A year ago, President Obama put the electricity industry on notice and said that he would implement some sort of limits on carbon emissions. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposed rule for cleaner electricity generating plants and it would go a long way towards making the "long tailpipe" of electric vehicles even cleaner.

Officially called, "Carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing stationary sources: electric utility generating units" (and "Clean Power Plan" for short), the proposed rule basically tells the 50 states to come up with their own ways to reduce CO2 emissions. If it all works as planned, the changes will cut power sector carbon emission by 30 percent nationwide by 2030 (compared to the 2005 levels). This will prevent "up to 6,600 premature deaths" and offer "up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits" all while cutting electricity bills by "roughly 8 percent." Those are the EPA's prediction, anyway. There is no mention of plug-in vehicles in the 645-page proposal (get the PDF here), but if you're making the electric grid cleaner, then EVs get cleaner as well.

"The administration for all intents and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis" – American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

Senior EPA officials said the proposal contains "sensible and reasonable" things that can be done to clean up the air and that "we have a number of years to come to an agreement." Those years might be required because Republicans and some Democrats have already signaled their displeasure with the rules and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) quickly released a statement saying that, "If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intents and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis."

There are supporters of the proposed rules, too. The president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Ken Kimmell, said in a statement that, "a significant opportunity for states to make meaningful reductions in their emissions." We've got the full statement from the UCS as well as more from the ACCCE, the Rainforest Action Network and Tom Steyer below. There will be a 120-day comment period full of public hearings once the proposed rule is published in the federal register, so expect to hear more about this in the future.
Show full PR text
EPA Proposes First Guidelines to Cut Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants

Clean Power Plan is flexible proposal to ensure a healthier environment, spur innovation and strengthen the economy

WASHINGTON – At the direction of President Obama and after an unprecedented outreach effort, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is today releasing the Clean Power Plan proposal, which for the first time cuts carbon pollution from existing power plants, the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. Today's proposal will protect public health, move the United States toward a cleaner environment and fight climate change while supplying Americans with reliable and affordable power.

"Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama's Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source--power plants," said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. "By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can leave a safe and healthy future for our kids. We don't have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment--our action will sharpen America's competitive edge, spur innovation, and create jobs."

Power plants account for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. While there are limits in place for the level of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particle pollution that power plants can emit, there are currently no national limits on carbon pollution levels.

With the Clean Power Plan, EPA is proposing guidelines that build on trends already underway in states and the power sector to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants, making them more efficient and less polluting. This proposal follows through on the common-sense steps laid out in President Obama's Climate Action Plan and the June 2013 Presidential Memorandum.

By 2030, the steady and responsible steps EPA is taking will:

Cut carbon emission from the power sector by 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the United States for one year;
Cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent as a co-benefit;
Avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days-providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits; and
Shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.

The Clean Power Plan will be implemented through a state-federal partnership under which states identify a path forward using either current or new electricity production and pollution control policies to meet the goals of the proposed program. The proposal provides guidelines for states to develop plans to meet state-specific goals to reduce carbon pollution and gives them the flexibility to design a program that makes the most sense for their unique situation. States can choose the right mix of generation using diverse fuels, energy efficiency and demand-side management to meet the goals and their own needs. It allows them to work alone to develop individual plans or to work together with other states to develop multi-state plans.

Also included in today's proposal is a flexible timeline for states to follow for submitting plans to the agency-with plans due in June 2016, with the option to use a two-step process for submitting final plans if more time is needed. States that have already invested in energy efficiency programs will be able to build on these programs during the compliance period to help make progress toward meeting their goal.

Since last summer, EPA has directly engaged with state, tribal, and local governments, industry and labor leaders, non-profits, and others. The data, information and feedback provided during this effort helped guide the development of the proposal and further confirmed that states have been leading the way for years in saving families and businesses money through improving efficiency, while cleaning up pollution from power plants. To date, 47 states have utilities that run demand-side energy efficiency programs, 38 have renewable portfolio standards or goals, and 10 have market-based greenhouse gas emissions programs. Together, the agency believes that these programs represent a proven, common-sense approach to cutting carbon pollution-one in which electricity is generated and used as efficiently as possible and which promotes a greater reliance on lower-carbon power sources.

Today's announcement marks the beginning of the second phase of the agency's outreach efforts. EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 120 days after publication in the Federal Register and will hold four public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan during the week of July 28 in the following cities: Denver, Atlanta, Washington, DC and Pittsburgh. Based on this input, EPA will finalize standards next June following the schedule laid out in the June 2013 Presidential Memorandum.

In 2009, EPA determined that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading to long lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment. Taking steady, responsible steps to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants will protect children's health and will move our nation toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations, while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth.

Fact sheets and details about the proposed rule available at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

More information on President Obama's Climate Action Plan: http://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change

Video on today's announcement from Administrator Gina McCarthy: http://www.epa.gov/


EPA Moves to Curb Emissions from Existing Power Plants

New Data Shows Renewables, Energy Efficiency Could Dramatically Lower Emissions

WASHINGTON (June 2, 2014) – In a historic step, the Environmental Protection Agency today proposed the first-ever limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, with new analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finding that there are opportunities for the standard to achieve even deeper and cost-effective emissions reductions from the power sector. The proposed standards, a centerpiece of President Obama's climate action plan, would cut emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

"The standard EPA announced today signals to the world that the United States is serious about cutting dangerous heat trapping carbon dioxide from its power plants," said UCS President Ken Kimmell, former commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and former Board Chair of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). "With the flexibility to include renewable energy and energy efficiency in state plans to meet these new standards, the proposal presents a significant opportunity for states to make meaningful reductions in their emissions."

He noted that a similar approach of limits on carbon emissions and expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency has worked well in nine Northeast states and California. Massachusetts and other Northeast states participating in RGGI cut carbon emissions from their power plants by about 40 percent since 2005, and are projected to reach approximately a 50 percent cut by 2020 while benefiting from the investment of millions of dollars in carbon revenues. In Massachusetts alone, the state has created over 80,000 new jobs in clean energy in part because of its investments in energy efficiency and renewables.

"The experience with RGGI shows that states can cut carbon far more cost-effectively if they work together, rather than going it alone," said Kimmell. "Under the proposed new rule, states can pool their resources to take advantage of the falling cost and wide availability of renewable energy resources and energy efficiency to meet the carbon standard affordably and reliably."

Rachel Cleetus, senior climate economist in the UCS Climate and Energy Program and a co-author of the new UCS analysis, said that the new standard has the potential to be a climate game-changer. "We look forward to submitting additional information that demonstrates how we can do even more," she said.

The new UCS analysis found that an ambitious power plant standard, accompanied by strong renewable and efficiency policies, could cut power sector carbon emissions by 40 percent below current (2013) levels by 2020 and by more than 50 percent by 2030. Renewable energy and energy efficiency would play a significant role in delivering these reductions while continuing to provide cost-effective and reliable power to consumers.

She also noted that additional policies that drive renewable energy deployment and energy are critical over the next 10 to 15 years to help deliver deep reductions cost-effectively and avoid an over-reliance on natural gas, which comes with serious climate, health, consumer, and environmental risks.

"While the power plant carbon standard is a tremendous step forward, ultimately we will need to make much deeper cuts in emissions to help limit worsening climate impacts, something the administration cannot do alone," said Cleetus. "Congress must step up and enact legislation that will lead to deep cuts in emissions throughout the economy."

To learn more about the new UCS analysis of power sector emissions reductions from a carbon standard, see Cleetus's blog post here. An infographic on the UCS analysis can be found here.

The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.


RAN Responds to Proposed Federal Carbon Pollution Standards

This morning, June 2, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new carbon pollution standards for power plants, the centerpiece of President Obama's Climate Action Plan.

Rainforest Action Network's Climate Program Director, Amanda Starbuck, issued the following statement:

We welcome the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

Power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States. Setting the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution is an essential and long overdue step to address global warming.

Communities across the nation are already seeing and feeling the impacts of global warming, from increased health risks like asthma attacks and lung disease, to devastating extreme weather events like Superstorm Sandy and wildfires across the American West. The science is clear: inaction will only increase these deadly and costly threats.

This is exactly why communities from Chicago to North Carolina, from New England to New Mexico, are fighting to shut down the polluting power plants in their neighborhoods.

To be clear, the proposed carbon pollution standard is just one step. To keep our climate stable, we must rapidly shift our energy production away from the highest-polluting fossil fuels and accelerate our transition to truly clean, renewable energy generation.

The proposed rule is not yet enough to slow global warming and not yet enough to inspire the world to make the necessary deep cuts in climate pollution. That is why we will be working hard the next year to include much deeper cuts in the final rule.

We stand with the majority of Americans who want to see strong action from the government to address global warming and set limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

###

Rainforest Action Network runs hard-hitting campaigns to break North America's fossil fuels addiction, protect endangered forests and Indigenous rights, and stop destructive investments around the world through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action. We are working to shut down coal-fired power plants by persuading the country's largest banks to stop funding coal and start putting their money into clean energy solutions that don't cause air pollution, drinking water contamination, cancer, asthma or climate change. For more information, please visit: www.ran.org


STATEMENT BY TOM STEYER

"Climate change is a real and present danger. This Congress has failed in its most basic responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the American people from this grave threat. Fortunately, a previous Congress had the wisdom and foresight to pass the Clean Air Act, giving the Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility to curb pollution that endangers the public. President Obama and Administrator McCarthy today exercised that authority appropriately, thoughtfully, and boldly.

"For far too long, coal-fired power plants have had free reign to dump carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The Administration's plan to end this carbon pollution loophole will establish a level playing field for advanced energy solutions that are cleaner, affordable and more secure. Now, more than ever, the United States must be a global leader in addressing climate change. As the centerpiece of the President's Climate Action Plan, today's carbon pollution standards proposal goes a very long way toward establishing that leadership and the President's legacy."


ACCCE on Initial Review of 111(d): EPA Carbon Emissions Rule Misses the Mark

Monday, June 2, 2014

Washington, D.C. – The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) blasted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) following initial review of today's proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The costly rule, seen by many as the principal tenet of President Obama's misguided pursuit of a climate legacy, will spur devastating economic impacts including job losses and energy costs.

"If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intents and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis," said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of ACCCE. "As we predicted, the administration chose political expediency over practical reality as it unveiled energy standards devoid of commonsense and flexibility. These guidelines represent a complete disregard for our country's most vital fuel sources, like American coal, which provides nearly 40 percent of America's power, reliably and affordably."

Filed under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, today's rule is the first-ever set of guidelines proposed by the EPA to states as they create their own carbon emissions protocols for existing power units. In the months leading up to the rule's release, the EPA claimed the standards would allow power plants the adequate time and flexibility needed to meet requirements.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, speaking at IHS's CERAWeek conference in March, said that conventional fuels like coal and natural gas "are going to continue to play a critical role in a diverse U.S. energy mix" and promised that the rule "will not change that" but instead recognize this reality.

Yet, as ACCCE has long cautioned, the proposed rule imposes stringent and potentially unattainable standards on state-based power grids that will leave millions of Americans with higher electric bills and at increased risk for rolling blackouts.

"Sadly, EPA's proposed regulations put America's low- and middle-income families most at risk of paying disproportionately more for energy. Those same families have seen their income dwindle by 22 percent over the last decade while their energy bills have increased by 27 percent," Duncan said. "More so, the rule threatens the energy reliability and economic promise we enjoy today. Only by recognizing the importance of an energy portfolio rich in fuel source diversity will we preserve America's access to stable and affordable power."

Coal continues to be the country's leading fuel source for electricity generation in the U.S. And thanks to the industry's investment of $118 billion, so far, major emissions from coal-fueled power plants have been reduced by nearly 90 percent. The industry plans to invest another $27 billion through 2016 to further deploy clean coal technology and reduce emissions.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 35 Comments
      itsme38269
      • 6 Months Ago
      Awesome...now push that up to 2016 and we have a deal.
      Grendal
      • 6 Months Ago
      Sixteen years is a long time. This gives any power plant ample time to readjust as necessary. It will be costly and I'm sure the government will step in to assist the process. It was going to happen at some point any way. Best to get it over with sooner rather than later.
        EVnerdGene
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Grendal
        "the government will step in to assist " Does that mean - print more money ?
          Mark Schaffer
          • 6 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          No. Although printing money is just fine. All value is subjective. Think about it.
          EVnerdGene
          • 6 Months Ago
          @EVnerdGene
          OK, I've thought about it. And you think reckless money policy is "just fine?" And needing a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a loaf a bread is "just fine?" see image down page: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/ And printing money to pay for people's cellphones is "just fine ?"
      BipDBo
      • 6 Months Ago
      Cleaner. OK. "up to 6,600 premature deaths" and offer "up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits" Not totally buying that, but for now, EPA, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. "all while cutting electricity bills by roughly 8 percent." Now you're just BS-ing me. You don't add restrictions, regulations, cause need for new technologies and methods, and then expect to pay less. That's a load of crap.
        GoodCheer
        • 6 Months Ago
        @BipDBo
        I was wondering about that too. I'm still skeptical, but several states are now working on 'efficiency utilities' that can 'generate' energy savings through efficiency improvements. Reducing demand can be done at lower cost than coal, wind, or NG can generate electricity. Those savings tend to be proportional to load, which makes them 'peak coincident' (unlike wind). The savings are measured system-wide. Making the average bill drop by 8% is a bit of a trick. Generally the bills of the people/organizations who get the efficiency measures drop a lot, and others' bills may hold steady or drop a little, because buying the efficiency cost the utility less than buying the power would have. That said, a system-wide 8% savings seems optimistic, particularly given the costs this could impose on specific generators.
      MikeThinker
      • 6 Months Ago
      China says Solar will beat coal in 2 years. http://climatecrocks.com/2014/06/02/solar-threatening-fossil-dominance-in-china-and-the-us/ If this is true, the Canadian Tar Sands are Already Dead. That may be why no new tarsand fields are being developed, because Wall Street won't fund any.
        Edge
        • 6 Months Ago
        @MikeThinker
        The tar sands will be dead, when Americans decide to stop driving SUV's. Good luck with that! Wall Street does not have to fund anymore, as the 10's of billions of dollars in investment is currently enough for now. Maybe you would have better luck promoting EV's than attacking the oil sands.
          EVnerdGene
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Edge
          Used to be a Sierra Club member-hiker. Listened to many rants about "government should make everyone do ___ " "We should outlaw ____ immediately." "Government should shut down the ____ industry." Upon returning to the trail head, I'd ask; "hmmm, why do you drive an SUV?" My favorite reply; "sometimes I take my dog to the beach." Be the change you want in the world.
      Ryan
      • 6 Months Ago
      It is possible. Efficiency and improved building codes would go a long way. The tricky part is the EV's. Many of us have solar panels or purchase renewable energy through the utilities to power them. But, if they grow in numbers that I would like to see, we do need to have a discussion about how to power them, since they will add about 25% to 50% of the current energy a home uses each month (if it is driven 1,200 miles a month). It is a good plan and I would have liked to have seen it sooner, but it will make a difference in international talks coming up if we are actually doing something. And the argument could be made that with solar coming down in price that we would be doing this 30% drop in emissions anyways...might as well get some other countries to go along with us too instead of dropping them because no one else is limiting themselves.
      Anonymous Coward
      • 6 Months Ago
      Here is the source for Wind/Solar being cheaper than clean coal (CCS) and wind even being cheaper than clean natural gas (with CCS) http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
        Spec
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Anonymous Coward
        Big wind is quite cost effective. Solar is more expensive but the nice thing about it is that you can easily do residential rooftop solar and then you are competing with retail electricity rates instead of wholesale electricity rates. And at retail rates, solar PV is a winner.
          CoolWaters
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          There are more advances in the Solar Pipeline, that will increase energy generation. And yes, other energy sources will never get cheaper, with Wall Street being allowed to play in energy markets. You will save more then predicted on solar because you'll see no wild swings in price volatility, the one world Wall Street LOVES. The 1% has rigged the system to allow for the manipulation of energy prices.
          Greg
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          Retail rates in my area are under $0.12/kWh. Solar PV works out to at least $0.17/kWh (for a 20 yr life span). Retail rates will go up over 20, but will they go up enough and fast enough to be more expensive than solar? PV is not yet a "winner." It's close enough to be reasonable if you want clean energy, but that's a different thing.
          Anonymous Coward
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          Greg Solar PV, even residential works out to
          Anonymous Coward
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          previous comment got clipped - Greg, Solar PV, even residential works out to under 7c/kWh as long as you have net metering after only federal subsidy. state subsidy makes it even less. 5kW panels installed = 15k - rebate = 10.5k + one inverter replacement = 13k. 200k kWh in 25 years gives 6.5c/kWh
      Joeviocoe
      • 6 Months Ago
      There is much work to be done. And there are several pieces to the puzzle. We need cheaper solar panels and wind turbines. We are getting close to parity. And we need cheap and efficient energy storage solutions that work in all the locations that solar and wind power would be generated. CaS batteries, and many other stationary storage batteries are the best cost effective solution we've got.. and we need to fund those. This way, we can really turn the economics of power generation on its head.
        Spec
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Joeviocoe
        We really don't need storage at this point. When we get to some 60% of the grid being renewables then we may need some storage. But for now, except for a little bit at the evening peak, we really don't need storage.
          Dave R
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          @Joeviocoe - the main reason we need storage sooner rather than later is because the grid isn't flexible/powerful enough to move energy to where it is most needed. Storage is useful - but in most cases today it's a bandaid to cover grid shortfalls.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          As you can see... the EIA calls this "dispatchable" power generation. Which renewables like solar and wind are not. Even Hydro, which is NOT intermittent... cannot be dispatched to meet grid demand fluctuations. Proper stationary energy storage... can change the game. Tesla CTO explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWSox7mLbyE Storage can really bring down the levelized cost of renewable power... and truly allow it to beat coal and gas. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm "A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose output can be varied to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. The LCOE values for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another."
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Spec
          we need some now. Not storage enough to hold a full days worth... but some. Nissan Leaf batteries are being tested for this... so are Tesla packs. Wind needs storage in many places too. The main reason, is because it makes the cost profile better... if the renewables can be sold to utilities when demand is high.
      Anonymous Coward
      • 6 Months Ago
      wind is now the cheapest form of power. Obviously "clean coal" is pissed off. Solar is also cheaper than clean coal. Natural gas is the only fossil fuel that can compete with solar/wind. But once they come up with clean fracking, watch that be no longer competitive too. It is so funny to see the "Coalition for Clean Coal" object to actually cleaning up.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 6 Months Ago
        @Anonymous Coward
        Would you please provide some citations for your price claims?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          So, were not talking actual capital expenses and operating costs, we're assuming certain additional costs based on estimates. "...using the official U.S. government estimates of health and environmental costs from burning fossil fuels—the study shows it’s cheaper to replace a typical existing coal-fired power plant with a wind turbine than to keep the old plant running. And new electricity generation from wind could be more economically efficient than natural gas." Likewise, what effect do the huge tax incentives we give wind have? What if those tax deductions were taken away? "Also according to the EIA, the total cost of wind energy without federal tax and other financial incentives is about 9.7 cents/kilowatt-hour. The total cost of conventional coal without federal tax and other financial incentives is about 9.4 cents/kilowatt-hour." http://meic.org/issues/montana-clean-energy/cost-of-wind-vs-fossil-fuels/ I'me very glad that wind power costs are going down; I was over at Clemson's Wind Turbine facility just the other day. The costs are certainly coming down, but there's a variety of ways to calculate those costs, and using fuzzy future estimates of health costs doesn't provide a realistic figure that can be applied to any specific site.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          The EIA outlook has ZERO energy storage in 2019. This can be changed with serious investment. The costs would be drastically lower if renewables were treated as a "dispatchable" source.
          Anonymous Coward
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Here is the EIA analysis of costs for all sources: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
          Anonymous Coward
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/19/nrdc-clean-energy-affordable-way-power-us/
          Anonymous Coward
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Wind cheaper: http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/29/ges-brilliant-1-6-100-clean-green-grid-ready-wind-power-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas/ http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/20/wholesale-price-of-electricity-drops-to-0-00-in-texas-due-to-wind-energy/
          GoodCheer
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          I think spot prices don't really support your statement AC, but these come closer: Wind http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/08/2013-ppa-prices-us-interior-averaged-2-1-centskwh-windpower-2014-part-2/ Solar http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/21/austin-energy-cheap-solar-5-cents-kwh-recurrent-energy/ PPAs are what wind and solar developers actually agreed to sell energy for, which must include their O&M and cost of capital. What's missing is the price of coal, which is hard to get good numbers on, particularly NEW coal capacity where you're not just paying for the black rocks, but the capital costs etc.
      MikeThinker
      • 6 Months Ago
      China still driving down the price of Solar, we won't need coal in 5 years.
        Dave D
        • 6 Months Ago
        @MikeThinker
        I'd like to believe that too, but coal still provides 40-44% of the US grid production (depending on month) so it's not going anywhere in 5 years. These things simply don't move that fast.
          MikeThinker
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave D
          China nows says it'll be just 2 years... http://climatecrocks.com/2014/06/02/solar-threatening-fossil-dominance-in-china-and-the-us/ By the way the US already employs more people in Solar then in Coal, today. Coal is essentially dead already. I don't think Wall Street will fund a new coal plant. And since this is economics, people will move to where the cheapest fuel is.
          Joeviocoe
          • 6 Months Ago
          @Dave D
          39.79% Coal using the rolling 12 month average... (more accurate than month to month, especially with the Winter we've had). http://tinyurl.com/DOE-EIA Here is a spreadsheet I've made tracking the percentages using the DOE/EIA data.
      eideard
      • 6 Months Ago
      Fossil fuel profiteers have no interest in science, reality or truth. They would lie about sunrise to have a better quarter's result. And they care even less for ordinary human beings.
    • Load More Comments