Hijexx wrote:
] Natural gas gets more expensive, so we start reverting to
] coal. It doesn't look like they are really trying to exploit
] unconventional gas.

They aren't monolithic. Certainly there are a lot of people working on exploiting new sources of gas. Other people are apparently building coal plants. Some coal development was probably inevitable given the supply. The advantage of a free market economy is that every avenue gets pursued. We're not bound to a single strategy.

] Economics would dictate that since gas
] prices are higher, that would start to make unconventional gas
] become conventional gas.
]
] It doesn't appear to be panning out quite like that though.
] Why the rush to start building coal fired electric plants?
] It's cheap. You tell me, are we that dependent on keeping the
] status-quo of current energy prices? By the actions of our
] energy policy planners, it appears so.

These are businesses, not planners. They always choose the cheapest supply. Like I said, some coal development is inevitable. The question seems to be what are the costs in terms of pollution.

The U.S. has a commodities trading system that incents companies to reduce emmisions by setting quotas and allowing those who beat the quota to sell their emmissions to those who don't. That way people who make serious efforts to reduce emmisions actual earn money from doing so. The way to address this is within that framework.

It might make sense to move to a more directly managed system where there is an absolute total quantity of allowable emmisions and everyone has to buy in, including people who bring new coal plants online. If the market is managed properly it would create an economic disincentive to developments like this which might offset other cost advantages, without requiring that people use particular solutions. It also allows us to think about pollution management in an systemic way instead of having local political debates on a plant by plant basis.

Decius wrote:

] These are businesses, not planners. They always choose the
] cheapest supply. Like I said, some coal development is
] inevitable. The question seems to be what are the costs in
] terms of pollution.

In the sense that we have this mix of public and private utilities, I consider them all "planners."

] It might make sense to move to a more directly managed system
] where there is an absolute total quantity of allowable
] emmisions and everyone has to buy in, including people who
] bring new coal plants online. If the market is managed
] properly it would create an economic disincentive to
] developments like this which might offset other cost
] advantages, without requiring that people use particular
] solutions. It also allows us to think about pollution
] management in an systemic way instead of having local
] political debates on a plant by plant basis.

A good idea, but who manages it? Government, private, or quasi-governmental agency? We definately should be looking at it more holistically though. Kind of like all the gas blends we use in the US. Very inefficient to do that, from the physical side of production as well as all the red tape.

Hijexx wrote:
] A good idea, but who manages it? Government, private, or
] quasi-governmental agency? We definately should be looking at
] it more holistically though. Kind of like all the gas blends
] we use in the US. Very inefficient to do that, from the
] physical side of production as well as all the red tape.

Presently I think its federally managed. Emissions really needs to be handled at multiple levels. Different states have different needs, there are cross-state emissions, and there should be some coordination with Canada and Mexico. I agree about gas mixes too, unless it happens that electric hybrids will make the point mostly moot within a shorter timeframe then what it would take to bring national refineries to a standard. Usually California is a few years ahead of the ball on emissions standards, and things they experiment with roll out nationally if they work.

It also occurs to me that we could do this within the existing system by saying that new planets get either no quote for emmisions or a very low quota, and they have to buy from older plants. This would ensure that overall emissions aren't going up despite the developments. You have to be careful there, thought, that you don't create a situation where someone with an old plant isn't incented to keep improving its output rather then build a new plant with greatly reduced emissions due to a new design, because a new plant would cut them out of the quota system.

In general, however, I think it is well within the rights of a community to demand low emmisions, and to block developments that generate new pollution problems. Coal plant builders must demonstrate that their technology is clean enough that it doesn't make significant impacts. To the extent that they don't have to we DO have a problem.