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-a e mo-100pc-renew/

Again: Batteries are not included with renewables bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/13/energy-storage-dt/#mor e-5281

bravenewclimate.com/2011/07/03/lacklustre-colorado-so lar/ 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_p ictures_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-ba t tery/

ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/RE.html "Renewable Energy – Cannot Sustain an Energy-Intensive Society."

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

bravenewclimate.com/2013/05/02/100pc-renew-study-need s-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.34 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 360-499-21735 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 iPad6 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
Su bmitted 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 Weldon7 Web Area: Carbon Pollution Standards8 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards9 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards10 From: Hackel, Angela Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:15 AM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: FW: Public Listening Session Inquiry: Carbon Pollution Standards

FY I -----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
Su bmitted 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. Environmental12 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 Alask a 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 natio nal 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 Standards13 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

cu rrent 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/USA15 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards16 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 v ery 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 sy stem 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

ca n 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: m arie.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 sy stem 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 he alth benefits alone. I hope EPA can act swiftly and courageously to uphold the public good in this area.

Sincerely,

Marie Venner17 

### 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 sessi o n today, as follows:

EPA should set up a sys tem 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 climat e 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 [ m ailto: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
Su bmitted 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 Standards20 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 carb onpollutioninput@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...



### Co llect solar power, store it in a supercapacitor, and use the light when necessary. elaine21 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 Cantos22 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



# S O LVING 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 legall y 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 th e funds would simply be new reserve balances at the Fed rather than new Treasury Securities

. U.S. ASSETS, POSESSIONS, PROPERTIES & FINANCIAL RESOUR CES

To repay foreign debts, tangible assets and valuable p roperties 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 Plan ts, 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 th e 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 use d 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.com24 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards25 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards26 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

Ge orgia 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 consiste nt 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 30302-399228 From: Ken Gale [nuffsaid@riseup.net] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:19 PM To: Carbon Pollution Input Subject: Carbon Pollution Input

Th ank 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, 201329 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards30 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards31 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 Dingman32 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

So mething 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards35 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



### Se nt from my iPad

Subject: Fwd: Electricity from Coal

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded

Subject: Electricity from Coal

carbonpollutioninput@epa.gov

.



# Hel lo EPA,

I’ll keep this short. America needs reliable, safe, a n d affordable energy. The president promised an ‘ all-of-theabove ’ approach, which includes coal. It appears the EPA is devi ating from that and purs u ing an ‘ all- BUT -one approach ’

, att empting 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.

T h ank you,36



# Julian Brzoznowski Orr, Minnesota37 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 ad ditional 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, llc38 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



### Ce ment

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 sh ould 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 photob i oreactors 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 in tervention 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards42 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards43 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: Pu blic 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.com45 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
Su bmitted 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 assolar 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 Standards46 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards48 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 al ex10@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
Su bmitted 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 Standards50 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards51 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
Su bmitted 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 decreas e . 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 about52 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 Standards5354 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards55 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 Si r/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 possibl e 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 kalimaharaj56 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 Duemler57 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards58 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards59 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards60 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
Su bmitted 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 Standards61 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
Su bmitted 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