Log In - The New York Times http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/29/us-usa-courts-environment-analysis-idUSBREA3S1B920140429 Obama scores rare environmental victory at Supreme Court - CNN.com Coal fired power plants will soon be something people read about in the history books. All the time shaking their heads wondering what took so long :wink:
The icing was Scalia making a fool of himself in his dissent :biggrin: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/30/scalia_error_justice_misquotes_self_in_epa_case.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
This is definitely good news, and I'm almost surprised that it has worked out this well. But let's not thump our chests too much, the other side is going to fight back: State Legislators Take Preemptive Aim at EPA Power Plant Rules : Greentech Media
Unfortunately carbon emissions works against coal efficiency, since coal gasification increases the efficiency of the power plant, but raises CO2 emissions. You can try carbon capture. It's hardly surprising states are going to oppose it when your basically telling them to increase their negative balance of payments. I feel that cleaning, efficiency and renewables should be emphasized, and that squeezes carbon. I wouldn't mind getting rid of coal, but I'd much rather add nuclear as the "stop gap" instead of loading up on natural gas a d crossing fingers on price.
Someone needs to invent a more cost effective way of turning thermal energy into electricity; I was reflecting on a somewhat profound fact yesterday... it's now more cost-effective to turn sunlight into electricity via the photoelectric effect than any known method for turning thermal energy into electricity. Even if your heat source was free Solar PV still wins in terms of $/kWh. Yes, you still need batteries to go much beyond 20% total generation... but I'm guessing that when we get there in ~10 years those will be cheaper too; come on GIGAFACTORY! :biggrin:
Efficiency with regard to what? The efficiency that matters for the environment is CO2/kWh. And if the $/kWh increases for coal, cleaner sources become more viable. As long as the regulations are created by someone with half a brain, this should be good. Now if only our legislature had half a brain between them, we'd be set.
It's good news (and surprising from the conservative court), but considering the fact that 1200 new coal plants are in the works worldwide, the overall situation is still pretty bleak when it comes to carbon emissions from coal. More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show | Environment | The Guardian
I'm not sure how this works. If I'm not mistaken, all the carbon in coal gasification still comes from the coal (there's no additional carbon added from other sources), so an increase in generation efficiency should still mean less CO2 emissions per kWh compared to standard coal plants.
Remember that a very large reason why coal is popular is that you can write very long-term contracts for coal, while natural gas is priced at spot or under short-term contracts (generally). One important facet, therefore, in this SCOTUS decision is that it suddenly makes coal seem risky, rather than safe.
A nice op-ed from Steven Cohen that pulls no punches: A Small Victory in the 'War on Coal'Steven Cohen