1

From: Edward Greisch [edgreisch@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 11:53 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: carbon pollution rule for existing power plants2

What the coal companies know that most people don’t: 

As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, the coal 

industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and wave power can replace coal, and 

they know it. 

If you quit being afraid of nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you argue in favor of 

wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear, King Coal is happy. ONLY nuclear 

power can put coal out of business. Nuclear power HAS put coal out of business in France. France 

uses 30 year old American technology. 

So here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things nuclear and die when [not if] civilization 

collapses or when Homo “Sapiens” goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and kick the coal 

habit and live. Which do you choose? Nuclear is the safe path and we have factory built nuclear 

power plants now. A nuclear power plant can be installed in weeks. See: 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html 

We have already done the research. Wind "works" 20% of the time. Solar works 15% of the time. 

For intermittents to work, we must have energy storage for a week or room temperature 

superconductors. We have neither. The battery for the US, if it were possible, would cost $half a 

Quadrillion. 

"Using" wind and solar is really using fossil fuels because wind and solar are so intermittent that 

you wind up using fossil fuels 60 to 85% of the time. 

Batteries are not included with renewables. It is not possible to make enough energy storage to 

make renewables work. Wind and solar are too intermittent. In most places, wind covers 20% of 

the time and solar covers 15% of the time, sometimes overlapping. 

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3312118/Worlds-biggest-battery-switched-on-in-Alaska.html

"The rechargable battery, which at 2,000 square metres is bigger than a football pitch and weighs 

1,300 tonnes, was manufactured by power components specialist ABB to provide electricity to 

Fairbanks, Alaska's second-largest city, in the event of a blackout. 

Stored in a warehouse near the city, where temperatures plunge to -51 degrees Centigrade in 

winter, the battery will provide 40 megawatts of power - enough for around 12,000 people - for up 

to seven minutes." 

Fairbanks, Alaska paid $35 Million for a battery to backup the local power supply. 
2

http://www.newsminer.com/gvea-s-fairbanks-battery-bank-keeps-lights-on/article_a24d94cd-b48a5f0d-9124-9b10552282e3.html

http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/germanys-energiewendeshows-why-we-need-nuclear/

and 

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/07/16/new-critique-aemo-100pc-renew/

Again: Batteries are not included with renewables 

bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/13/energy-storage-dt/#more-5281

bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/03/lacklustre-colorado-solar/

Be sure to read the linked papers. 

Wind: There are rare places where wind works locally, but to power, for example, all of Europe, all 

of Europe and all of Asia has to be linked into one very expensive grid. You need the nameplate 

power times 4 spread over 12 time zones to get reliable power. The line losses are huge unless you 

have a superconducting grid, and superconductors now available require liquid nitrogen cooling. 

CSP Concentrated Solar Power 

www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/2007/martin_andasol_pictures_storage.pdf

MOLTEN SALTS (60% NaNO3 + 40% KNO3) 

How much do you need to power the whole planet for a week? Is there that much available? 

Where are we going to put it? How much does it cost? 

The correct answer is nuclear because nothing else works. 

A few more URLs: 

physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/RE.html 

"Renewable Energy – Cannot Sustain an Energy-Intensive Society." 

bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/27/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-response-to-lang/

bravenewclimate.com/2013/05/02/100pc-renew-study-needs-makeover/

Subscribe to BraveNewClimate [BNC] 

What BNC said: You can't build a big enough battery because you run out of battery material. My 

estimates for a battery for the US Alone run from $400 Trillion to $600 Trillion. IF you don't run 

out of materials and IF the price doesn't go up because you are running out of materials. 
3
4

From: Chris Greacen [chrisgreacen@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:28 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: written comment for the record on carbon pollution

Dear EPA,

I strongly support rules that will, one way or another, send price signals to the operators of our aging 

fleet of fossil-fuel fired power plants encouraging them to switch to lower-carbon sources of energy. 

Increased carbon dioxide threatens my home through increased likelihood of flooding, through 

acidification of the oceans near my home, and through increased intense storm events.

My strongest preference is for a national carbon tax, as the magazine The Economist, and many professional economists have called for. It is simple, transparent, and is resistant to "gaming".

Best regards,

Chris 

-- 

Chris Greacen, Ph.D.

skype: chrisgreacen 

44 Tuatara Rd.

Lopez Island, WA 98261 

360-468-3189 

360-499-2173 
5

From: Bruce [tiptondesigns@yahoo.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Bio consumption of carbon from CO2

Develop genetically engineered plants that are super efficient at converting Concentrated CO2 

to O2 and a carbon rich mass that could be interned. 

Sent from my iPad 
6

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Matthew Weldon [matt.s.weldon+epa@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 3:50 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 15:49 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Matthew Weldon 

Email: matt.s.weldon+epa@gmail.com

Comments: 

Hello and thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

I live in Austin, TX, my educational background is in chemical engineering and my work 

background is in semiconductor manufacturing. 

The best means to curb carbon pollution would be to rationally price what are now the 

negative externalities of fossil carbon into their market price at the moment of extraction 

for potential use - be it coal, lignite, oil, NG or etc. I know that action is beyond the 

purview of the EPA but I think every venue of discussion about any additional legislative or 

regulatory action should acknowledge what is generally perceived as the most fair and 

effective course of action before reducing the scope of discussion. 

In the area of regulatory control to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, I 

would support and ask you to act on the following: 

- Require existing plants to meet the most stringent standards for new plants (which 

themselves should be pegged to the most stringent international standards adopted by any 

other country which generates a significant fraction of its power from coal). As a nation 

and an economy, we should always strive to lead in categories associated with high quality 

performance. 

- Implementation strategies to encourage facilities to comply might include aid to comply in 

advance of a compulsory dead line. Penalties for non-compliance should be substantially 

higher than any projected cost of compliance. 

- Existing plants should be required to provide bond or insurance to indemnify parties that 

are at risk due to power plant activities. Such activities include emissions (particulates, 

mercury pollution, SOX, NOX) and operational risks - tailing pond failure, water quality 

damage, and etc. 

During a plant's operational life funds should be set aside to cover eventual decommissioning 

costs. 

In short, the EPA should use all powers available to it to prevent the power industry from 

socializing and externalizing any of its apparent risks and pitfalls. No individual or state 

body should suffer costs or loss not reflected and repaid in the market cost of the product 

delivered by the industry. 

A free market is not free from law or regulation. A free market is well and justly 

regulated. 

Good luck in the development of rules that protect the citizenry of the United States and 

that will encourage the development of our economy and technologies compatible with long term 

sustainability. 

with kind regards, 

 Matt Weldon 
7

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
8

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Peter Bryn [pbryn1983@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 8:10 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 11/01/2013 - 08:10 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Peter Bryn 

Email: pbryn1983@gmail.com

Comments: 

In light of a current lack of Congressional willpower to act on climate change, it is 

somewhat hopeful to see action at the EPA. 

However, a market-based solution like a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which places a simple 

cost signal on GHG-generating fuels but does not pick winners and losers, would be far more 

effective and efficient than an EPA-style regulation. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
9

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Marvin S. Robinson, II [robinsoniimarvins@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:38 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/31/2013 - 19:37 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Marvin S. Robinson, II 

Email: robinsoniimarvins@yahoo.com

Comments: 

Our Low-Income community is very much UN-Informed about the Carbon Pollution Standard for New 

Power Plants, in large part because the E.P.A. regulations, much like many other governmental 

instructions are written in such complicated technical language, the average resident has 

difficulty encoding to decoding. 

HELP with more simplified language (for those not equipped) with governmental traditional 

communications styles in and with words and procedurals formats. 

NOT everybody, doesn't UNDERSTAND, but a significant number of percentage in the poor areas' 

like my neighborhood, are not aware about the DETAILS and clear problematic risk, science, 

etc. Thanks, Marvin S. Robinson, II Quindaro Ruins / Underground Railroad- Exercise 2014 Web 

Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
10

From: Hackel, Angela

Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:15 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: FW: Public Listening Session Inquiry: Carbon Pollution Standards

FYI 

-----Original Message----- 

From: biz@baymoon.com [mailto:biz@baymoon.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:14 PM 

To: Hackel, Angela 

Subject: Public Listening Session Inquiry: Carbon Pollution Standards 

Dear Angela Hackel, 

I am handicapped and unable to attend any of these sessions. I have written to the EPA 

previously and received no response. So I am writing to each session leader individually 

because of how important I believe this information to be. Perhaps by doing this, at least 

one person will get the message and pass it along. 

As important as reducing the sources of greenhouse gases, is finding a way to sequester the 

current atmospheric overload. Desertification--and the worldwide practice of burning crops 

to prepare land for planting--is likely as great a source of CO2 as the burning of 

carbonaceous fuels. 

How might we halt & reverse this process? 

A man who has spent his life working on this problem has found a solution proven to succeed 

in environments around the globe. This information is vital, as without it, whatever we 

attempt otherwise is doomed to failure. Please take 20 minutes or so to listen to and watch 

a profound and simple idea. 

See: 

[http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_c

hange.html] 

(The legendary methane is absorbed by microorganisms in the soil, FYI.) 

This information needs very much to be brought to public awareness; please share these ideas 

with others. 

Thank you, --Pamela Mohle'/CA/USA 

PS--It would be wonderful if there were any way to show this video at the EPA session: 
11

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Chris Rutan [cgrutan@hotmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:28 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 23:28 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Chris Rutan 

Email: cgrutan@hotmail.com 

Comments: 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I would like to submit the following commentary on the Environmental Protection Agencies 

reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Rutan 

Ø What actions are states, utilities, and power plants taking today that 

reduce CO2 emissions from the electric power sector? 

I feel there are a variety of Colorado initiatives on this front that could be replicated as 

a national template such as Executive Order D00408 pertaining to Reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions in Colorado in essence the Executive Order aims to achieve the following: 

3) By 2020, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado to 20% below its 

2005 levels. 

4) 2050, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Colorado to 80% below its 2005 

levels. 

To achieve the these reductions State agencies are directed to join in a statewide effort, 

coordinated by CDPHE, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, 

GEO, and the Governor’s Office of Policy and Initiatives at the state and local level. 

Since the Environmental Protection Agency Reports that electric power sector accounted for 

33% of U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions and 60% of U.S. 

stationary source greenhouse gas emissions in 2011, Colorado has been leader with its 

adoption of a variety of standards such as the citizens of Colorado passing Amendment 37 in 

2004 to create a 10% RES standard for Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to be achieved by 2015. 

Amendment 37 also established net metering and interconnection standards for the state’s IOUs 

as well as a “carve out” for solar generation. 

 In 2010, Colorado HB10-1001, signed into law that increased the state’s Renewable Energy 

Standard (RES) to 30% by 2020 for Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs). Then most recently this 

year the Senate Bill 252 was signed into law that doubles the renewable energy requirement 

for cooperative utilities of a certain size, allowed for additional technologies to qualify, 

created a distributed generation carve-out for cooperative utilities. The steps taking by 

Colorado to develop a Renewable Energy Standard could easily be replicated at the national 

level. 

Ø What approaches to reducing CO2 emissions from existing power plants 

should be included in EPA’s guidelines to states? 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures a non-partisan organization in a 

July 2009 report, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required the U.S. Environmental 
12

Protection Agency to establish a cap and trade approach to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from coal-burning power plants. 

“At the time, acid rain, which is caused by the release of SO2, was damaging lake and forest 

ecosystems. By 2006, the program had reduced power sector SO2 emissions to 40 percent below 

1990 emission levels, at just one-fourth of projected costs. In 2010, the annual health 

benefits from the program are predicted to total more than $119 billion, not including the 

value of reduced acid content in lakes and streams.” (National Conference of State 

Legislatures 2009) 

 As the United States deals with climate change, an economically efficient way to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions would be using the same approach as reducing SO2 emissions through a 

market-based approach, cap and trade—which limits greenhouse gas emissions and allows 

emitters to trade allowances—now is being implemented in more than 10 states. 

 Despite the popularity of cap and trade, many economists think a carbon tax is the least 

costly and simplest approach. Although few states have considered a carbon tax, Boulder, 

Colo. have created small carbon taxes. 

Ø When should emission reductions from existing power plants be achieved, 

considering different reduction strategies? 

There is a debate on what the number should be on Part Per Million of CO2 in the atmosphere, 

however it is currently at 393.11 according to the Earth System Laboratory and some view that 

we need to lower our mission to 350. If we are going to achieve climate stability we are 

going to need to do it now and on time frames that I mentioned earlier using mechanisms such 

as Cap and Trade, Carbon Tax, and Sky Trust. 

Ø Who should be responsible for achieving the required level of emissions 

reductions? 

In 2007, Xcel Energy the state’s largest IOU serving ~60% of the electric load, was on track 

to reach the existing 10% standard. This occurred seven years earlier then anticipated. 

Emitters such as power plants should be responsible for their emissions. Obviously, this 

could lead to higher rates however this could be offset by the adoption of a Sky Trust. 

Economist Peter Barnes has proposed a market-based institution called a Sky Trust that would 

set limits on carbon emissions and pay dividends to all of us, who collectively own the 

atmosphere as a commons. The Trust would be funded by requiring polluters to pay for the 

right to emit carbon dioxide, and managed by a non-governmental agency. Dividends would be 

paid annually, in much the same way that residents of Alaska today receive cash benefits from 

oil companies that drill in their state through the Alaska Permanent Fund that was 

established in 1976. 

Ø How should performance be measured and verified under different state 

program designs? 

No, there needs to be national template for measurement and verification due to the challenge 

it might cause for competitive disadvantage for certain sectors, regulation inconsistencies, 

and marketplace uncertainty. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
13

From: Gavin, Megan

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:37 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: FW: Public Listening Session Inquiry: Carbon Pollution Standards

FYI 

-----Original Message----- 

From: biz@baymoon.com [mailto:biz@baymoon.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:08 PM 

To: Gavin, Megan 

Subject: Public Listening Session Inquiry: Carbon Pollution Standards 

Dear Megan Gavin, 

I am handicapped and unable to attend any of these sessions. I have written to the EPA 

previously and received no response. So I am writing to each session leader individually 

because of how important I believe this information to be. Perhaps by doing this, at least 

one person will get the message and pass it along. 

As important as reducing the sources of greenhouse gases, is finding a way to sequester the 

current atmospheric overload. Desertification--and the worldwide practice of burning crops 

to prepare land for planting--is likely as great a source of CO2 as the burning of 

carbonaceous fuels. 

How might we halt & reverse this process? 

A man who has spent his life working on this problem has found a solution proven to succeed 

in environments around the globe. This information is vital, as without it, whatever we 

attempt otherwise is doomed to failure. Please take 20 minutes or so to listen to and watch 

a profound and simple idea. 

See: 

[http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_c

hange.html] 

(The legendary methane is absorbed by microorganisms in the soil, FYI.) 

This information needs very much to be brought to public awareness; please share these ideas 

with others. 

Thank you, --Pamela Mohle'/CA/USA 

PS--It would be wonderful if there were any way to show this video at the EPA session: 
14

From: biz@baymoon.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:49 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

As important as reducing the sources of greenhouse gases is finding a way to sequester the 

current atmospheric overload. Desertification--and the worldwide practice of burning crops 

to prepare land for planting--is likely as great a source of CO2 as the burning of 

carbonaceous fuels. 

How might we halt & reverse this process? 

A man who has spent his life working on this problem has found a solution proven to succeed 

in environments around the globe. This information is vital, as without it, whatever we 

attempt otherwise is doomed to failure. 

Please take 20 minutes or so to listen to and watch a profound and simple idea. See: 

[http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_c

hange.html] 

(The legendary methane is absorbed by microorganisms in the soil, FYI.) 

This information needs very much to be brought to public awareness; please share these ideas 

with others. 

Thank you, --PM/CA/USA 
15

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of PAMELA MOHLE' [biz@baymoon.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 7:46 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 19:45 

Submitted values are: 

Name: PAMELA MOHLE' 

Email: biz@baymoon.com 

Comments: 

As important as reducing the sources of greenhouse gases is finding a way to sequester the 

current atmospheric overload. Desertification--and the worldwide practice of burning crops 

to prepare land for planting--is likely as great a source of CO2 as the burning of 

carbonaceous fuels. How might we halt & reverse this process? A man who has spent his life 

working on this problem has found a solution proven to succeed in environments around the 

globe. This information is vital, as without it, whatever we attempt otherwise is doomed to 

failure. Please take 20 minutes or so to listen to and watch a profound and simple idea. 

See: 

[http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_c

hange.html] 

 (The legendary methane is absorbed by microorganisms in the soil, FYI.) This information 

needs very much to be brought to public awareness; please share these ideas with others. 

Thank you, --PM/CA/USA 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
16

From: Marie Venner [marie.venner@vennerconsulting.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 5:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: Nick Venner

Subject: RE: Comment for today's listening session

If it helps, please note our church affiliations as well:

Most Precious Blood Catholic Church, Denver, Colorado

Nick Venner’s comments are as follows:

My name is Nick Venner. I’m 12 years old, and I go to Creighton Middle School in Lakewood, Colorado. 

I think it is very important to have effective carbon pollution standards, for existing power plants, the 

nation’s biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

A carbon tax would be the best way to go. At the very least, EPA should set up a system of emissions 

reductions like credit for demand side reductions that help us transition away from coal and toward clean 

energy sources. EPA has experience with these approaches, such as cap and trade for nitrous oxide 

emissions. These should be over and above existing state renewable energy standards.

There is no more important issue for my generation than controlling greenhouse gas emissions and this action 

can be easily justified on health benefits alone. At this point China is reducing emissions faster than we are. 

We can do better. EPA should implement a system of emission reductions for existing power plants and get 

our country off of coal as soon as possible.

From: Marie Venner [mailto:marie.venner@vennerconsulting.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:48 PM 

To: 'carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov' 

Subject: Comment for today's listening session

To whom it may concern at USEPA,

I wanted to register a comment at the listening session today, as follows:

EPA should set up a system of emissions reductions instead of a best available technology approach. By a 

system of emissions reductions I mean things like credit for demand side reductions, zero generation, etc. EPA 

has experience with cap and trade with NOx control for example.

GHG emission reductions are more than urgent for climate change reasons and can be easily justified on 

health benefits alone. I hope EPA can act swiftly and courageously to uphold the public good in this area.

Sincerely,

Marie Venner
17

720.354.6805

Comments are also in affiliation with two churches:

Most Precious Blood Catholic Church, Denver, CO

Faith Mountain Evangelical Church, Lakewood, Colorado

From: Marie Venner [mailto:marie.venner@vennerconsulting.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:46 AM 

To: 'dew.wendy@epa.gov' 

Subject: Call in between 3-5 pm (Nick or Marie Venner)

 
18

From: Marie Venner [marie.venner@vennerconsulting.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:48 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment for today's listening session

To whom it may concern at USEPA,

I wanted to register a comment at the listening session today, as follows:

EPA should set up a system of emissions reductions instead of a best available technology approach. By a system of 

emissions reductions I mean things like credit for demand side reductions, zero generation, etc. EPA has experience 

with cap and trade with NOx control for example.

GHG emission reductions are more than urgent for climate change reasons and can be easily justified on health benefits 

alone. I hope EPA can act swiftly and courageously to uphold the public good in this area.

Sincerely,

Marie Venner

720.354.6805

From: Marie Venner [mailto:marie.venner@vennerconsulting.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:46 AM 

To: 'dew.wendy@epa.gov' 

Subject: Call in between 3-5 pm (Nick or Marie Venner)

 
19

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Michael P Totten [totten.michael@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/30/2013 - 15:32 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Michael P Totten 

Email: totten.michael@gmail.com

Comments: The proposed carbon pollution standard for New Power Plants is too weak and should 

be substantially strengthened. As the author of the 1989 Global Warming Prevention Action 

(HR 1079) and a quarter century of immersion in promoting climate solutions, I can say 

emphatically that fossil fuel users have been quite aware during this whole time that due 

diligence on emissions from long-term assets like power plants obligated them to deeply 

reduce their emissions. It is long overdue to require the equivalent of zero emissions from 

all new power plants. If this cannot be achieved by technology alone, then such facilities 

should be required to offset all remaining emissions through the use of standards-based 

available carbon offsets. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
20

From: Sengupta, Caryn

Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 11:52 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: FW: Reducing carbon...

Input sent to me rather than to the carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov email address: 

From: elaine hulse [mailto:elaine_hulse@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:29 PM 

To: Sengupta, Caryn 

Subject: Reducing carbon... 

Collect solar power, store it in a supercapacitor, and use the light when necessary. elaine 
21

From: Earl Cantos [nipadu@earthlink.net]

Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:22 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Dear EPA, 

I would suggest a more aggressive campaign in finding effective ways to sequester CO2 

emissions from existing coal-fired plants. Perhaps government subsidies or tax credits to 

initiate these methods to assist utilities with the cost would help. I am also asking the EPA 

to provide more stringent regulations to minimize methane leakages at fracking sites. 

Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and its capture would help in that regard as 

well as limiting wasted energy for the gas companies. 

That's my comment and thank you fro reading it. 

Sincerely, 

Irwin Cantos 
22

From: manfred [manfred5@canby.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 10:51 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: SOLVING THE US DEBT

THE HON. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA - OCTOBER 27, 2013 

THE HON. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN - OCTOBER 27, 2013 

SOLVING THE U.S. DEBT

BY: MANFRED ZYSK, ME. - OCTOBER 27, 2013

E-mail: manfred5@canby.com - Website: www.MZ-Energy.com 

On August 17, 2013, I submitted an e-mail to the Hon. President Barack Obama and to the Hon. 

Vice President Joe Biden with the title: “SOLVING THE U.S. DEBT OF $222 TRILLION.” 

 I further stated that: “In order to climb out of a financial quagmire, certain assets, possessions, 

property and resources of value are needed or have to be available for ultimate repayment.” 

It has come to my attention that the President and Congress can legally issue very high 

denominated coins such as a $1 Trillion Dollar Coins in various denominations and values, and 

the former head of the U.S. Mint Mr. Philip Diehl confirmed that the coin would be legal 

tender. 

In minting the $1 Trillion Platinum Coins, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority 

which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years ...under power expressly granted 

to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). 

Warren Mosler concluded it would work operationally, and the funds would simply be new 

reserve balances at the Fed rather than new Treasury Securities. 

U.S. ASSETS, POSESSIONS, PROPERTIES & FINANCIAL RESOURCES

To repay foreign debts, tangible assets and valuable properties need to exist. Several countries 

including the U.S. are on the verge of a financial collapse. 

Such proposed coins will need to be backed by some form of collateral such as new and 

valuable technology, such as Hydrogen Regeneration Processes and Systems, Matter/Antimatter 

Energy Production Plants, Vacuum Chamber Concrete Building Panels for the building of 

houses and new buildings for the construction industry, including the licensing to architectural 

firms and for real estate dealerships. 
23

If such coins were minted, it would be useful to mint the coins in combination with valued 

minerals such as with silver, gold and platinum and could contain sculptured inlays of any 

particular products and/or industries. The value of the coins is shown on the face of the coins. 

Whenever any such coins are used or traded, a serial number will provide the needed security 

and legal ownership rights. Any foreign industries, governments and countries would be given 

these coins in return for any existing debts and would contain legal face value of the displayed 

products and/or industries. 

The new products could include my small private/commercial jet plane (similar to a flying car) 

and can include completely new airports, and jet plane dealerships for the domestic and foreign 

markets. The possession of such coins shows the legal ownership and value of such properties 

and products with legal documents. 

DNA Research and Development can generate very important new health cures and extend the 

life span for the population. The health potential is tremendous. 

All these new and valuable products require proper development, testing and guarantees for the 

consumer market. This is how the new high valued minted coins can become useful and 

valuable to reduce or eliminate our National Debts. The U.S. government does not own these 

high valued products, but only authorizes these products to be marketed domestically and 

internationally with the use of a new form of legal currency which can contain a value 

added tax. Please respond to my proposal. Thank you.

With best regards, 

Manfred Zysk, M.E. 

1655 S. Elm Street, Unit 5 

Canby, Oregon 97013 

Home Phone: 503-266-1483 

Cell Phone: 503-360-3384 

E-mail: manfred5@canby.com 

Website: www.MZ-Energy.com 
24

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gary Hogan [Hogangaryfwtx@aol.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:45 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 10/27/2013 - 16:45 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Gary Hogan 

Email: Hogangaryfwtx@aol.com

Comments: I live in Texas and feel that the politicians and Energy producers of Texas have 

ignored federal warnings to do more for way too many years. I feel the EPA has to encorage 

the State of Texas in no uncertain terms that they must meet the same standards as any 

other state in the Nation. Having said that I also want to comment although this is about 

CO2 emissions reduction. More importantly the EPA needs to stand up and strt to address the 

massive amounts of Methane released into the atmosphere. Methane is released through the 

shale gas extraction rampent throughout our NAtion. 

Methane is 26 times more damaging and ozone producing than CO2 and is being downplayed and in 

many cases nor even tested for. SO force compliance where needed. Economically TExas needs 

the power we have BUT timetable to come into compliance and protective change must be 

mandated . Texas's plan is inadequate. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
25

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Rebecca Richman [rebecca@studiodune.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sun, 10/27/2013 - 16:31 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Rebecca Richman 

Email: rebecca@studiodune.com

Comments: Mark Tercek, CEO, has an excellent plan, outlined in his new book, Nature's 

Fortune. Put a price on carbon emissions and implement a carbon tax on polluters. This will 

encourage energy conservation and also abate climate change. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
26

From: Paul Ferraro [pferrarogsu@gmail.com]

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 4:33 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comments

My name is Paul J. Ferraro, I am a professor of economics at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at 

Georgia State University in Atlanta (http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/ ) 

As an economist, I believe the economic case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally is strong and a 

focus on stationary sources like power plants is a good first step. 

But, as an economist, I also believe that if we are to going to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a 

given amount, we should do so in a way that minimizes the costs for our citizens. It makes no sense 

economically, or politically, to construct a program that is more expensive than it has to be. You would simply 

confirm your opponents’ exaggerated claims about the economic costs of such regulation. 

The EPA should therefore emphasize market-based regulations rather than standards-based regulations. Let 

facilities figure out the best ways to cost-effectively reduce emissions rather than the government trying 

to identify those ways. In the jargon that the EPA seems to use: let’s take a mass-based approach rather than a 

rate-based approach. I hope that the EPA’s interpretation of the relevant Clean Air Act statutes permits marketbased approaches (like variants of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative). 

The characteristics of GHG emissions are the ideal characteristics for market-based regulations: when there are 

many emissions sources with different costs of reducing emissions and when we don’t care from where the 

pollutant reductions come, market-based regulations are much more cost-effective than standards-based 

regulations. 
27

The United States already has a lot of experience with cap-and-trade systems for SO2 and other pollutants, 

including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and thus the transaction costs of a cap-and-trade 

system for GHG emissions would be low. 

Furthermore, we know how to reduce volatility and uncertainty of the regulation, like clear and consistent rules, 

phase-in of the caps, and judicious use of safety valves [offsets with uncapped sources, however, should not be 

an option, given their potential to reduce the program’s additionality]. Reducing uncertainty and volatility are 

important in order to alleviate the fears of regulation opponents. 

And finally, cap and trade systems would be easier to integrate internationally as more countries act to reduce 

emissions. A standards-based approach would make such international coordination difficult. 

Were the EPA to move toward a national cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions (which it should 

eventually do), I would like to see the emissions permits auctioned and the revenue used to reduce distortionary 

taxes elsewhere in the economy (taxes applied to things we want more of, like labor and investment). I 

recognize, however, that a mix of auctioned permits and free permits may have the best chance of succeeding 

politically. 

Thank you. 

Paul Ferraro 

404-413-0201 

Andrew Young School of Policy Studies 

Georgia State University 

Atlanta, GA 30302-3992 
28

From: Ken Gale [nuffsaid@riseup.net]

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Carbon Pollution Input

Thank you for doing this and for taking citizen input. 

I'm Ken Gale, host and producer of the radio show Eco-Logic on WBAI, 99.5FM in New York City.

I believe that gravity exists; I believe the earth is round and that we breathe oxygen, even 

though we can't see it. 

I saw the superstorm Sandy storm surge from the 10th floor of 120 Wall St. and saw it 

submerge traffic lights on the corner of South St. and Wall St that are at least 18 feet 

high. Not 14 feet, as the official storm surge height has been announced. 

I noticed in the opening remarks at the EPA listening session on October 23rd that 35 states 

have renewable energy standards while only 25 have efficiency standards. What that says to 

me is that money is not the driving force, politics is. Efficiency is much much cheaper, but 

solar power is sexier. The more efficient our buildings are, the less fossil fuel we burn in 

the first place. 

I want to point out that buildings are built to code and no better, therefore improving codes 

would improve air and water quality. I'm not asking for a national building code as if the 

northeast would have the same criteria as the southeast or the southwest desert, but the EPA 

could be a big part of helping improve building codes all over. 

I'd like to see passive house standards adopted and information on them disseminated widely 

[to any staff reading this, google "passive house" 

and look on youtube]. Passive houses save 90% of the energy over a typical building and 

don't cost any more to build. Architect Chris Benedict is building a multi-family passive 

building in Brooklyn without spending any more than any other architect would have to spend. 

I hope the EPA is speaking up on the Trans-Pacific Partnership because if passed, TPP would 

override clear air and clean water laws. It might declare the entire EPA irrelevant. That 

makes "nonessential" look like a good thing. 

Thank you and please don't classify fracked gas as clean energy. 

Ken Gale, New York City, Oct. 23, 2013 
29

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Jane [jbernstein001@nyc.rr.com]

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 7:26 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 10/25/2013 - 07:26 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Jane 

Email: jbernstein001@nyc.rr.com

Comments: Clean air is a very important issue that needs to be addressed. 

Coal would seem to be a good choice, but until the funds are made available to burn it 

cleanly, it shouldn't be on the agenda. More funds need to be appropriated to burn AMERICAN, 

NOT IMPORTED oil. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
30

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Patricia Shanley [trishshanley@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:07 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 23:07 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Patricia Shanley 

Email: trishshanley@hotmail.com

Comments: 

I think the best way to reduce carbon pollutions from existing plants is to tax carbon. This 

way more polluting fuels will be more expensive and customers and power plants will have an 

incentive to look for cleaner ways of producing energy. 

Please pass a carbon tax. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
31

From: Joe Dingman [jdingman@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:39 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: reducing C footprint of power plants

Hello, 

This is my idea to reduce the CO2 emissions of our country: 

It is our goal as a society to reduce our C footprint in any way we can. Removing CO2 from smoke stacks (CCS) is the least expensive process. However, doing something with the removed CO2 is another thing. The best idea is to use CO2 for recovering viscous oil which is difficult to pump, a technique called CO2-EOR. The only caveat is that the oil well be more than 1/2 mile below sea level to keep the CO2 from leaking out. Another use for CO2 is in algae farming. The third and least desirable is to bury LCO2 in likely geological formations not susceptible to leakage. The scale worldwide is enormous, in the 100s of Billions of metric tons of CO2 to be removed 

to get back to 1990 levels of CO2. 

Joe Dingman 
32

From: sidabma@gmail.com on behalf of Sid Abma [Sid@SidelSystems.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:24 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Cc: richard.dunn@btofglobal.com; john.bickel@btofglobal.com

Subject: Carbon Pollution Input

Good day EPA 

Something about our Climate is changing, and I agree with the EPA that by reducing Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, if this helps correct this situation or slows it from deteriorating, it should be done. 

America is blessed to have an abundance of natural gas, but America also wastes a lot of this energy source. 

Why do we still allow all this combusted HOT exhaust to be vented into the atmosphere? 

Natural gas can be consumed to near 100% energy efficiency. The residential market has it's condensing boiler 

and condensing water heaters that can operate at over 95% efficiency. 

America has only 1 grade of natural gas and industry and commercial buildings and the power plants use the 

same grade as the residential market. 

The question is; Why isn't all natural gas more consumed more efficiently? Why do we do we not recognize this 

as Wasted Energy? 

The EIA states that in 2012 commercial buildings and industry and the power plants consumed approx. 19 

Trillion cu.ft.of natural gas. How much of this energy was wasted? 40% - 60% ? 

The technology of Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery has been in use in North America for over 30 years. 

This technology is designed to recover the heat energy from the waste exhaust gases, making this recovered 

heat energy available to be utilized back in the building or facility, or to be used for another application. 

Instead of hot exhaust COOL exhaust can be vented into the atmosphere. Engineered correctly, there will be 

days when the exhaust temperature can be cooler than the outside air temperature. 

The DOE states that for every 1 million Btu's of heat energy recovered from these exhaust gases, and this 

recovered heat energy gets utilized in the building or facility, 117 lbs of CO2 will NOT be put into the 

atmosphere. 

What would this do to help America to reduce it's Carbon footprint? 

There is WATER in combusted natural gas, and in this Condensing Flue Gas Heat Recovery process this water 

is also created / recovered, and this distilled water is very usable. 

What can be done with the recovered heat energy from the power plants across the country? 

This is America. What can't be done with this recovered heat energy? The goal is to convert this energy into 

producing product and jobs. 

The cooled CO2 can be utilized efficiently in processes, or converted with our Sidel Carbon Capture Utilization 

System. This CO2 will also become a profit stream, instead of an expense to dispose of. 

Sidel Systems USA Inc. and Global Universe License & Finance Inc. look forward to the opportunity to sit 

together with the EPA and the DOE to show the possibilities that can be realized. 

We look forward to your reply. 

 Have a Fantastic Day! 
33

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented 

auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.

 

What natural gas is not wasted today, will be there to be used another day. 

Sid Abma 

www.SidelSystems.com

(805) 462-1250

1 800 668-5003

Sidel Systems Info Download :: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l88zRg6rwbM

My profiles: 

 

This electronic message contains information from Sidel Systems USA Inc., which may be company 

sensitive, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The information is intended to be 

used solely by the recipient (s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient, be aware that any 

review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this transmission or its contents is prohibited.

Get a sig natu re like this. C LICK HERE. 
34

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Gail Noon [gailmaria51@att.net]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:58 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Thu, 10/24/2013 - 13:58 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Gail Noon 

Email: gailmaria51@att.net 

Comments: I want the EPA (and President Obama) to go BEYOND what is presently planned as 

President Obama's Clean Energy Agenda.............we need to start thinking "OUTSIDE THE 

BOX"...............go ALL THE WAY in our thinking AND implementation -- to go into the future 

into TOTAL environmental energy sources and methods/procedures.........and not let ANYTHING 

(even our 

thinking/ideas) limit us in what we can achieve in the coming years ! 

(environmentally) 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
35

From: Julian Brzoznowski/North Star Electric Coop [jbrzoznowski@northstarelectric.coop]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:40 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Fwd: Electricity from Coal

Sent from my iPad 

Subject: Fwd: Electricity from Coal

Sent from my iPad 

Begin forwarded 

Subject: Electricity from Coal

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov . 

Hello EPA,

I’ll keep this short. America needs reliable, safe, and 

affordable energy. The president promised an ‘all-of-theabove’ approach, which includes coal. It appears the EPA is 

deviating from that and pursuing an ‘all-BUT-one approach’, 

attempting to eliminate coal by setting standards so high 

that compliance is not possible. 

American rural electric cooperatives have been spending

hundreds of billions of dollars to make significant 

improvements in emissions from their coal-fired plants. We 

should be focusing on continuing the technological advances 

with coal so we can help the rest of the world burn coal 

more cleanly. Someone is going to burn the coal, and it 

makes sense for that to be us.

Thank you,
36

Julian Brzoznowski

Orr, Minnesota
37

From: M. Settell [srs@bridgemail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:51 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants.

Use waste heat from primary combustion to operate Freon or helium gas turbines....recover 

additional mechanical energy from heat. Use Thermo electrics to recover final electrical heat. 

Theoretical recovery from combustion should increase ~ 20% 

Cheers 

Mike Settell, 

Chairman, 

Sustainable Resource Solutions, llc 
38

From: Lisa Veeck [LISAV@issa.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:33 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: outdated

Close the plant in South Haven, MI. It is outdated and how many times has it failed to meet standards. . My suggestion is when they are too old to operate safely, shut them down. 
39

From: Sam Wylde III [samiii@ener-g.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 10:16 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Cement and Bread/Buns 

Cement 

An estimated 5% of total CO2 emissions is from cement manufacturing. Cement made using ash from sugar cane 

produces less CO2 emissions and produces superior cement. Ash from other agricultural sources should be considered 

for this. 

Environmentally friendly cement is stronger than ordinary cement. R&D Magazine. Source. Niels 

Bohr Institute

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2013/09/environmentally-friendly-cement-stronger-ordinarycement?et_cid=3483414&et_rid=387315345&location=top

Spoiled Bread/Buns 

Bakeries toss huge amounts of spoiled products. They are required to restock shelves in grocery stores and the stale 

bread/buns goes in the garbage. Bread is a natural raw material for making ethanol and bio-fuels. It should be used for 

this. 

This electronic message contains information which is confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for 

the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any 

disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this transmision is prohibited. If you received this message in 

error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and all copies. 

 
40

From: Diana [dianamarmorstein@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:36 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: reducing carbon pollution

To Whom it May Concern:

One method for reducing CO2 emissions from existing power plants is to pump the (scrubbed) flue gases into microalgal photobioreactors or raceway ponds. The CO2 will thus be used to produce fuels that replace fossil fuels. This will reduce CO2 

emissions overall.

In order to make this viable, government subsidies or increased taxes on fossil fuels will be necessary. Such government 

intervention is completely justifiable given the crisis of climate change and is much more justifiable than this and the previous 

administrations' expenditures of trillions of dollars to engage in wars of choice.

Sincerely,

Diana Marmorstein, Ph.D. 
41

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dr. Murray Kiok [mkiok3@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:09 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 22:08 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Dr. Murray Kiok 

Email: mkiok3@gmail.com

Comments: Apartment buildings should be encouraged to plant gardens and install solar energy 

devices, both of which will reduce the use of air conditioners and the burning of fuel that 

pollutes the atmosphere. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
42

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Erica Klaw [eklaw@hotmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:31 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 21:30 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Erica Klaw 

Email: eklaw@hotmail.com

Comments: 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I am strongly in favor of making currently energy more efficient. 

Particularly at existing power plants. 

•Energy efficiency is a clean energy solution that can save businesses and families money 

while creating jobs and reducing emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful air 

pollutants. 

•Climate change will impact many facets of human health in the U.S., and as a Physician 

Assistant, I see, first hand the effect of environmental toxins on people's health. The 

supporting data is there, the connections are there. 

I regularly see asthmatic patients, often requiring ever more medications to control their 

symptoms. 

•The winds of change are blowing briskly. In red, purple and blue states alike, wind is 

meeting new electricity needs. In 2012, wind power led the nation in new capacity additions 

for electricity generation. Working together, our nation can power forward with clean, safe 

and cost-effective electricity 

Finally, I am strongly in favor of supporting research into bio-mass as an alternative fuel. 

I have been reading about a company in California that has newly been able to use bio-mass, 

in smoldering form, to generate electricity. 

This is outstanding and our government, particularly, the EPA should be all over this with 

support !! 

Thank you very much for your time, 

Sincerely, 

Erica Klaw PA-C 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
43

From: Mike Carey [mike4carey@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:57 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Comment: Reducing Carbon Pollution from Existing Sources

EPA Comment - Oct 22, 2013: 

Public input about reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants 

PROGRAM TO REDUCE POLLUTION FROM EXISTING COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS: 

During the conversion of existing coal fired power plants to cleaner technologies using carbon sequestration, the 

heat generating capacity of the plants can be replaced with on-site Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) nuclear 

technology. The existing steam powered electrical generators and distribution systems can be retained to 

provide uninterrupted power to existing customers while emitting no carbon or other combustion pollutants. 

MSRs can run on any nuclear fuel and they can be designed to recycle existing stockpiles of nuclear waste. 

Most important, they can run on thorium, which is about 500 times more available in the earth's crust than the 

uranium-235 that is used now in nuclear reactors. Thorium is a waste product of rare earth mining, so the world 

has a huge amount of thorium already mined. 

MORE ABOUT MSRs: 

*MSRs can't blow up because they don't generate explosive gases or operate with superheated water at high 

pressures. 

*MSRs can't melt down because the nuclear reaction automatically slows down as the hot liquid salt expands in 

volume if it overheats. 

*MSRs are walk-away safe because no power supply is required for gravity to drain the liquid salt into 

underground storage tanks if necessary. 

*MSRs run cheaper to operate than burning coal because the initial fuel load is allowed to proceed 

uninterrupted for many years to release almost all of its energy without having to be reprocessed or stored as 

"spent" fuel. 

*MSRs are cheaper to build than existing nuclear reactors because no high pressure containment vessels are 

needed. 

*MSRs are safer to secure because no enriched uranium fuel needs to be produced or transported for periodic 

refueling. 

*MSRs were operationally demonstrated for two years at the Oak Ridge National Labs in the1960s as part of 

the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment). 

MSRs can provide clean, safe electric power, cheaper than coal, and are exactly what the world needs right 

now. 

Contact the ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com to get more information, or arrange for one or more speakers to talk 

about MSRs: 
44

John Kutsch, Director 

Thorium Energy Alliance 

Suite 201 

107 W Front St 

Harvard, IL 60033 

312-303-5019 

thoriumenergyalliance@gmail.com
45

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of RiHo08 [HONICKY@MSU.EDU]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 5:57 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 17:56 

Submitted values are: 

Name: RiHo08 

Email: HONICKY@MSU.EDU

Comments: 

To address carbon pollution the EPA needs to distinguish particulate carbon from CO2. PM 2.5 

is a reasonable standard to address as PM 2.5 regulations address soot from fossil fuel 

burning. On the other hand, CO2, and in particular at what atmospheric concentrations has not 

been shown empirically to be a pollutant, rather, this remains in the domain of 

atmospheric/ocean models. As the current AR 5 has not solved the 30 year dilemma of 

sensitivity in spite of billions spent, makes CO2 labeled a pollutant only in the models, and 

is suspect at best. 

In a 5 year cycle of EPA regulation, address new fossil fuel power plants in a stepwise 

fashion. Deal first with what has empirical evidence, addressing PM 2.5 for new fossil fuel 

power plants seems prudent. Any progress in reducing PM 2.5 can be measured over short 

periods with current technology. 

CO2 mitigation as a current strategy seems unwise as over the last 30 years, assessing what 

is climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2, has not only proven elusive, but has shown no 

progress at all in a measurable outcome from reducing CO2 as a significant forcing. 

As the cost of energy is rising by mandating subsidized and intermittent energy sources as 

solar and wind, the harm done by escalating energy costs is substantial already. As the rollout for the Affordable Care Act has shown, regulations depending on not doing harm by 

providing subsidies to the most needy, will continue to do harm long after any Washington 

meltdown has passed. 

My recommendations are for EPA to separate particulate carbon (soot) regulations from CO2 

mitigation. Apply engineering standards to science regarding CO2, particularly as considered 

a pollutant. Encourage energy technology development that does not require subsidies for 

sustainability. 

Measure impact of what ever regulations EPA promulgates with the cost of energy at the plug 

in homes and as a cost of doing business. Transparency in your deliberations seems essential. 

Accountability to decision making seems a necessity as well since the energy costs will be 

borne by the public at large and the public should be participants in such regulations. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
46

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Rudy Stefenel [rudystefenel@yahoo.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:19 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 14:19 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Rudy Stefenel 

Email: rudystefenel@yahoo.com

Comments: 

Plans to reduce Carbon Pollution most effectively must involve MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors). 

They are a totally different than our existing light-water nuclear reactors in operation now.

They can't blow up 

They can't melt down 

MSRs are walk away safe 

Run cheaper than burning coal 

MSRs are cheaper to build than existing nuclear reactors. 

MSRs are proven 

PROGRAM TO REDUCE POLLUTION FROM EXISTING POWER PLANTS: 

The heat generating part of coal electric plants can be replaced with MSR 

technology. We can reuse the steam operated electrical generators and quit 

burning coal completely. 

And likewise, the heat generating part of existing nuclear reactors can be 

replaced with MSR technology. MSRs can run on any nuclear fuel and they can 

be designed to run on nuclear waste too. Most important, they can run on 

thorium, which is about 500 times more available in the earth's crust than 

the uranium235 that we use now in nuclear reactors. Thorium is a waste 

product of rare earth mining, so the world has a huge amount of thorium already mined. We 

can use up the spent nuclear “waste” right on the spot and use up nuclear fuel stored at 

these nuclear plants. Most important, we can run nuclear plants that have been converted to 

MSRs on thorium for thousands of years without running out of fuel. 

Instead of building more light water reactors, we can build MSRs for less investment, less 

operating cost, and they can be located anywhere because they don't have to be next to water. 

MSRs don't require water cooling. 

MORE ABOUT MSRs: 

MSRs can't blow up because they don't use superheated water and they run at atmospheric 

temperature. 

MSRs can't melt down because they use a liquid salt solution instead of solid fuel rods. 

MSRs were was proven at Oak Ridge National Labs in the1960s with the MSRE (Molten Salt 

Reactor Experiment). 

Clean safe electric power, cheaper than coal IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT and exactly what the 

world needs right now. 
47

Contact the ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com to get one or more speakers about MSRs. 

John Kutsch, Director 

Thorium Energy Alliance 

Suite 201 

107 W Front St 

Harvard, IL 60033 

312-303-5019 

thoriumenergyalliance@gmail.com

I suggest one or more of the following speakers: 

* Robert Hargraves, PhD, robert.hargraves@gmail.com

* Alex Cannara, PhD, cannara@sbcglobal.net

* Robert Greene, PhD, bobgreenephd@gmail.com, ragreene@covad.net

* John Kutsch Director ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com, ragreene@covad.net

John Kutsch can suggest other speakers too. 

Check these web sites to learn something about MSRs in advance: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS2JrWa_Wkc

www.ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com

Rudy Stefenel, Retired Electronic Engineer 

member: Thorium Energy Alliance 

member: Thorium Energy Silicon Valley 

Milpitas, CA 95035 

408-209-6953 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
48

From: Aloiz Kastelic [alex10@netspace.net.au]

Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2013 12:38 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Re: carbon pollution

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am Slovenian borne Australian.

I am in position of 2 Patents dealing with above nominated problems.

One is to reduce emission of trough chimney offensive gases in proximity between 60-80%.

The other is to reduce city pollution like smog.

Are you interested to negotiate for above?.

Yours respectively.

A.Kaastelic.

My contact:

Alojz (Alec) Kastelic

87 Grantham Terace

Mulgrave Vic.3170

Ph.61 3 97959433

E-mail alex10@netspace.net.au

Australia. 
49

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Tom Stevens [tallspruce@usa.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 11:32 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 10/19/2013 - 23:32 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Tom Stevens 

Email: tallspruce@usa.com

Comments: Please consider allowing micro generation by homes & small businesses. Hydrogen 

powered generators can supply less costly power by using recycled water as a hydrogen source.

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
50

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Candyce W.

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:18 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 21:17 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Candyce W. 

Email: 

Comments: They have made different mechanisms that function as plants and photosynthesize 

you could use these artificial plants and help produce more oxygen then carbon or we could 

use more renewable resources Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
51

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of nnjackshan [nnjackshan@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:46 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Wed, 10/16/2013 - 11:46 

Submitted values are: 

Name: nnjackshan 

Email: nnjackshan@gmail.com

Comments: 

Inventor Name: Nadarasa Navaraj-Jackshan 

Inventor Contact: 01, Veppankulam, Omanthai, Vavuniya, Srilanka 

Inventor TP: 0094-71-71-71-81-0 / 0094-77-088-94-94 Inventor Email: nnjackshan@email.com / 

nnjackshan@gmail.com

Inventor web: www.y8k.8k.com

Invention Name: Automatic Power Generating System Description of invention (This innovation 

for the next generation) 

Automatic Power Generating System . Running without induction ( wind , water , solar , 

nuclear , fuel , ) to run without arbitrary . This could provide free electricity for homes . 

Normal (0.1 (A) to 10 (A) = 230V or 0.1 (A) to 

10 (A) = 240V) until free , can provide a strong decrease . 10 (A) to 40 (A) = 230V or 10 (A) 

to 40 (A) = 240V unabated strength to be able to deliver quality . This is due to the 

discovery of the next generation Main function of the invention (This innovation for the next 

generation) 

Minpirappakkal or power 

 Details of invention (This innovation for the next generation) 

 Automatic Power Generating System (This innovation for the next generation) than other 

power devices 

1 All Power Generating System s 100 percent different than the operating system . 

2 . Arbitrary executable without any stimulation ( wind , water , solar , nuclear , fuel , ) 

3 . Higher potential . 

4 . Without the need for additional maintenance 

5 . Safe 

6 . AC power 

7 . AC power co- generation capacity will be less 

8 . Atalottam been consistent about 
52

9 . There is a number in Hz 

10 . Will not change the amount Hz 

11 . Together reduce the amount Hz 

12 . Amps (A) the amount of capacity that can automatically select 

13 . Amps (A) the amount of change to reach the facility 

14 . Power supplies are visiting the facility 

15 . Amps (A) Supply the size of the viewing facility 

16 . Volts (V) Supply degree viewing facility 

17 . Equivalent to the national power supply power supply 

18 . No need to mincirakki 

19 . As the national power supply . You can use 

20 . Alternative to the national power supply 

21 . 100 times higher than the national standard power supply 

22 . Increases the life of electrical equipment 

23 . Battery -free operation 

24 . Very very clean electricity 

25 . In comparison with the very low rate of air mixing 

26 . Watts of pure 

27 . Malignant 

 Electricity Power Production Costs 

No 100 % free 

Power Cut 

Electrosection that there is no place to talk . No dreams electrosection 

Automatic Power Generating System Can use Place 

Houses , shops , offices , factories , factories , schools , and throughout the world 

 (This innovation for the next generation) Approximately 6,000,000,000 - 7,000,000,000 

people , or everyone was welcome , and indirect beneficiaries . It goes around the world 

pavikkappata , the next generation is the discovery 

Count of Job Receivers This is due to the discovery of the next generation . 

Start 4,000,000,000 7,000,000,000 Automatic Power Generating System's production will need to 

do . Therefore , people from 100000 to 1900000 people . Will offer new business 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
53
54

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Rick Badman [rbadman46@aol.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:58 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 10/15/2013 - 22:57 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Rick Badman 

Email: rbadman46@aol.com

Comments: I want to bring in drawings of concepts to leave with the EPA and UCSUSA. Will 

there be people who will examine the ideas and hopefully develop them? I know that the DOE 

didn't want to work on my solar stack idea because it wanted a model. If I had a working 

model, I would be a billionaire now because I would have sold the idea to electric companies 

like Westinghouse or General Electric. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
55

From: Kantilal Khatri [kanti12us@yahoo.com]

Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:50 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Contact Us Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

10/12/2013 

Sir/Madam, 

I am extremely disturbed by knowing that the world is going blindly behind Wind Energy 

despite the knowledge of so many draw backs including enormous cost of building wind mills 

and maintenance, unreliability and social impacts. 

More so when it is possible to get cheap electricity from other Renewable as well as Reusable 

source, A Chemical that could be exploited due to its very peculier Physical and chemical 

properties. 

I wish the involved agencies realize that fact and stop wasting money that could better be 

utilized for research in that Project of Mine. 

This is not hoax. It is very scientific and needs to be evaluated by scientific methods. 

I hope for feedback in this matter from agencies involved in Green Energy. 

Dr. K. Khatri 

Sent from my iPad kalimaharaj 
56

From: ruthduemler@comcast.net

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 6:15 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: carbon fee

When industrial emission fees were established in San Diego I understand emissions were reduced. Since the burning 

process also increases NOX emissions at almost the same level as CO2 and the fee is established could the EPA just 

increase the NOX emission fee and have the same result as an additional carbon fee? Ruth Duemler
57

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of John Neville [jneville@sustainablearizona.org]

Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 1:29 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 13:28 

Submitted values are: 

Name: John Neville 

Email: jneville@sustainablearizona.org

Comments: An idea that many of us have had regarding pollution from existing power plants is 

this: tax the pollution by the pound. Do not set control system requirements. Let the 

engineers figure out how to bring their plants down below de minimus levels. Just set a cost, 

such as $20/ton of CO2 emitted and matching standards for NOx, SOx and mercury. With the 

right kind of taxes in place, power plant owners will be forced to reduce emissions or shut 

down the plants. Both options would be positive for human health, the environment, and 

industry innovation. If a tax requires Congressional approval, then switch to a fee that 

kicks in when power plants exceed the level of emissions set for new power plants. That 

approach can be limited to the EPA's executive capabilities. As you know, we must reduce our 

GHG emissions by 80% before 

2050 or face catastrophic climate change impacts. So, let's get about it. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
58

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of David Lund [jzzy_7995.kat@att.net]

Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:50 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 09/23/2013 - 15:49 

Submitted values are: 

Name: David Lund 

Email: jzzy_7995.kat@att.net

Comments: My comments here are the same as for the proposal for new power plants. Do not be 

so picky about the method used to reduce emissions. Be satisfied with getting the emissions 

reduced, and let the utilities choose whatever method works best for them. The current EPA 

advocated technology has the potential to kill people if the CO2 leaks from it. Even former 

Energy Secretary Steven Chu warned of that possibility. A potentially better alternative 

would be to use a type of algae to sequester the emissions. The University of New Hampshire 

was actually studying that option but the EPA is ignoring the research. Algae is a green 

plant and absorbs CO2. When a green plant absorbs CO2 it does not leak. The same kind of 

algae was later found to secrete a natural biodiesel, which could be sold to offset the cost 

of sequestration while providing an added benefit of reducing oil imports. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
59

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Keith Hilliard [keith@refuelcarbon.com]

Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 3:04 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Mon, 09/23/2013 - 15:03 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Keith Hilliard 

Email: keith@refuelcarbon.com

Comments: My name is Keith Hilliard and I am working with a company that is manufacturing a 

product that can be used with Co-fired plants to reduce the carbon emissions. We would like 

to be able to attend any meetings where we can talk about our product and how it can help 

with existing coal fired plants. If at all possible is there a number in which we can call to 

speak with someone about this or even to give a little more info about our product. 

Our webpage is www.refuelcarbon.com

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
60

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of jdlaughead [jdlaughead@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:20 AM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Sat, 09/21/2013 - 01:19 

Submitted values are: 

Name: jdlaughead 

Email: jdlaughead@gmail.com

Comments: When is the JET aircraft going to STOP using the Jet Stream, for all this bad 

weather you can thank it to them,and the Jet Soot and CO2 just keeps building up, at this 

rate the earth by 2020 will be inhabitable! 

Tornados come out of the Jet Stream. The Jet Stream is moving more and more closer to the 

North Pole, due to all the carbon Soot and the magnetic pull of the Pole ,,Vermont should 

have a great ski season, if they can get t0 the ski resort. 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards 
61

From: drupal_admin@epa.gov on behalf of Dan Tyndall [tyndaldw@airproducts.com]

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 4:06 PM

To: Carbon Pollution Input

Subject: Webform Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Website

Submitted on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 16:06 

Submitted values are: 

Name: Dan Tyndall 

Email: tyndaldw@airproducts.com

Comments: Does the EPA plan to specifically address utilization of Biogas, from digesters or 

landfill sources, as a means to reduce Carbon Pollution? If so, how? 

Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards