Seeking Alpha

EPA to set carbon limits on power plants

  • The Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to today unveil restrictions on carbon emissions for new power plants, a key part of President Obama's policy to fight what many see as global warming.
  • The EPA will reportedly set CO2 limits at 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour for coal plants and 1,000 pounds for most natural gas plants. To meet those restrictions, coal plants would have to capture and store 20-40% of their CO2 emissions using technology that isn't yet being deployed on a commercial scale. The industry argues that the work would be so expensive that it would preclude the building of new plants.
  • More far-reaching limits for existing facilities are due to be proposed in June 2014.
  • Companies affected include Patriot Coal (PCXCQ.OB), Alpha Natural Resources (ANR), Arch Coal (ACI), Peabody Energy (BTU), James River (JRCC), Cliffs Natural (CLF), Rhino Resource Partners (RNO), CONSOL Energy (CNX), Oxford Resource Partners (OXF), Walter Energy (WLT) and Natural Resource Partners (NRP).
  • ETF - KOL.
Comments (25)
  • jrbolster
    , contributor
    Comments (14) | Send Message
     
    I do not see how miners of metallurgical coal like CLF should be affected. Seems like this is a thermal coal issue.
    20 Sep 2013, 05:32 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3982) | Send Message
     
    It is a thermal coal issue primarily but inherently when you mine met coal you always end up with some of it that doesn't meet the met properties and thus gets put in the thermal market...

     

    on the whole though you're right CLF / WLT won't be affected as greatly as JRCC, ANR, BTU, ACI
    20 Sep 2013, 08:18 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    "fight what many see as global warming."

     

    This is progress. When even SA can start hedging on this phony science perhaps the general public will finally realize the scam that was very nearly pulled off - taxing the air we exhale!

     

    Too bad you can only get the truth about what's happening here and in the rest of the world in the foreign press.

     

    http://bit.ly/1a9CkNw
    The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

     

    Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to "recognise reality".

     

    He said: "We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations."
    20 Sep 2013, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    Governments have been pressuring UN to delete their findings or downplay it. If the facts were really on their side, why so much lying and pressure to hide the truth. Apparently a lot is invested by big government and liberals in their "flat earth theory".

     

    http://fxn.ws/16e3KEs
    20 Sep 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    Global warming is still happening even if it appears to have slowed down. Your own source says that.

     

    So there is some kind of process that we do not know that appears to moderate it. So we got a little lucky. Perhaps God felt sorry for us.

     

    This does not mean that we should stop working to stop it because IT IS STILL HAPPENING. There is absolutely no doubt that the planet is warming.
    20 Sep 2013, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3982) | Send Message
     
    There obviously is doubt on both sides about which side is right... or else there would be no debate about it... everyone would just agree.
    20 Sep 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    global warming has not slowed. it has stopped! and appears to be heading for a cooling cycle.

     

    the source i cited says no such thing. read it again.

     

    There may be no doubt in your mind about the planet warming, but the facts contradict your belief.
    20 Sep 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Philip Marlowe
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    You can see this economist article with a nice chart.

     

    http://econ.st/ZsMqRL

     

    There is a lot of fluctuations in temperatures, but this seems like a long term uptrend to me. Temperatures are far far higher than they were in the 90's and 80's so you cannot say that global warming does not exist.
    20 Sep 2013, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    this article was written in march. since then, the calculations from paragraph 7, 8 and down were admitted to be incorrect and have been drastically revised.

     

    the chart you provided shows a warming pattern through the 1980s and 1990s and that's it. we all agree on this. the objective data showed global warming till about 1997. the question is: whether this is a natural cycle or manmade?

     

    in the 1970s scientists were predicting an ice age. yes, an ice age!

     

    Now that the data shows the warming trend has stopped, climate warming advocates are telling us that data from ten or fifteen does not prove a trend one way or another, but their initial theory is based on just that -- a ten or fifteen year trend!

     

    count me as a manmade global warming skeptic, but i appreciate a mature discussion on the subject. time will tell who is right.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    blue,

     

    Funny NASA eliminated the use of satellite data that showed the planet was cooling in the upper atmosphere from the dataset because it didn't fit the narrative.

     

    The argo sea buoys show no increase in water temperature or level so they also get ignored.

     

    I don't blame anyone for being uninformed on this issue because it is all about misleading by omission - ignoring truth and focusing on the narrative. The average person doesn't stand a chance.

     

    From NASA, they call this a crisis:
    http://1.usa.gov/18GyyOj
    "The average global temperature has risen about 1.4°F (0.8°C) since 1880, according to the new analysis."

     

    I call it natural variation even if you ignore all the flaws and lies that have perpetrated in the temperature record. 1880 was one of the coolest years in measured history so the whole premise is biased from the outset anyway. Everyone forgets in 1934 there was almost no ice in the arctic and it was the warmest summer on record and then temperatures fell despite the tremendous rise in CO2 levels (and then proceeded to cool for 40 years after that). Oh well. History will reveal this to be one of the most shameful episodes for the pursuit of science in history just like eugenics!

     

    It was warmer in the 1000's when Greenland was colonized by Eric The Red and it really was actually Green and there were no SUV's :)
    20 Sep 2013, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    great post! i wasn't aware of nasa data being removed that showed cooling. I agree that you can't blame the average person that doesn't have all the info. It is confusing and hard to understand. I do blame business oligarchs who spread these lies to make a profit.

     

    And yes, Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, may be responsible for that shameful episode. But macroevolution (upon which eugenics is based) is equally ridiculous, and despite massive amounts of evidence, continues to be accepted as fact by many uninformed.
    20 Sep 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Shmulik444
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    Globe is warming is not the same as human activity has any impact. There is a huge difference between responsible regulation against pollution and hysterical self destructive action based on gross assumptions made to generate computer models that proved nothing. Meanwhile, serious pollution issues are being ignored such as fertilizer run off and resulting algae blooms that deplete oxygen = dead zones off Texas Coast. But on the topic of coal, the real threat to coal price and the industry, in addition to irresponsible CO2 regulation, is natural gas and completion.
    23 Sep 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • bungaylad
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Explain to the people in Mexico and the Boulder Colorado area how climate change isn't happening. Explain how over 400 ships are expected to navigate the Northern passage this year. Climate change is happening now and will continue to happen whether you accept it or not. There is a wealth of accurate information available in print and online. There have been dramatic changes in Global weather. Scientific American and other reliable sources continue to provide more and more data that confirms humanity is having an impact on global temperatures. If you want to keep all your jellybeans in a coal bucket go right ahead.
    20 Sep 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    have their not been isolated floods happening in one location or another before? the truth is that there is a lack of hurricanes and extreme weather this year in western hemisphere.

     

    one or two hurricanes are your proof???? no wonder you're a liberal. no offense, but using emotion and foregoing logic will lead to bad decisions in life. keep researching the truth is out there.

     

    i'm pretty sure there were hurricanes a hundred or a thousand years ago as well... the facts are the world has been cooling and there has been no measurable increase in global temp in 16 years. if you don't believe me read the latest UN report or the hacked emails from "climategate" that show the "scientists" worrying that the data doesn't support the thesis anymore.

     

    The UN report acknowledges that slight increases in CO2 are actually good for humanity which result in increased crop yields and more vigorous plants and trees.
    20 Sep 2013, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/15I3Rpn
    "The IPCC found that “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America.” A scientific overview published in June in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that the severe drought of 2012, which at one point covered 39 percent of the United States, was still much less extreme than droughts in the 1930s (which covered 63 percent) and the 1950s (50 percent). And all those droughts pale next to the six-decade mega-drought in what is now the U.S. West in the 12th century.

     

    Damage from flooding in the United States has declined from 0.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1940 to less than 0.05 percent today. And U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. It has been more than seven years since the United States was hit by a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. That is the longest such hurricane drought since 1900.

     

    A new paper in the journal Nature shows on a crucial measure that there is no increase in extremes. Looking at temperature variability as one kind of extreme weather, the authors document that extreme weather globally has been constant since 1960. Moreover, the researchers found that extreme weather as temperature variability will decline in the future with higher levels of carbon dioxide. They laconically conclude: “Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.”

     

    It is understandable that a lot of well-meaning people, wanting stronger action on global warming, have tried to use the meme of extreme weather to draw attention. But alarmism and panic are rarely the best way to achieve good policies. The argument that global warming generally creates more extreme weather needs to be retired.

     

    Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and, most recently, “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard From 1900 to 2050.”
    20 Sep 2013, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    good post. unfortunately, we'll probably never hear from "bungaylad" again. everytime some global warming fan comes on here, they hit and run. once facts are introduced they never return. i will respect him if he responds to the facts
    20 Sep 2013, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • bungaylad
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Global warming is real. The scientific community is in agreement that industrial activity has raised Carbon Dioxide levels higher than they have ever occurred from natural phenomena. It really doesn't matter to me whether you want to deny the impact of global warming or not, just as long as the majority of the people on the globe realize we are playing a game of Russian Roulette with every chamber loaded. I would rather we start mitigating our impact on the environment now than wait for the crisis to get worse. It goes beyond Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. There are too many people consuming more and more limited resources at a pace that is not sustainable. I am not anti-coal. I earned my living from the coal industry for over 30 years. I am dismayed by the missed opportunities to enhance the value of the product and develop better ways to use it. If all the money that went into political activity had been devoted to R&D there wouldn't be a discussion about the future of coal right now. It still isn't too late. Carbon is a valuable commodity and it should not be "going up in smoke"!
    21 Sep 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    bungayland, if you do the research you will find the scientific community is not in agreement (galtmachine has already given you some places to start). As for CO2 levels, this is hysterical propaganda that is completely contradicted by scientific findings. CO2 levels are NO WHERE NEAR where they have been naturally in the past. It is believed that they may have been up to 30 times greater (9000 ppm) at some points in the past (well before coal-fired plants and the combustion engine). Again, that is what science tells us, but don't accept everything modern science tells you as fact. The one constant throughout history is that scientists have made mistakes and have been wrong over and over again. In any event, banning new coal plants only in the U.S. will have no effect on world CO2 levels anyway. The rest of the world will continue to burn coal while we sacrifice out economy to make environmentalists feel good.

     

    Curious, if you're not anticoal, what are you suggesting we do with it if not use it as an energy source?
    23 Sep 2013, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Bungaylad,

     

    I know it's probably hopeless to try to offer you an opportunity to expand your thinking and consider alternatives but here goes:

     

    http://bit.ly/15KlvsA
    "Global warming slows - but scientists not reassured
    Associated Press
    Published 5:58 pm, Thursday, September 19, 2013
    Scientists working on a landmark U.N. report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising."

     

    Seems to me that people like you and the people who are making money from this hoax are the ones in denial.

     

    No one has ever been able to explain how taxing air will reduce the temperature of the planet. Since this is the preferred solution to the "problem" it is clear they are not serious about solving the problem.

     

    Good luck and rest well you have won the war on global warming as the above article attests :)
    21 Sep 2013, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    One other item to make you go hmm.

     

    "Obama Has Had The Fewest Hurricanes Of Any President
    Posted on May 8, 2013 by stevengoddard

     

    NOAA keeps hurricane records back to 1850. The average number of US hurricane strikes per presidency is almost eleven. Obama’s presidency has had only three hurricane strikes, matched only by Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison.

     

    Grover Cleveland and FDR both presided over 26 hurricanes, almost nine times as many as Obama."

     

    The accompanying chart is interesting:

     

    http://bit.ly/15fz5AG

     

    Grover Cleveland was President in 1885 by the way in which 26 hurricanes occurred at the temperature low based upon the NASA series. Also keep in mind they didn't have hurricane hunters and technology back then so it is very likely the numbers were even higher back then.

     

    The point is correlation is not causality. Pointing to hurricanes as evidence of "man-made" (emphasis on man) global warming is pure bunk as the recent record shows.
    21 Sep 2013, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • bungaylad
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    1. Coal is valuable for making steel, pharmaceuticals and many other products. Properly processed it can combust much cleaner and contribute as an energy source if it is not suitable for other higher end products. I restate again the coal and energy industry should spend their dollars on R&D instead of PACs and politics. Transform coal from a commodity to a value added product. I don't know how to do it but the "carbon" in carbon fibers as in the construction of Boeings Dreamliner must come from some where; why not from coal? Future automobiles will be constructed with more and more composite fibers and less steel. Shall the industry wait for the last steel auto to be produced before figuring out how to transform coking coal into another use?
    2. The overall consensus among the scientific community is that we are impacting global weather above and beyond the normal fluctuations that have occurred. People can cite anecdotal phenomena until the cows come home it won't change the fact that it is happening.
    3. Above and beyond global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it, the overwhelming majority of Americans want to breathe cleaner air. Increasing ones profits at the expense of another's health is reprehensible.
    24 Sep 2013, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • Blue Horshoe love Anacot Steel
    , contributor
    Comments (279) | Send Message
     
    bungayland,

     

    1. You say that the coal & energy industry should spend their dollars on R&D instead of politics. We all wish that this were possible but this is a very idealistic and some would say, naive, view of how politics work in this country. Under the current administration (Obama) it is pay to play or you get nothing or worse, you get attacked by the federal government. If you don't believe me look at all the "green energy" contributions to the Obama administration that resulted in our tax money being given as repayment. Read about Steve Spinner who ran the Dept of Energy's loan program, who has no relevant experience in science, energy or engineering, but was himself an Obama fundraiser and bundler.

     

    http://thebea.st/16MDD1Z

     

    Your complaint should be with politicians like President Obama and Congress, not with the coal industry. The politicians set the rules here.

     

    2. As for anecdotal evidence, I think you need to look up the word "anecodotal". Anecdotal evidence like, "global warming must be real because of the flooding that is taking place in Colorado" or "look at what is going on Mexico" to prove global warming are what you cited when you started this thread. I don't even remember what happened in Mexico that you were citing as evidence. In any event, what you did was a perfect example of citing "anecdotal phenomena".

     

    As for scientific consensus, how in the world do you know what consensus is? Do tell.

     

    3. As for cleaner air, modern coal plants -- which are being prevented by being constructed by the current administration -- are extremely clean and filter out greater than 90 % of real pollutants. The reason you don't see smog anymore in major cities is because of emissions controls and the modern coal plant.

     

    I hope this helps. I responded to every one of your points. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the current CO2 levels compared to prehistoric times and the fact that there has been no measurable warming in the past 16 or 17 years despite more coal, gas and oil being burned across the globe than ever.
    26 Sep 2013, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • bungaylad
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    It is possible to spend money on R&D rather than PACS. It goes on now. A major coal company and major power producer have contributed to R&D for several years. However, the majority of the energy industry has fought laws to save guard the environment tooth and nail every time they come up and are still doing it. All that they have accomplished is the deferral of such laws and as a result raised health costs and the cost of the final laws by so doing. Yes, newer power plants are cleaner but still spew unacceptable levels of pollutants into the atmosphere. Mexico? How about double hurricanes. Over 90% of the scientific community looks like consensus to me. CO2 levels have surpassed or are about to surpass anything found in the prehistoric record.
    The Global community recognizes that we can no longer consume coal at recent levels and thrive. So many justify doing nothing by stating the Chinese will just burn it. Well even the Chinese recognize the problems with that and are aggressively moving to curtail the horrendous problems they have with dirty combustion of coal.
    27 Sep 2013, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    bungaylad,

     

    " Over 90% of the scientific community"

     

    No. Just because you heard it doesn't mean its true. Clearly you have not been reading both sides of the debate and it is a debate. A theory is not a fact and man-made global warming is an unproven theory.

     

    Science is based upon facts not consensus. This may be seem obvious but clearly people don't understand this basic concept of how science is done.

     

    http://bit.ly/1fNLpiU
    "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]"

     

    The consensus in science is usually wrong (flat earth, earth is the center of universe, theory of relativity, some races are inferior to others, etc.) but we only know that after the fact. One single observation can overturn an entire established body of science and has done so many times in the past.

     

    We have done our best to show you that you should not limit your thinking the rest is up to you.

     

    Good luck.
    27 Sep 2013, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • GaltMachine
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Exactly the opposite of the predictions of these "experts":

     

    http://bit.ly/1fOboXB
    "Heading into October -- 2013 global hurricane activity remains historically low

     

    • North Atlantic tropical cyclone ACE is 71% below normal. 5th lowest since 1950. --> Figure
    • Northern Hemisphere ACE is 55% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
    • Global ACE is 47% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure "
    27 Sep 2013, 05:24 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|