Surry coal plant: Just say no

At first, Helen Eggleston of Dendron was all for the coal-fired power plant proposed for her little town in Surry County.

[Wimppy]

Now that we've heard your side Tamara lets here from the people who want to build the plant. We all know that there's two sides to every story and we all know that you're not an energy expert, you are a " journalist". If you want your opinion known you should put it on the editorial-page. Just the facts ma'am.

[Thug Keeper]

So an Energy-Efficient Economy will meet all the energy demands of the future! Just like if everyone would properly inflate their tires it will get us out of being dependent on foriegn oil. As the population grows and there are more eletrical gadgets being bought the energy demand will continue to grow. No more oil power plants. Only coal and nuclear power plants will efficiently meet that demand.
What the extremists don't tell you is that the only way to an Energy-Efficient Economy is to tax the demand greatly so people change their behavoir.

[Think]

Yeah? And when we save electricity, the utilities will scream about how their profits are down, and then raise rates AGAIN. Just look at Newport News Waterworks!

[Bob R]

Great article. The proposed plant is a regional health issue that goes well beyond Surry county.

We all need to be custodians of the planet and conservation/efficiency is the first step in this direction.

If conservation and increasing energy efficiency could fill the gap for the next 18 years, we could build clean renewable energy plants (biofuels, tidal, wave, wind, solar, geothermal others) to meet future needs.

Ultimately, there are just too many people on the planet devouring resources faster than we can replace them. This is the essence of unsustainable.

There are those of us that understand this and work to live a sustainable life, and those that ignore this and greedily consume and destroy resources faster than can be sustained.

Think of the earth as a life boat drifting in a hostile sea. There are those that hog the drinking water and chocolate, and those that conserve.

What path have you chosen?

[Gaelic Sookie]

Bob R wrote:

Great article. The proposed plant is a regional health issue that goes well beyond Surry county.
We all need to be custodians of the planet and conservation/efficiency is the first step in this direction.
If conservation and increasing energy efficiency could fill the gap for the next 18 years, we could build clean renewable energy plants (biofuels, tidal, wave, wind, solar, geothermal others) to meet future needs.
Ultimately, there are just too many people on the planet devouring resources faster than we can replace them. This is the essence of unsustainable.
There are those of us that understand this and work to live a sustainable life, and those that ignore this and greedily consume and destroy resources faster than can be sustained.
Think of the earth as a life boat drifting in a hostile sea. There are those that hog the drinking water and chocolate, and those that conserve.
What path have you chosen?

Windmills! Good post and good article.I am currently in a transitional stage with thermo heating and air for the cottage in New Kent.

I will give a report back.....that is my chosen path.

[Common Sense]

I wonder how Tammy feels about the pollution created to produce the Daily Press each day. Hypocrites come in all shapes, sizes, and professions. Tammy, please, walk the walk before you talk the talk.

[Misinformation]

Heavy industry in Hopewell does more to hurt the local ecosystem than anything that one coal burning plant will do in Surry County.Tamara, have you done ANY research on the improvements that the coal burning plants have put into place to reduce emissions? Do you know about the BILLION dollar job that Dominion completed to put new scrubbers at the Chester Plant? Emissions were drastically reduced. As with ANY industrial originization, improvements occur over the years. Technology matures and develops. Science, although rarely redefined, is often REFINED. The EPA would not allow the construction of a plant that was going to put people in harms way. The spreading of misinformation is so typical for the frigging tree huggers. I guess you don't have a problem with paying $500 a month for your electric bill instead of the $200 that you pay today? You same people that are screaming about coal plants will be marching on Richmond demanding that Dominion reduce their rates. Get a grip, you can't have both. So let's go buy parts to build windmills and set up camp, great idea, we can buy all the parts from China and put an entire new generation of Mexicans to work for the nest 20 years building them. Yea, that's the OBAMA CHANGE you all wanted - Right?

[Harry Morant]

Attention all tree huggers and green earthies: how about you lead by example!

Drop off the grid - shut off that big main breaker and don't come back! Spend $20k on your government sponsored windmill that make zero sense economically. Go ahead, show us!

And by the way, when you see me in the right lane coasting towards a red light 100 yards in front of me, how about you lay off the gas pedal in your sissy hybrid car and stop cutting in front of me? Lead by example. Slow down, save a life, save some gas, relax dude!

You people are so damn hypocritical it is beyond me - shut your mouth and do something - off the grid - ride a bike to work!

[Too many unknowns]

Misinformation wrote:

The EPA would not allow the construction of a plant that was going to put people in harms way.

Really? Because the EPA just came out with the following:

EPA scientists find exposure to particle soot twice as deadly as previously thought:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/ear...

EPA press release declaring that air pollution limits have not been based on science and will be under review:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf... !OpenDocument

Also, the EPA does not regulate the 176 acre toxic fly ash dump that is also proposed. The Va DEQ does that. And they have even stated they are reviewing the safety of that material...because they do not know.

Sounds like a lot of unknowns straight from the horse's mouths. Not real reassuring for those of us in the line of fire.

[hurdboy]

.....And were it not for the "Everybody Panic!" media, NIMBYers, and the "green" movement against nuclear power starting 30 years ago, nobody would be considering building a coal-fired plant in 2009.

Thank you, TMI. Thank you, Jimmy Carter.

[New Perspective]

The Yorktown power plant is in York County, not Williamsburg. I thought the reason that it sits next to the Yorktown oil refinery is so that it could burn oil, not coal. Fact check, anyone?

[New Perspective]

Fact Check:

From Dominion's web site:

http://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/york...

The Dominion Yorktown generating facility has 3 generating units, the smallest (and oldest) of the 3 are coal-fired. Unit 3 is considerably larger (875 MW vs Unit 1 172MW & Unit 2 183 MW) and is oil-fired, but is only used as a peaking unit. Dominion states that "The fly ash removed from the gases, together with ash from the bottom of the boilers, is loaded on trucks and hauled to a disposal site near the station where it is disposed in an environmentally safe manner."

Will they shut down units 1 & 2 if the Surry plant is built?

[Biff]

So "Bob" why don't you start conserving by turning off your computer and cancelling your internet service? Computers and servers use a lot of energy and aren't necessary to live. Next turn off your electric power and live like it's 1885. Let us know how it goes.

Bob R wrote:

Great article. The proposed plant is a regional health issue that goes well beyond Surry county.
We all need to be custodians of the planet and conservation/efficiency is the first step in this direction.
If conservation and increasing energy efficiency could fill the gap for the next 18 years, we could build clean renewable energy plants (biofuels, tidal, wave, wind, solar, geothermal others) to meet future needs.
Ultimately, there are just too many people on the planet devouring resources faster than we can replace them. This is the essence of unsustainable.
There are those of us that understand this and work to live a sustainable life, and those that ignore this and greedily consume and destroy resources faster than can be sustained.
Think of the earth as a life boat drifting in a hostile sea. There are those that hog the drinking water and chocolate, and those that conserve.
What path have you chosen?

[KentuckyKen]

Tamara, you say fly ash is toxic...please site your sources. There are NO state or federal regulations that classify fly ash as toxic! Did you search the internet until you found some obscure site that supports your position. You also state that the EPA says your county is over the limit on particulate matter but do not say where the source of the particulate is coming from. You infer it is the coal plants, but it could be from anywhere. The exhaust you spew from the tailpipe of your car is toxic so why not attack that. Why not suggest eveyone disconnect from the power grid and then there would be no demand for electricity and all the "dirty" power plants would be shut down.

[Too many unknowns]

KentuckyKen wrote:

Tamara, you say fly ash is toxic...please site your sources. There are NO state or federal regulations that classify fly ash as toxic!... Why not suggest eveyone disconnect from the power grid and then there would be no demand for electricity and all the "dirty" power plants would be shut down.

The sum of its parts are definitely toxic. It was too toxic to release into the air, thus the shift in technology and legislation to scrub it out of the stacks and create a solid. The ash is comprised of the same carcinogens, pollutants, and heavy metals that were deemed too dangerous to be airborne. And as more and more of the faulty fly-ash storage facilities become classified as Superfund sites, it shouldn't be long before the federal and state regulations catch up. Both entities state they need to investigate it. And as linked above, the federal agency (EPA) clearly states they've been a little "lax" on the science.

As to your second point, you do realize that there is a nuclear power plant a few miles from the proposed coal plant site. It's that plant that provides electricity to most of the residents here. No one's complaining about that "dirty" industry or boycotting electricity, so let's not get silly and suggest that disdain for coal power is the same as disdain for all power.

[Parochial]

Harry, stereotype much? Is it really so difficult for people to see a perspective other than their own on this highly polarizing issue? There certainly are people who argue for reducing our carbon footprint yet fail to take such action themselves, but lumping together everyone who wants to conserve natural resources into a "hypocrite" stereotype is just asinine.

Harry Morant and others here believe that environmentally-conscious individuals (tree huggers and green earthies as he so intelligently puts it) should go to every extreme to "walk the walk", such as going off the grid. If you support cancer research, are you a hypocrite for not donating 100% of your earnings to the American Cancer Society? I applaud anyone who makes a sacrifice for something they believe in (even if they could be doing more).

So Harry, people can't make small lifestyle changes without being called a hypocrite? For example, I wish I could afford to buy a hybrid SUV, but I can't. Does that make me a hypocrite because I care about the environment? Instead I conserve energy whenever possible (e.g. turning off lights, walking or biking when possible, etc), which also saves me money.

In a perfect world, "tree huggers" wouldn't make conservatives feel guilty for their lifestyle choices, while conservatives would recognize the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

Harry Morant wrote:

Attention all tree huggers and green earthies: how about you lead by example!

You people are so damn hypocritical it is beyond me - shut your mouth and do something - off the grid - ride a bike to work!

[Downtown Hpt]

Everything I have read supports the use of continuing to refine nuclear capacity as a reusable fuel source for the future (cars, etc). I was favorably impressed by that but know there are concerns about nuclear power. Any thoughts on that?

[Biff]

Like Al Gore, whose house uses 10 times the electricity of a "normal" house and his frequent private plane trips and limos. His carbon footprint is 50 times that of a normal person yet he wants us to take cold showers and turn the heat down to 60 degrees.

Parochial wrote:

Harry, stereotype much? Is it really so difficult for people to see a perspective other than their own on this highly polarizing issue? There certainly are people who argue for reducing our carbon footprint yet fail to take such action themselves, but lumping together everyone who wants to conserve natural resources into a "hypocrite" stereotype is just asinine.
Harry Morant and others here believe that environmentally-conscious individuals (tree huggers and green earthies as he so intelligently puts it) should go to every extreme to "walk the walk", such as going off the grid. If you support cancer research, are you a hypocrite for not donating 100% of your earnings to the American Cancer Society? I applaud anyone who makes a sacrifice for something they believe in (even if they could be doing more).
So Harry, people can't make small lifestyle changes without being called a hypocrite? For example, I wish I could afford to buy a hybrid SUV, but I can't. Does that make me a hypocrite because I care about the environment? Instead I conserve energy whenever possible (e.g. turning off lights, walking or biking when possible, etc), which also saves me money.
In a perfect world, "tree huggers" wouldn't make conservatives feel guilty for their lifestyle choices, while conservatives would recognize the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
<quoted text>

[Parochial]

Biff wrote:

Like Al Gore, whose house uses 10 times the electricity of a "normal" house and his frequent private plane trips and limos. His carbon footprint is 50 times that of a normal person yet he wants us to take cold showers and turn the heat down to 60 degrees.
<quoted text>

Biff, my point exactly. Al Gore may have raised awareness about climate change with his documentary, but (like most environmentalists I'm sure) I don't see him as a role model for reducing one's carbon footprint. Therefore, it's not very fair for people to use Al Gore's poor example for their stereotypical characterization of every person who believes in conserving natural resources.

I seriously doubt Al Gore suggests taking cold showers or setting our winter thermostats to 60, but I wouldn't do either even if he did. However, all Americans can make simple, everyday choices to lower their energy use (and monthly bills). Just don't point the finger at someone else if you're unwilling to do those things.

[flack]

Bob R wrote:

Great article. The proposed plant is a regional health issue that goes well beyond Surry county.
We all need to be custodians of the planet and conservation/efficiency is the first step in this direction.
If conservation and increasing energy efficiency could fill the gap for the next 18 years, we could build clean renewable energy plants (biofuels, tidal, wave, wind, solar, geothermal others) to meet future needs.
Ultimately, there are just too many people on the planet devouring resources faster than we can replace them. This is the essence of unsustainable.
There are those of us that understand this and work to live a sustainable life, and those that ignore this and greedily consume and destroy resources faster than can be sustained.
Think of the earth as a life boat drifting in a hostile sea. There are those that hog the drinking water and chocolate, and those that conserve.
What path have you chosen?

Are you really that dumb?