Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dead_Parrot

(14,478 posts)
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:12 PM Apr 2012

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Headed Up Again

After dropping for two years during the recession, emissions of the gases blamed for global warming rose in 2010 as the economy heated up, the Environmental Protection Agency reports.

Output of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gasses were up 3.2 percent from 2009 as the nation climbed slowly out of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the E.P.A. said.

“The increase from 2009 to 2010 was primarily due to an increase in economic output resulting in an increase in energy consumption across all sectors, and much warmer summer conditions resulting in an increase in electricity demand for air conditioning that was generated primarily by combusting coal and natural gas,” the agency reported in its annual inventory of greenhouse gases.

The report, produced for domestic policymakers and for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, covers emissions of the six main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.


More: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-headed-up-again/
EPA report: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Headed Up Again (Original Post) Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 OP
Since there is no economic mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal plants kristopher Apr 2012 #1
Since the EPA has finally put the brakes on coal power... Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #2
I see, you now think coal is just fine. kristopher Apr 2012 #3
lol Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #4
You just said we don't need to worry about shutting down the coal plants. kristopher Apr 2012 #5
Sigh Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #6
You are the one that wants us to build nuclear plants. kristopher Apr 2012 #7
Sorry I haven't had time to do any coloring pages for you kris... Dead_Parrot Apr 2012 #8
Zero-fuel cost renewables and "baseload" nuclear are different animals; ... kristopher Apr 2012 #9
Keep it up, Kris RobertEarl Apr 2012 #11
Unsurprising. The phase out of coal is too gradual. joshcryer Apr 2012 #10

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
1. Since there is no economic mechanism by which nuclear shuts down coal plants
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:31 PM
Apr 2012

We really need to focus all of our policy support on building up our zero-fuel cost renewables.

Dead_Parrot

(14,478 posts)
2. Since the EPA has finally put the brakes on coal power...
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:37 PM
Apr 2012

...the US's next issue is natural gas. Of course, some people seem to be quite happy about building gas generation...

Dead_Parrot

(14,478 posts)
6. Sigh
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 02:58 PM
Apr 2012

Of course they need shutting down. But if they can longer be replaced by other coal plants, it's possible to make some actual progress on emmisions in the process.

If they get replaced by gas, this progress isn't going to by nearly so fast.

You sure you don't work in PR, kris? You seem to spend lots of your time spinning facts, and very little time learning new ones.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
7. You are the one that wants us to build nuclear plants.
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:05 PM
Apr 2012

And since there is no market mechanism by which nuclear can shut down a coal plant (which last >50 years); and since these nuclear plants DO prevent markets from investing in new zero-fuel cost renewables that CAN shut down coal plants; it is a form of expenditure that does NOTHING but lock in the market position of coal plants.

Dead_Parrot

(14,478 posts)
8. Sorry I haven't had time to do any coloring pages for you kris...
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 03:10 PM
Apr 2012

...but if you can see how prioritizing electricity by zero-fuel-cost works, but can't see how prioritizing electricity by low-fuel-cost might work, you're not as bright as you like to pretend.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
9. Zero-fuel cost renewables and "baseload" nuclear are different animals; ...
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 04:17 PM
Apr 2012

... a fact that nuclear supporters never tire of making (something I suspect is about to change).

There is no economic mechanism by which nuclear can shut down coal.

And since there is no market mechanism by which nuclear can shut down a coal plant (which last >50 years); and since these nuclear plants DO prevent markets from investing in new zero-fuel cost renewables that CAN shut down coal plants; it is a form of expenditure that does NOTHING but lock in the market position of coal plants.

This is the reality:

Nuclear Revival is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers, says Watchdog Group
Report shows Southeast utilities plan not to replace coal-fired power, but to add nuclear capacity despite falling demand – while jacking up rates and blocking clean energy advances


DURHAM, NC – Despite a six-year public relations blitz touting nuclear power as essential for a low carbon future, five southeastern utilities trying to license and build reactors have no intention of using them to replace coal-fired power plants. Instead, because captive state governments have forced financial risks onto customers, the “Southeast Five” are pursuing costly and unneeded nuclear and natural gas projects while blocking the measures that could retire coal – energy efficiency programs along with solar and wind power.

That’s according to watchdog group NC WARN, which today released an unprecedented analysis of utility practices in the Southeast. The Durham-based group also called on the CEOs of the Southeast Five to shift their enormous resources toward clean-energy measures. Such a transition, NC WARN says, would allow the phase-out of coal units, a move that is critically needed to help avert runaway climate disruption. The shift is also essential because of a regional economic triple-threat posed by worsening climate disasters, eye-watering rate hikes caused by massive expansion of generation capacity, and the high risk of nuclear project failures.

“For years the nuclear industry has told the public that, despite financial and safety hazards, new nuclear plants are needed so coal plants can be replaced,” said the report’s author, Jim Warren, during a press conference today. “The reality is that the Southeast Five CEOs have no intention of phasing out coal – even though accelerating climate changes are already hammering our national, state and local economies, while harming people and our environment. Skyrocketing power bills are an added assault on businesses and the public.”



See the report, New Nuclear Power is Ruining Climate Protection Efforts and Harming Customers
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCW-NuclearClimate_web.pdf

Listen to the audio from the press conference
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/NCWARN-Conference-Call-10-5-11.mp3

Read Clinging to Dirty Energy in the South – a by-the-numbers look from the Institute of Southern Studies
http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/institute-index-clinging-to-dirty-energy-in-the-south.html

Percent by which the big Southeast Five utilities -- Duke Energy Carolinas, Florida Power & Light, Georgia Power, Progress Energy and South Carolina Electric & Gas -- plan to reduce their coal generation capacity over the next two decades: 16

Percent by which Duke Energy Carolinas plans to reduce its coal generation during that period: 3.6

Size in megawatts of the new coal-fired power unit that Duke Energy is building at its Cliffside plant in western North Carolina, scheduled to begin operating next year: 825

Tons of carbon dioxide that the Cliffside plant will emit to the atmosphere each year: 6,000,000

Amount by which Progress Energy is planning to increase its reliance on natural gas in the coming years: 25

Percent by which greenhouse gas emissions from drilling for natural gas in shale formations actually exceeds such emissions from coal-fired electricity over time: 20

Average percentage of the Southeast Five's generation capacity expected to come from wind and solar over the next couple of decades: 0.25

That figure for Duke Energy, the Southeast Five's leader in planned wind and solar power: 0.77

That figure for Progress Energy Florida, SCE&G and Georgia Power: 0

Average percentage of the Southeast Five's generation capacity expected to come from energy efficiency over the next couple of decades: 1.9

That figure for SCE&G, the Southeast Five's leader in planned efficiency: 5.09

Percent of Georgia Power's and FP&L's total generation capacity expected to come from energy efficiency: 0

Total amount by which the Southeast Five are planning to increase their generation capacity over the next two decades, in megawatts: 23,188

Percent of that capacity increase represented by planned nuclear reactors: 38
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
11. Keep it up, Kris
Wed Apr 18, 2012, 12:01 AM
Apr 2012

Some of us do appreciate the time and effort you put into bringing facts to the discussion.

Unlike the "Low cost" nuclear people, your vision is actually making progress. I mean, how fucking dumb do you have to be to keep claiming nuclear is a low cost operation what with all the decommissioning costs and cleanup?

joshcryer

(62,276 posts)
10. Unsurprising. The phase out of coal is too gradual.
Tue Apr 17, 2012, 10:42 PM
Apr 2012

And the phase in of natural gas is too astounding.

On top of that is the fact that methane leaks and venting is simply uncontrolled by the EPA.

The picture is far worse than it seems.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emiss...