April 9, 2014

“It May Not Be Ready but EPA Chief Defends Carbon Capture Technology Anyway”

Sorry. Got caught up in a Twitterstorm arguing with pro-ObamaCare hiveminders.

Let’s begin, shall we?

How many times are we going to regulate that horse go before the cart?  Answer:  as long as we can get away with it:

West Virginia MetroNews reports that at a Senate committee hearing, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, was forced to defend the viability of the carbon capture and sequestration technology, the key component of proposed greenhouse gas rules for new electric power plants:

“Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is not commercially viable,” [North Dakota U.S. Senator John] Hoeven said. “So how are we going to build any new coal plants even with the latest technology and CCS with your latest proposed rules?”

McCarthy said told Hoeven the EPA believes CCS is “technically feasible.”

But the Republican senator shot back: “I did not say technically feasible. I said commercially viable.”

McCarthy answered that “technically feasible” is the standard under the law.

However, the Clean Air Act states that technology mandated has to be “adequately demonstrated,” and EPA must consider its costs. These are hard standards for CCS to meet when no commercial power plants are using it, and its first commercial application in Mississippi is undergoing cost overruns. Experts and former administration officials understand that CCS is years away from being viable and will mean added electricity costs. Southern Company, which is building the Kemper power plant, says it “should not be used in developing a national standard for greenhouse gases.”

Think of this in the context of Senator Inhofe’s plan to use Congressional Review to get votes on the record for every one of these Utopian fantasies that drive up the cost of energy, which in turn drives up the cost of everything, and as a result is an attempt to do away with the bourgeois, to hamstring the middle class and eventually push them into dependency.  When coupled with a convention of the states that works to put the reins on out of control unelected regulators, it’s arguments like McCarthy’s that will become increasingly difficult to support by actual, on-the-record legislative vote.

The article continues:

According to a Politico Pro report, at the committee hearing, she said, “We think [CCS] is the future, and we think facilities are investing in it now.”

CCS might be the future, but we live in the here-and-now where EPA regulations are pushing reliable, coal-fired power plants offline and pushed a coal producer into bankruptcy:

James River Coal Co., a mine operator in Logan and Mingo Counties, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as part of its effort to turn around its business.

The Richmond, Va.-based company says it faces challenges from the weak economy, environmental regulations and competition as electrical-generating utilities switch from coal to natural gas.

Renewables count for about 15% of our energy production.  Fossil and nuclear — two things the federal government under the progressives are trying to vex into disappearing — account for up 85% of the energy we produce.   Plans to cut out 85% of our energy production capabilities — part of the progressive “degrowth” movement — are, therefore, entirely regressive, and they are intended to be just so.

This is not about energy efficiency. It’s about remaking a feudal society.  That’s what tyrants do.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:37pm
2 comments | Trackback

Comments (2)

  1. But, but…

    “True engines of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra.”

  2. McCarthy answered that “technically feasible” is the standard under the law.

    It’s “technically feasible” that releasing all of the energy contained in all the atoms of McCarthy’s body could power a mid-sized city for several years.

Leave a Reply