Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Targeting Coal - Caught in the Costly Crosshairs

I suppose a base question to ask would be "Why does the EPA hate coal?"

According to the EPA, existing power plants account for 38% of existing CO2 emissions. Of these, a majority of the emissions come from coal-fired power plants, specifically AGING coal-fired power plants, at about 30% of existing CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, according to the EPA, the U.S. coal-fired fleet is nearly half a century old, with an average age of 42 years old. According to the Sierra Club, of the 593 coal-fired power plants, 63% are over 40 years old! Based on the idea of increased efficiency over time, this means a majority of coal-based plants are incredibly inefficient.

Yet, is that enough?



According to the US Chamber of Commerce, these regulations could cost businesses $28 billion a year in compliance costs through 2030, and could also cost 450,000 jobs by 2020. Of course, this also was completed under the strictest plan the EPA proposed, not the one currently going into effect. As such, actual numbers are likely lower.

Indeed, the EPA states that costs will be far lower, with businesses paying only $7.3 to 8.8 billion a year in compliance costs through 2030. This goes to $65 per household (per year in costs through 2030). As for jobs, they estimate 72,000 to 78,000 jobs lost through 2025. (Related, they also say that the regulations will provide 76,000 to 112,000 jobs in more environmentally-friendly positions. Even better, research has suggested that "green jobs" are more accessible to those without training or college degrees!)

So that's why coal is being targeted so harshly. It's just a matter of deciding if it's worth it.

No comments:

Post a Comment