Thank you for your editorial apprising your readers of the Environmental Protection Agency's continued assault on America (OGJ, Mar. 17, 2014, p. 18). Starting with its forced sequestration of carbon dioxide in new power plants; to its absurdly low limits on ozone and mercury from these same plants; to the minuscule levels of CO, NOx, and hydrocarbons in tailpipe emissions; to the already reduced limits on sulfur in diesel fuel and the new limits on sulfur in gasoline, the agency seems Hell-bent on burdening both industry and the general public with needless costs that do little for the general well-being but surely serve as a drag on the sluggish economy.
In hitching its wagon to the star of anthropogenic global warming, EPA has declared war on the main source of electricity in not only America but the world. Coal-fired plants are the backbone of the electrical grid in most countries. Because they operate at very high pressures and temperatures, they are extremely compact compared with the trendy "green" wind farms and solar panels that seek to capture the diffuse forms of energy embodied in wind and sunshine. I've never heard of bald eagles or thousands of other birds' being slaughtered by coal plants.
The EPA has chosen to penalize the builders of the rather small number of new coal-fired plants to be built in America in the years ahead. But these would emit only a tiny fraction of the CO2 emitted worldwide by all the autos, trucks, buses, ships, and planes, by the home and business or industrial furnaces, the home water heaters, etc., to say nothing of the 6 billion-plus people (and their campfires) and estimated 20 quintillion animals on the planet. Because there is no way to sequester the staggering quantity of CO2 from these sources, EPA's attack on new coal-fired power stations becomes a most costly exercise in futility. At the same time, it chills the future development of more-efficient coal-fired plants.
The truck drivers of America can thank the EPA for their exorbitant fuel bills. With its very simple refining scheme, diesel fuel (essentially kerosene) was once far cheaper than gasoline. Now it costs nearly 75¢/gal more than gasoline because of the difficulty of meeting EPA's very low limits on sulfur content. And there can be a human cost; in 1998, I inspected a new desulfurizing unit where a welder lost his life during its construction. How much will the lower sulfur limits on gasoline raise its cost for the American consumer?
As the EPA heaps one abuse atop another on American industry and consumers, where have the media been? Clearly in the pocket of the EPA, cheer-leading for the agency instead of acting in the public interest. How else could you explain why reporters and writers have not challenged the EPA on the items above? They should be asking tough questions about the vast amounts of energy wasted in CO2 sequestration processes and in reducing mercury, ozone, and sulfur levels to absurdly low levels. They should ask why tailpipe emissions must be cut in half every 5 years or so, even though the great bulk of emissions had already been removed 25 years ago. Instead, the liberal media have bought into all the goals of the ecology and environmental movements, carrying water for them and failing to do the investigative reporting that once served to keep America strong. That is why EPA scams the public with the sue-and-settle process that you thankfully have exposed.
Until the media accept their responsibility of doing objective reporting and holding the EPA, Congress, the administration, and the Supreme Court accountable for their senseless actions, there can be little hope for a reasonable and practical regulatory environment under the EPA. Oil refineries will surely be in its crosshairs.
Dr. David L. Sponseller
OMNI Metals Laboratory Inc.
Ann Arbor, Mich.