increasing the cost of power plants run by fossil fuel power will help the nuclear industry be more competitive. Perhaps it will give small modular nuclear reactors a fighting chance.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Now that the new, improved Supreme Court has revealed itself as being a holey owned subsidiary of Corporate America, all this nonsense about regulation and a clean environment will end up on the trash heap of history. The EPA will keep it's acronym, but the initials will stand for the Environmental Pollution Agency. All business will still be regulated, but there will be mandatory minimum pollution standards. The Department of Labor will become the Department of Forced Labor (motto Arbeit Macht Frei [wikipedia.org]). The A

  • Everyone shouting about "more nuclear" (Score:5, Informative)

    by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Friday May 12, 2023 @03:12AM (#63515795)

    Y'all read the damn thing [epa.gov] and not what some news reporter told you. The EPA is absolutely betting on more nuclear. And in fact, LNG is still part of the US energy mix per this document for the foreseeable future, so *gasp* even the EPA is saying we aren't going to be 0% fossil fuel.

    That said, the EPA isn't the one who builds the nuclear power plants, that's the Department of Energy. And the EPA's regulations on the waste from nuclear, because of the special nature of nuclear waste, is reliant on the DoE's recommendations. So in a way the DoE dictates the disposal as well.

    In short, the EPA doesn't have shit to do with nuclear power in the US, and the parts that the EPA do dabble in the DoE can slap their hand.

    But for the love all of that is holy. READ THE DAMN PROPOSAL. The EPA is absolutely betting on much more nuclear than there currently is. Y'all stop letting mass media hype you up for no good reason.

    • I'll read the over-600-page monstrosity after breakfast, but they're projecting nuclear to be cut in half by 2050 with no actual replacement except fig leaves for theoretical-and-not-yet-approved advanced modular reactors. EPA is talking nuclear because having it pick up the slack doesn't make their projections sound so bad.

    • The Department of Energy doesn't build nuclear plants either. Or at least not yet, excluding an occasional test sized reactor. The Navy builds nuclear plants, but they are in ships.

      Vogtle was such a mess that I doubt that any civilian company is going to try that again. Is Biden planning on announcing a huge nuclear buildout on the Federal dime as soon as he wins re-election? Half his base will run screaming into the night if he announces it before the election.

      • The navy doesn't build plants either; they buy them from GE and Westinghouse.

        • Do they? They might now for all I know, but the reactor plant of the boat I was on was built by the Navy. The reactor core was bought from GE. Given how tight the MIC is in that technical area I'm not sure how much of the design was Naval Reactors and how much was GE.

          The new bird farms have Bechtel reactors, so now there is another company in the mix.

  • Reckless spending has sent inflation soaring, giving everyone a paycut every month. Now you want to increase everyone's power bills even though we aren't the damn problem? Where is all the pollution coming from? China and India. What's China doing? Building hundreds of coal plants around the world. What are we doing? Killing ourselves.

    I'm already broke all the damn time thanks to Biden's policies. I don't him making it worse for nothing.

  • Most states have some kind of tailpipe law for the rest of us plebeians, industry should have the same. I should have have a fall-off goal to zero within some marginal period and in the meantime they would pay a tax to emit any sort of greenhouse gas. For emitting less they would get a credit against that tax, potentially bringing it to zero, but never negative, and for emitting more, they would add to the tax at a set rate.

    No such law would pass congress though. Republicans believe we can burn dinosaurs fo

  • Get ready for electricity to become a luxury item. My Calif PG&E rates are already 3x the US avg., for a very small house (i.e., no abnormal big usage penalty). The rest of y'all are heading for the same if not worse.

  • Maybe ignore these power plants, and just hunt down the methane leaks across the US... NOAA already runs equipment which can spot where the plumes are.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close