Daily Science Dose

Ah, again, I write about coal. This time it is good news indeed.

The Environmental Protection Agency has had to swallow its own hot air over new coal-fired power plants. This week, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (kind of an independent oversight) decided that the EPA had no reason to not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.

This all started when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is indeed a pollutant last year. As such, and as all pollutants, the EPA has a responsibility to regulate the amount of said pollutant into our environment. However, the EPA (with the Bush-appointed Stephen Johnson — booooo!) didn’t seem to see why it should bother to regulate the coal industry and its lobby (or any other industry that emits CO2), as Big Coal is Big Biz, and we all know that when the environment and Big Biz are competing for George W. Bush’s attention and favor, Big Biz will always win.

But cooler and smarter and fairer heads have prevailed. Now, over 100 coal plants that are in the pre-production process across the US, have to rethink their business plan and their blueprints. Any new coal-fired power plant will have to take its CO2 emissions into account, which essentially means that it is doubtful that the US will see new coal plants anytime soon.

The Sierra Club had originally sued to stop the construction of Deseret Power’s Bonanza Generating Station in Vernal, Utah, part of their nationwide campaign to stop new coal. The 110-megawatt plant, which received its EPA permit in July 2007, would have emitted 3.37 million tons of CO2 a year — the equivalent to putting another 660,000 cars on the road. In detail, Thursday’s decision means that any new air pollution permits for coal plants will require that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be used to reduce CO2 emissions, the same criteria currently used for other pollutants, like sulfur dioxide or soot. BACT requires companies involved in power plants to use the best available technology to control pollutants — it’s a tool to keep pollution controls up to date as both safety technology and our understanding of pollution impoves. In the past, CO2 wasn’t affected by BACT because the EPA didn’t recognize it as a pollutant. This decision changes that.

Right now, however, there is no definition of BACT for CO2, and environmentalists estimate it will take six months to a year to figure that out. In the meantime, all other coal plants in the permitting process, or stuck in the courts, will be frozen. Over the longer term, it’s possible that new coal plants may be impossible to certify at all until a technology exists to greatly reduce or sequester carbon emissions from coal plants — and currently none has been proven. “The decision says the EPA can’t ignore CO2,” says Nilles. –Time

It is nice to see this kind of justice happen, not only in regards to keeping more coal plants from being built, but also that George W. Bush’s plans to gut the EPA’s protections in regards to CO2 are being frustrated — well, finally.

Still, it doesn’t help that China and India are building coal plants. Check out this graphic below for a wake up call. Click on the image to see the details better.

EPA, environment, coal, power, plants, coal-fired, carbon dioxide, CO2, pollution, George Bush, George W Bush, China, India