 |
Re: -- WOW-double track waste? Sources?
Author: mook
Date: 06-03-2014 - 14:39
Found his source: EPA's spreadsheet of state goals.
EPA is ignoring the fact that the PacNW is overwhelmingly hydro-powered; apparently they use the conventional fiction that "renewable" does not include hydro if a dam is required. Also, the rule targets combustion-powered generation, so the fact that there is even a noticeable percentage of coal means that they want a huge reduction. Even so, it's not clear where the 72% cut comes from - needs further research. OR & AZ aren't much better off - OR needs a 48% cut & AZ 52% according to the spreadsheet.
Given the huge amount of natural gas-powered generation in CA, it's surprising that EPA only wants a 23% cut. All that push for official (non-hydro) renewables results in only a tiny (<<10% total for all renewable sources) fraction of the power mix from that. But there's practically no coal in the mix so that might explain it.
I think a legitimate comment/complaint might be that for individual states the contribution of hydro (which *is* zero-emission in operation, though of course not in construction, and the dams of course offend the free-flowing-streams fanatics) and nuke is more or less ignored. That makes the relative reduction requirements look way out of whack. The EIA WA data, for instance, shows that WA gets nearly 3/4 of its electrical power from hydro; coal is <<5%. OR is about 2/3 hydro. If you actually count the hydro (which I think is legitimate), both places more than meet their emission reduction needs now. CA OTOH is almost 2/3 natural gas. Which of those is better in terms of CO2 emissions, especially considering that the hydro is a sunk cost - it would take much more construction-related CO2 emissions to pull the dams down. And CA's non-hydro, non-nuke (mostly) generation is more than WA, OR, AZ, UT, and ID put together.
Looks like EPA isn't really being very flexible - more of a one-size-fits-all as is usual when Fed regulation is involved. File Those Comments!!
EPA is ignoring the fact that the PacNW is overwhelmingly hydro-powered; apparently they use the conventional fiction that "renewable" does not include hydro if a dam is required. Also, the rule targets combustion-powered generation, so the fact that there is even a noticeable percentage of coal means that they want a huge reduction. Even so, it's not clear where the 72% cut comes from - needs further research. OR & AZ aren't much better off - OR needs a 48% cut & AZ 52% according to the spreadsheet.
Given the huge amount of natural gas-powered generation in CA, it's surprising that EPA only wants a 23% cut. All that push for official (non-hydro) renewables results in only a tiny (<<10% total for all renewable sources) fraction of the power mix from that. But there's practically no coal in the mix so that might explain it.
I think a legitimate comment/complaint might be that for individual states the contribution of hydro (which *is* zero-emission in operation, though of course not in construction, and the dams of course offend the free-flowing-streams fanatics) and nuke is more or less ignored. That makes the relative reduction requirements look way out of whack. The EIA WA data, for instance, shows that WA gets nearly 3/4 of its electrical power from hydro; coal is <<5%. OR is about 2/3 hydro. If you actually count the hydro (which I think is legitimate), both places more than meet their emission reduction needs now. CA OTOH is almost 2/3 natural gas. Which of those is better in terms of CO2 emissions, especially considering that the hydro is a sunk cost - it would take much more construction-related CO2 emissions to pull the dams down. And CA's non-hydro, non-nuke (mostly) generation is more than WA, OR, AZ, UT, and ID put together.
Looks like EPA isn't really being very flexible - more of a one-size-fits-all as is usual when Fed regulation is involved. File Those Comments!!
