SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the do-coal-plants-come-from-coal-seeds? dept.
Christina Nunez reports in National Geographic that in the past four years, at least 29 coal-fired plants in 10 states have switched to natural gas or biomass while another 54 units, mostly in the US Northeast and Midwest, are slated to be converted over the next nine years. By switching to natural gas, plant operators can take advantage of a relatively cheap and plentiful US supply. The change can also help them meet proposed federal rules to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, given that electricity generation from natural gas emits about half as much carbon as electricity from coal does.
But not everyone is happy with the conversions. The Dunkirk plant in western New York, slated for conversion to natural gas, is the focus of a lawsuit by environmental groups that say the $150 million repowering will force the state's energy consumers to pay for an unnecessary facility. "What we're concerned about is that the Dunkirk proceeding is setting a really, really bad precedent where we're going to keep these old, outdated, polluting plants on life support for political reasons," says Christopher Amato. Dunkirk's operator, NRG, wanted to mothball the plant in 2012, saying it was not economical to run. The utility, National Grid, said shutting it down could make local power supplies less reliable, a problem that could be fixed by boosting transmission capacity—at a lower cost than repowering Dunkirk. Meanwhile the citizens of Dunkirk are happy the plant is staying open. “We couldn’t let it happen. We would lose our tax base, we would lose our jobs, we would lose our future,” said State Sen. Catharine M. Young. “This agreement saves us. It gives us a foundation on which to build our economy. It gives us hope. This is our community’s Christmas miracle!”
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:37PM
In the eyes of the Sierra Club, it seems that all coal plants are dirty and should be banished to hell, and if that destroys the communities that depend on them that is just too bad. But God forbid we have collateral damage against animals. That is an atrocity too great to contemplate.
Exactly.
As exhibited by their continued objection when the coal plants are made clean by conversion to NatGas, it is clear that the objection was never about the pollution, but rather the mere existence of humans.
A perfect, clean, safe, and cheap solution, should such ever come along, would be similarly and vociferously opposed by these people because that solution would allow humans to continue to exist.
Yet these people go home each night and flip on the light switch, crank up the heat, and get on their cell phones and computers. If only people with objections had to live within the demands of their own world view.
We need a bridge technology until renewable energy can come on line in quantity and scale so that we can shut down all the coal, gas, and oil plants. Since nobody will let any nuclear plants be built any more, gas it is.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Monday November 24 2014, @06:34PM
Did you miss the part where both the plant operator and the local utility ALSO want to shut down the plant? They're not keeping this plant open to produce power. They can get the power cheaper elsewhere. They're keeping it open solely because some politician doesn't want their constituents to lose their jobs. Even if it means everyone in the area pays more for electricity and suffers from pollution. Even if there are cheaper and better ways to get that power. They want to keep it open just because it exists. That's it. That's their only justification. And THIS is the logic Soylent users are subscribing to? REALLY???