| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Alee |
Posted - Apr 19 2009 : 7:51:32 PM
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2009/Update81.htm
March 31, 2009 - 1
Copyright © 2009 Earth Policy Institute
THE END OF AN ERA:
Closing the Door on Building New Coal-fired Power Plants in America
Jonathan G. Dorn
Community opposition, legal challenges, and financial uncertainty over future carbon costs are prompting companies to rethink their plans for coal. Since the beginning of 2007, 95 proposed coal-fired power plants have been cancelled or postponed in the United States—59 in 2007, 24 in 2008, and at least 12 in the first three months of 2009. This covers nearly half of the 200 or so U.S. coal-fired power plants that have been proposed for construction since 2000. The vast majority of the remaining proposals are essentially on hold, awaiting word on whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going to impose limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. With further legal challenges ahead and the regulation of CO2 imminent, 2009 may very well witness the end of new coal-fired power plants in the United States.
An April 2007 Supreme Court ruling is proving to be a seminal decision. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the agency authority to regulate CO2 emissions and that the EPA must review whether such emissions pose a threat to public health or welfare. Complying with the Court order, new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson submitted an endangerment finding to the White House in late March 2009 indicating that human health and welfare are indeed threatened by CO2 emissions. This finding opens the door to regulating CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. Such regulation would provide a backup option for curbing emissions if Congress fails to set limits on them through legislation.
Congress, however, is under increasing pressure from grassroots activists to take on Big Coal. Encouraged by calls from former Vice President Al Gore and leading climate scientist James Hansen for civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal-fired power plants, thousands of individuals from across the United States converged on Washington, DC, on March 2, 2009, to protest the coal-burning Capitol Power Plant and to urge Congress to pass legislation to reduce carbon emissions. The rally was the largest act yet of civil disobedience against coal in the United States. (See timeline and data.)
Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi are strong advocates of regulating carbon emissions and are pressing to get a climate bill through Congress before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. If limits on CO2 emissions are imposed via a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, the operating cost of fossil-fuel based power plants would increase. And since the burning of coal releases more CO2 per unit of energy than any other energy source, coal-fired power plants would be hit the hardest. With President Barack Obama calling for a cap-and-trade program to curb carbon emissions, the future for new coal-fired power plants looks tenuous at best.
Even if legislation to regulate carbon emissions does not materialize this year, approval of pending permits for coal-fired power plants is potentially on hold. In November 2008, prior to the endangerment finding, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board determined that the agency’s regional office must consider whether to regulate CO2 emissions before approving an air quality permit for a proposed coal-fired plant in Utah. This not only put the brakes on building the Utah plant, it set a precedent to halt the permitting process for any proposed plant until the EPA determines whether and how to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act.
At the state level, actions within various branches of government demonstrate the growing distaste for coal. Since May 2007, the governors of Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin have all taken action or voiced opposition to new coal-fired power plants. In her State of the State address in February 2009, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm called for an evaluation of “all feasible and prudent alternatives before approving new coal-fired power plants” in Michigan—placing at least five proposed coal plants on hold. Instead of investing in coal plants that would require Michigan to buy coal from Montana and Wyoming, Governor Granholm stated that money spent on improving energy efficiency and tapping renewable energy sources in Michigan would create thousands of new jobs in the state.
This viewpoint does not seem to have occurred to the Kansas legislature, which is attempting for the fourth time in a year to pass a bill that would let Sunflower Electric Power Corporation build a 1,400-megawatt coal-burning power plant in Holcomb. With vast wind resources, it makes little sense for Kansas to rely on coal, a more expensive out-of-state fuel that creates fewer jobs than wind development for a given investment. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed all attempts by the legislature to approve the coal plant.
In June 2008, Georgia Superior Court Judge Thelma Moore, in accordance with the Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, rescinded an air pollution permit issued by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the proposed 1,200-megawatt Longleaf coal-fired power plant. Judge Moore’s action halted construction on the plant and marked the first time that CO2 had been cited as a factor in denying an air pollution permit. And in February 2009, Georgia legislators introduced House Bill 276 calling for an immediate moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants in the state and the phase-out by mid-2016 of the burning of any coal extracted by mountaintop removal.
Power companies and utilities are responding to the increasing regulatory uncertainty and mounting public opposition by backing away from coal and turning to clean, renewable sources of energy, such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Dynegy Inc., a wholesale power provider serving 13 states, announced in January 2009 that it will no longer continue its joint venture with LS Power Associates, L.P., to build up to seven new coal-fired power plants. On the day that Dynegy made the announcement, its stock price rose 19 percent. Several weeks later, Arizona’s largest electric utility, Arizona Public Service Co., submitted a Resource Plan to the Arizona Corporation Commission indicating that it will not build any new coal-fired power plants because the carbon risk is too high. In late February, Oklahoma Gas & Electric released a plan to turn to renewable energy and defer building any fossil-fired power plants until at least 2020.
The notion that the United States needs additional coal-fired electricity generation to meet electrical demand is misguided. Simply using electricity more efficiently could reap large energy gains. A recent study by the Rocky Mountain Institute found that if the 40 least energy-efficient states raised their electric productivity—the dollars of gross domestic product generated per kilowatt hour of electricity consumed—to the average level of the 10 most efficient states, 62 percent of coal-fired power generation in the United States could be shut down—roughly 370 coal plants.
The events of the past two years illustrate that the door is closing on the prospect of building new coal-fired power plants in the United States. While only five new coal plants, totaling 1,400 megawatts, began operation in 2008, more than 100 wind farms capable of generating 8,400 megawatts came online. Yet this is only the beginning. To have a decent chance of mitigating the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change, our attention should now turn to phasing out all coal-fired electricity generation over the next decade.
Copyright © 2009 Earth Policy Institute
Alee
Farmgirl Sister #8
www.awarmheart.com
www.farmgirlalee.blogspot.com
www.allergyjourneys.blogspot.com
Put your pin on the farmgirl map! www.farmgirlmap.blogspot.com |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alee |
Posted - Apr 22 2009 : 09:59:50 AM
Like I said before, I see your side, but I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Alee
Farmgirl Sister #8
www.awarmheart.com
www.farmgirlalee.blogspot.com
www.allergyjourneys.blogspot.com
Put your pin on the farmgirl map! www.farmgirlmap.blogspot.com |
| goneriding |
Posted - Apr 22 2009 : 09:00:38 AM
I can't find the one that was dated just a few days ago about the thickening ice. It was on a science site but can't find it. It was in a site on their science pages... I looked up the PhD and she has an agenda to promote. Read her bio.
This world is a giant machine and will do what it needs to do to keep spinning. I'm thinking the Guardian is left leaning, not quite sure as I don't have time right now to check it out. Kind of like CNN, you know how their stories are slanted before even hearing or reading them. (not to slam CNN, that's their biz model and the way they do biz but you know what they are about before going any farther) In their article, it kind of borders on yellow journalism...only gives one side. If they are an opinion piece, that's fine but they are promoting themselves as a newspaper which is supposed to be unbiased and fair and give both side. There should have been a mention at least about the 'other' side. The last one seems a pretty good one but still it's left leaning and only one sided. I think it's more an opinion piece as I don't recognize it as mainstream. It could be but I haven't heard of it. (I have to get going to start my moving but will check it out as I'm curious) If you look at the sponsors, you get a pretty good idea. My examples are from the main pages of ask.com and you have a choice to pick from. Both pro and con. I don't see anything as everthing is either left or right but a mingling of both. There is a little of both in whatever we do. I try to only pay attention to articles that give both sides and make their points that way.
When there is so much money to be made in 'climate change', I'm suspicious. When do we not have climate change?? Had climate change since the beginnign of time. There are agendas going on here.
Oh, don't know if you're old enough to remember but back in the 1970's (I was in high school) the 'scientists' were worried about global cooling and wigged out about it. An ice age was coming, so they thought. So someone suggested taking charcoal up to the Arctic and spreading it around so the coal would absorb the sun's heat and help heat the earth. Yep, that happened. So from the 1970's to now, we're too warm? Don't think so. Just natural earth climate change.
Winona :-)
Winona ;-)
To read funny stories about my cooking 'skills', please visit http://lostadventuresincooking.blogspot.com/
For uber-opinionated, pleasurable horse related reading, please visit http://horseinfoperson.blogspot.com/
|
| Alee |
Posted - Apr 22 2009 : 07:51:57 AM
Hi Winona-
I understand where you are coming from about the politicians having a personal gain and them not being partial. I also noticed that article that you found was dated back in 2002. When all is said and done, the reason I had found the original article interesting was nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with feeling hopeful that perhaps the mainstream is starting to see the advantage of clean energy.
Here is an article from 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/ice-shelf-wilkins-antarctic
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
And one from 2008 authored by a PH.D
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/01/22/ice-shrinking-or-growing/
And about the Arctic Ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Alee
Farmgirl Sister #8
www.awarmheart.com
www.farmgirlalee.blogspot.com
www.allergyjourneys.blogspot.com
Put your pin on the farmgirl map! www.farmgirlmap.blogspot.com |
| goneriding |
Posted - Apr 21 2009 : 9:15:49 PM
Here's an article that reports ice thickening in Antarctica AND ice thinning in the Arctic.
I found multiple sites that say BOTH. http://www.ask.com/web?q=arctic%20ice%20thinning%20or%20thickening%3F&qsrc=145&o=12770&l=dir and http://www.ask.com/web?q=antartic%20ice%20thickening%20or%20thinning%3F&qsrc=145&o=12770&l=dir Take your pick!! hehehe... Sort of a 'what's your poison' sort of deal.
As for ethics, not to argumentative (really, I'm not, I just like a good spririted debate!!), but I have a pretty gut feeling when some politician (no matter who, right or left wing), like Pelosi or Gore, have a financial stake in somehting they are promoting and scaring the snot out of people who don't bother to investigate further. To me, this is a big confict of interest for a politician. They hope and pray that it gets swept under the carpet after being 'outed'.
I looked at the earth policy instituet site and, to me, doesn't give a balanced view. That's fine. Just be sure to check opposing viewpoints. Checking some personally held beliefs of a lifetime have now been changed after my doing some investigative reporting on the net. That was some hard ones for me but it was important for me too. That's why I say I'm not trying to argue, just my experience.
Winona :-)
To read funny stories about my cooking 'skills', please visit http://lostadventuresincooking.blogspot.com/
For uber-opinionated, pleasurable horse related reading, please visit http://horseinfoperson.blogspot.com/
|
| vermont v |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 2:41:41 PM
As long as big population countries like China and India are as dirty as they want to be what we cut back on in our country is a moot point.Pelosi and Gore are so worried about carbon foot prints they should stop flying around in military and private jets. Gore lives in a thiry thousand square foot home and that's just the main one. Ms Pelosi probably uses the energy of 100 of us farmgirls! I have always been an energy miser and I hate that these people are making it hard on the real working people of the country and talking about taxing livestock because of the methane they produce. Have'nt they ever heard of coal gasification and clean coal? |
| Alee |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 09:33:45 AM
Hi Winona-
Those are interesting links and I am the first one to support everyone having their own opinion!
The book that I am having to read for Ethics class is really focusing on the things that are causing global warming and it has a lot of references(about a quarter of the book is just a reference section!). I feel it is pretty impartial as it deals with all of the countries in the world, not just our or our political system, and it also shows how environmental factors are influencing politics all over the world. You might like to read it! It's called Plan B and you can find more out about it at www.earth-policy.org
One thing that scares me is watching the documentaries on the Discovery and Nature channels where they have been studying ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic and how it is effecting the animals there and the ocean currents.
There is a lot of great information out there and different view points can be very educational! I am glad we are all friends and sisters!
Alee
Farmgirl Sister #8
www.awarmheart.com
www.farmgirlalee.blogspot.com
www.allergyjourneys.blogspot.com
Put your pin on the farmgirl map! www.farmgirlmap.blogspot.com |
| goneriding |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 08:58:17 AM
Okay, I did some research into the dcexaminer.com that I mentioned above. I'm not happy with that link so I found some, what I consider better links...
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Nancy+Pelosi%2C+wind+farms&page=1&qsrc=145&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmichellemalkin.com%2F2008%2F08%2F11%2Fbosom-buddies-nancy-pelosi-and-big-wind%2F
and...
www.theresilientearth.com%2F%3Fq%3Dcontent%2Fnancy-pelosi-gets-250k-being-green" target="_blank">http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Nancy+Pelosi%2C+wind+farms&page=1&qsrc=145&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theresilientearth.com%2F%3Fq%3Dcontent%2Fnancy-pelosi-gets-250k-being-green
Okay, these are more mainstream and not so nutty sounding...
Winona ;-)
To read funny stories about my cooking 'skills', please visit http://lostadventuresincooking.blogspot.com/
For uber-opinionated, pleasurable horse related reading, please visit http://horseinfoperson.blogspot.com/
|
| NudeFoodFarm |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 08:43:02 AM
Oh ladies, I have work to do! But I sneak a peak at the forum and find such delicious topics, I have to stop and think.
What is a Farmgirl to do?
This subject is raw for me; my husband from WV, generations of miners. I from here (WA) where there was tons of logging, coal now more wind, dams, and my most passionate. . .
NUCLEAR POWER.
we are home to the worlds largest nuclear waste zone. Reactors at Hanford now new ones owned by Energy Northwest.
It employs all you want, is considered "clean", creates experimental meds and is considered a renewable resource for electricity.
however. . .
it scares the begeebees out of me! It makes my husband and I crazy that we don't live off the grid. Everytime we use our lights, toaster, even flush our toilet (well pump is powered) we support the nuclear power industry.
so I guess this is the "fix" we all find ourselves in. No matter what the source of energy is, it is dangerous and should not go wasted.
I gotta go plant this garden full of seeds sittin here. . .
love you ladies, thanks for the thoughts and intrigue.
hugs,
Best'
h
Nude Food Farm
~Grown so good,
Dressing is Optional. |
| goneriding |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 08:10:37 AM
There is the report that says for every green job that is made, 2.2 'regular' (can't think of the term) are lost. Green jobs aren't permanent either as I understand it. Also, from as short a time ago as Mt. St. Helens erupted in WA (1980, I think), there is evidence of coal already formed under whatever layer that was. It can be either mined now or in the near future. Making coal isn't the eons long job once thought, now it can take mere decades.
Also, while I was driving thru PA in coal mining country, there are billboards along the interstate that now coal can be burned or used with little or none pollutants. Clean coal.
We have to have CO2 to live. If we didn't have CO2, the trees would die. CO2 is something like .0383 percent of next-to-nothing in the atmosphere. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=How+much+is+CO2+in+our+atmosphere%3F&page=1&qsrc=145&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEarth%27s_atmosphere I looked it up after I wrote the above and am editing this to reflect what I found.
I'm a big picture girl...before anyone gets excited about any government project, do some research on both sides. I'm betting that some government people are making some money off this green movement. San Fran Nan Pelosi (Speaker of the House) has stock/shares in the the wind farms company that T. Boone Pickens (is that the right spelling?) owns. So do some senators that I'm aware of and surely, there must be more. To me, that's a big conflict of interest.
***The dcexaminer.com has recently revealed what that motive might be. The good Speaker owns stock in Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CEFC). Have you ever heard of T. Boone Pickens? Yes, I’m referring to the Texas oil billionaire who is now promoting his new wind-power business on television. CEFC is T. Boone’s baby. This project will depend on federal subsidies and, don’t forget, high oil prices along with continued government restrictions on drilling for oil in the US.
Wind power may be useful, but it is not as reliable as the commercials paint it to be. This, however, is not my point. Does anyone else see a possible conflict of interest here? If gasoline prices remain high because Congress refuses to make drilling our number one economic priority, Pelosi stands to make substantial profits in the wind-power business. She is also in a position to help push federal subsidies toward CEFC. I wonder how many other national elected officials have invested in this deal along with Al Gore’s carbon credits? According to the dcexaminer.com:
“A search of Pelosi’s official web site found no announcement of the investment in the Pickens operation. A request to the Speaker’s official spokesman yesterday for information about the investment went unanswered. Coincidentally, Pelosi’s investment came the same month as the House passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, which she hailed as making the Congress over which she helps preside “the most open and honest in history.” There are numerous ways Pelosi could provide assistance to . . . Pickens, including helping secure federal tax advantages. Pickens expects at least 15 percent profits on the wind farm and associated initiatives. At . . . $14 per share value, Pelosi appears to own between 7,000 and 17,000 shares.”*** This is a quote from America, Land of the Free blog. The rest of the blog is a little over the top but I couldn't find what I was looking for but this information is essentially the same. You can look up any of this on ask.com. That's where I found it. So far, I have not found any connection to wind farms and Harry Reid.
My point is to always, always look at both sides of any issue. There is probably global warming but the recent snowfalls make me laugh a little bit...hehehe...
Winona ;-)
To read funny stories about my cooking 'skills', please visit http://lostadventuresincooking.blogspot.com/
For uber-opinionated, pleasurable horse related reading, please visit http://horseinfoperson.blogspot.com/
|
| Alee |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 06:10:00 AM
Yes, Karin it will be a huge change. I grew up only about 2 hours from a HUGE coal town in Wyoming. Already they are feeling the impacts of this as less and less coal is demanded. They are, however, ideally situatated to build alternative energy there as well. They could turn the coal fields into wind and solar fields without too much effort and that would give quite a few people jobs. Transitions are always hard but I think it is good to start now before it is forced on us because a resource runs out of we realize we are at the point of no return as far as ecological damage is concerned. It will be interesting to see how quickly the United States switches to cleaner energy and how that affects people in the Fossil Fuel driven economies. Actually, my dad's job relies heavily on the oil industry in Wyoming, Montana, and Utah and it is a bit scary to see the changes from last years boom and bust to this year. I think that there are enough coal plants in the world that mining will continue for some time yet- but hopefully as coal ages out of the economy, so will the workers. In my ideal situation, as each coal employee retires, he or she won't be replaced until the end when the huge machines get recycled and the coal fields become clean energy producers. I think the would close the circle nicely- having the dirty energy mines be producing clean energy!
Alee
Farmgirl Sister #8
www.awarmheart.com
www.farmgirlalee.blogspot.com
www.allergyjourneys.blogspot.com
Put your pin on the farmgirl map! www.farmgirlmap.blogspot.com |
| Mumof3 |
Posted - Apr 20 2009 : 05:21:37 AM
I hope they have a plan to find jobs for all of the people put out of work by this. Not that I don't think something needs to be done, but there are those whose families have been tied to coal mining for generations in West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Utah, Wyoming, etc., and it is all they know. What happens to them? You always have to look at the big picture.
Karin
Farmgirl Sister
# 18 :)
www.perfectlittlemiracle.blogspot.com
|
|
|
