Hello Readers,
As you may have heard, the US Environmental Protection Agency recently released rules that limit CO2 emissions from new power plants in the US to 1000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). This limit is higher than the 800 lbs/MWh emitted by modern natural gas plants, but it is much lower than the 1800 lbs/MWh emitted by traditional coal plants.
There is already a lot of commentary and analysis about this ruling, so I will not add too much of mine. Instead, here are some news articles, which I have renamed and summarized, that discuss the ruling.
From the Washington Post: "Why EPA’s new carbon rules won’t have much impact — for now"
An article that should be named: "Now 'n' Later: a Coal Story"
This article summarizes the basics of the ruling and the impact it will have on current coal power plants, new coal power plants, and just a little bit about the wider impact of the ruling.
From Forbes: "Will Congress Save Coal after EPA Carbon Ruling?"
An article that should be named: "Why Bother?"
This article lays out the options that the coal industry can suggest to congress to avoid or mitigate the effects of the ruling. Although, it also points out that many in the overall energy industry have already started to move on or diversify their energy portfolio.
From Platts: "Does EPA's carbon rule make it easier or harder for utilities to plan?"
An article that should be named: "Congressional Conservatives Undermined Coal by Cutting Cap-and-Trade"
This article talks a lot (a lot!) about CCS. It discusses some of the costs for using coal 'responsibly' in the future. It also mentions that the coal industry is looking for government money to meet these costs, so if you ever hear someone knocking on the renewable energy industry for taking government money let them know about how much coal is requesting!
For EPA updates about progress on limiting GHG emissions, you can visit the EPA website:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
Hooray for later!
Sean
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coal. Show all posts
Friday, April 6, 2012
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Pennsylvania Solar Jobs put in perspective
Hello Readers,
The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).
Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?
In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.
In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!
Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)
Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?
Frustratedly yours,
Sean Diamond
The initial committee hearing about the Pennsylvania Solar Jobs Bill (HB 1580) was canceled today. Theoretically, it will be rescheduled; however, it is very likely that the bill will not be discussed in committee prior to the end of the year. This is extremely unfortunate, because the longer the bill is delayed the more solar jobs will leave the state (whether to the unemployment line or to other states).
Of course, there has been virtually no media attention drawn to the floundering of this bill and the Pennsylvania solar industry. And why should there be? Everyone knows it is a fledgling industry, right? It doesn't even employ that many people, does it?
In fact, it does! Or rather it did before the PA SREC market crash went unaddressed for an entire year. In 2010, the National Solar Jobs Census ranked Pennsylvania as the number two employer of solar industry professionals in the country. The best estimate was that approximately 6,700 people were directly employed in the solar industry in Pennsylvania during 2010 (before the SREC market was allowed to crash). To put this in perspective, The US EIA estimates that there were approximately 8,000 people employed in coal mining in Pennsylvania in 2009.
In 2010, there were nearly as many solar industry employees in Pennsylvania (one of the top three coal states in the country) as there were coal miners!
Yet there has been no legislative action to correct the job losses that are being caused almost entirely due to a legislative issue. As a result, the 2011 National Solar Jobs Census is estimating that there are now only about 4,700 solar industry jobs in Pennsylvania: a year-on-year decrease of 2000 jobs. (Even though, the country as a whole added 7,000 solar industry jobs.)
Pennsylvania is losing out on good jobs, because the legislature is failing to act. If 2000 coal mining jobs could be saved through legislative action that involved no taxpayer revenue, how quickly would such legislation pass (or at least be brought to the floor)?
Frustratedly yours,
Sean Diamond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)