Say no to coal plant, yes to renewable energy

The Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission should deny Duke Energy's proposed $2 billion coal gasification plant in Edwardsport.

[Chris46227]

All coal plants need to be examined closely. It is reasonable to expect that they will have to deal with carbon dioxide emissions. In a cap and trade system, the cost of energy produced by coal is going to go way up. This cost will inevitably be passed on to the end user (read=us). Thus, we must really consider this because some kind of carbon dioxide tax or cost is in the pipeline, and will likely be law by late this or early next decade. The writing is on the wall and the energy companies know this. New technology for wind farms make them very competitive both in price and in energy production and they are not nearly the eyesore that many claim, no worse than high tension lines running hither and tither. The advantage of wind farms is that they are completely renewable, have virtually zero carbon footprint, and will actually be positioned to make a great deal of money because of their ability to sell carbon offsets to their more polluting peers (like coal plants) once the new carbon regime is in place.

[Jatorr]

Nonesense!

[Greg]

Speculation about the effects of some imaginary federal CO2 regulations in order to curtail the supply of affordable energy is dangerous for the economy of Indiana.

[Alan DelRay]

Carbon Dioxide does not cause global warming. The sun causes global warming. That's why Mars is also warming at this time. Water vapor holds heat much more effectively than carbon dioxide and the amount of it in the atmosphere makes even a doubling of CO2 levels insignificant. Has anyone suggested controling H2O levels? Windmills and Solar cannot provide the energy our growing state needs. The only viable energy production alternative to fossil fuels (coal and petroleum) is nuclear. If you're so concerned about CO2 emmisions, stop exhaling. CO2 is a natural by-product of life and a vital nutrient for our ecosystem.

[Solutions]

It is time to give alternative energy a shot in the arm and start redirecting some of the subsidies the coal industry is getting to solar and wind applications. Indiana is the worst state for incentives for solar power. I inquired with an Indiana solar contractor about a solar electric system and was basically talked out of it due to the cost, 80,000. In other states after incentives the cost would be 10,000 to 20,000. That would be doable. Just think with the solar system I would use little or no energy from the electric company, and could end up selling excess back to them! All while generating no pollution. This really is the wave of the future, yet our politicians want to focus on "green building" as a way to help the environment. Please, it is time to start backing alternative energy with really incentives.

[Markus]

$2 billion does indeed sound like a lot of money. One has to wonder how much renewable and alternate energy, or even nuclear, could be produced for that much money.

[Metroid74]

Go ahead and build the coal plant. CO2 Does not cause global warming. The Sun Causes it and in less than 5 years you'll see what I mean.

[Riff Raff]

Should we re-think Marble Hill?

[Markus]

Alan DelRay wrote:

Carbon Dioxide does not cause global warming. The sun causes global warming. That's why Mars is also warming at this time. Water vapor holds heat much more effectively than carbon dioxide and the amount of it in the atmosphere makes even a doubling of CO2 levels insignificant. Has anyone suggested controling H2O levels? Windmills and Solar cannot provide the energy our growing state needs. The only viable energy production alternative to fossil fuels (coal and petroleum) is nuclear. If you're so concerned about CO2 emmisions, stop exhaling. CO2 is a natural by-product of life and a vital nutrient for our ecosystem.

CO2 does cause global warming. Top scientific publications and research say so. If you are talking about Mars' polar caps, that is entirely different matter. Sun's fluctuations are only in the margins. And there hasn't been a dramatic increase in water vapor. It will however increase as a result of positive feedback when CO2 increases temperatures.

[Chris46227]

Jator, Alan, and Greg, do you really believe that there will be no movement to put a price on CO2 emissions in the next 5 years or so? If so, then you have not been paying much attention. Even George W acknowledged as much at the recent G8 summit. Global energy companies, such as Exxon Mobile, BP, etc. are positioning themselves for this new paradigm, we are foolish to not do the same. Carbon Sequestration is working, but mainly in places that already have big holes in the ground (places that have tapped out oil wells). With the large amount of limestone in our soil, carbon sequestration could turn it very acidic and cause lots of problems. Thus, it is not a particularly good idea in Indiana, though it would probably work like a champ in Texas.

As far as nuclear goes, I am all for it, provided that we come up with a final solution for the disposal of the waste. Currently, the national dump site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is deeply disputed, and there is also the problem of getting the stuff to Nevada in the first place. Frankly, I believe that the storage facility there is adequate, however there is a major NIMBY crowd in Nevada and do we really want nuclear waste being transported through the city on rail or around 465? Continued storage at the site of nuclear reactors make them prime targets for terrorists, either as a place of attack, or for theft of radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. Currently neither solution is palatable, and this must be figured out before new construction takes place. I am confident that advances in technology and engineering make nuclear a very safe option if the waste issues can be figured out. Perhaps a series of underground storage facilities spread out throughout the nation so that so much waste from the East Coast (where the majority of nuclear plants lie) does not have to travel the entire breadth of the country. Just an idea.

[engineer]

So, let me get this straight - you want higher energy prices MANDATED with carbon taxing, to make "renewable" energy competitive. Sounds like good economic sense to me.

Lets examine the ramifications of such a move. Energy prices soar, electricity costs to the average homeowner double in the next decade. The cost of EVERYTHING soon follows suit; a runaway train of price increases soon becomes the norm. Food, gas, water, all the basic necessities of life become more and more expensive. Savings rates, which are already at an all time low, continue to fall into the negatives. The US, followed by the rest of the world becomes more poor, less fed, less warm.

Makes sense to me - "save the world" by screwing over the poor. We CAN NOT allow any form of carbon taxes or trading to be mandated. If people want alternative energy, allow the free market to drive it. Purchase solar or wind credits from energy companies. I can buy some from my provider, at a mere four times the cost of clean, cheap coal power.

Wind farms are far from perfect, BTW. People tend to forget we still need to mine and manufacture the basic materials of a wind mill. Not to mention the GREAT deal of land a windfarm takes up, complete with access roads and long transmission lines. Hydro tends to completely alter rivers and stream below the dam, in some cases devestating native fish populations. Solar panels have a tremendous amount of mined material inside, not to mention the shortage of a vital metal, tellurium, which we will have to mine great deals of at low grades (translation - large open pit mines in virgin terrain). Everything has it's problems, nothing is perfect.

[kent beuchert]

Many renewable energies are not viable sustitutes because they are primitive and unreliable and supply far too little energy. A base-load coal plant of 2500 megawatts cannot be
replaced by wind. That would require more than 5000 wind turbines, at a cost of $2.5 million apiece, and they couldn't come close to meeting peak demand requirements - that would require more turbines than exist in the entire US. A 2500 megawatt nuclear plant is the only viable and sensible and economically sane means of producing 2500 megawatts on demand
24/7. That cost would be around $3 billion, about 1/10th the cost of those 5000 turbines on a lifespan basis (nuclear plants last more than twice as long as wind turbines) that can't come close to meeting peak demand requirements. It's about time that those advocating alternative energy sources get in touch with reality - wind has been a fiasco and
produces insignificant amounts of unreliable electricity of little value.
All of the wind power added over the past two years hasn't even come close to keeping up with just the increase in energy demand - by a factor of 8. If you want to get serious about reducing carbon emissions, nuclear is the ONLY means available today.

[Markus]

engineer wrote:

So, let me get this straight - you want higher energy prices MANDATED with carbon taxing, to make "renewable" energy competitive. Sounds like good economic sense to me.

Currently carbon emissions are free. Placing a price on carbon emissions would only give them the proper market costs, which include environmental effects.

engineer wrote:

Lets examine the ramifications of such a move. Energy prices soar, electricity costs to the average homeowner double in the next decade. The cost of EVERYTHING soon follows suit; a runaway train of price increases soon becomes the norm. Food, gas, water, all the basic necessities of life become more and more expensive. Savings rates, which are already at an all time low, continue to fall into the negatives. The US, followed by the rest of the world becomes more poor, less fed, less warm.

Double? Where is the evidence for this? Alternative energy is a growth industry. It's products create wealth that does not evaporate into air like coal & oil.

engineer wrote:

Makes sense to me - "save the world" by screwing over the poor. We CAN NOT allow any form of carbon taxes or trading to be mandated. If people want alternative energy, allow the free market to drive it. Purchase solar or wind credits from energy companies. I can buy some from my provider, at a mere four times the cost of clean, cheap coal power.

Clean & cheap? The gasification plant is $2 billion project, and that is just to clean it up, not supply additional energy. Investing in alternatives by emissions trading will actually increase the energy supplies. By increasing the supply we offset the price which is currently dominated by demand.

engineer wrote:

Wind farms are far from perfect, BTW. People tend to forget we still need to mine and manufacture the basic materials of a wind mill. Not to mention the GREAT deal of land a windfarm takes up, complete with access roads and long transmission lines. Hydro tends to completely alter rivers and stream below the dam, in some cases devestating native fish populations.

Eh? All those same limitations apply to coal plants.

engineer wrote:

Solar panels have a tremendous amount of mined material inside, not to mention the shortage of a vital metal, tellurium, which we will have to mine great deals of at low grades (translation - large open pit mines in virgin terrain). Everything has it's problems, nothing is perfect.

The material inside solar panels is nowhere near the amount of material burned in coal plants in this country. And most of that coal is acquired by mountain top removal which REALLY devastates the virgin terrain.

Yeah, nothing is perfect. But why do you only insist alternatives to be?

[Ed Sparks]

Coal gassification is the next needed step toward energy independence in this country. It's that simple. We have lots of coal and coal gassification meets all the present standards.

Now, I have some questions:
If all CO2 emissions were completely stopped, at what rate would global warming then decrease? Would it turn into global cooling? If so, how long before we would have to begin to emit more CO2 to begin warming the globe again? Why, in the 1930's when there was a 30% decrease in energy use during the depression, did "global warming" continue without a hiccup?

One more question: How can CO2 cause global warming when it only represents 38 molecules out of every 100,000 molecules in our atmosphere?(That's 337 parts per million.)-- Ed Sparks, Indianapolis

[engineer]

First- What environmental affects of CO2 can you site to date?

Double the cost for "alternative" energies was accurate, if not generous- Lets look at some numbers. The average costs (proposed) of next generation wind farm - 5 cent/kw-hr. Coal - 2.21 cent/kh-hr. About half of the "proposed" costs of a technology that hasn't been proven, and INCLUDES tax credits. Costs of construction vary, but from my research construction costs of older style (non-gasification) coal plants run 25% less per MW than wind farms.

Third, electricity is not an elastic good. Typical supply and demand laws do not apply to non-elastic goods. Therefor this statement "By increasing the supply we offset the price which is currently dominated by demand." is wrong. Not to mention that we are having problems just meeting current demands, let alone what we will need in the future.

Fourth, mountain top removal is an outdated form of coal mining. Look into longwall mining and modern strip mining practices. Reclamation is mandated, underground and surface techniques have vastly improved from the image you probably have of coal mining.

Fifth, you obviously don't know jack s-t about mining. Mining for tellurium would take place in large open pit mines, where tremendous amounts of waste materials are transported to get the low grade mineralized zones. Just like gold mining in Nevada, large open pits would dot the country, visible from space, unlike the small underground or quickly reclaimed surface mines that currently exist. Since we don't currently mine for tellurium specifically, massive exploration projects would need to take place, and finding this stuff will be difficult, and expensive. Read a book, visit a mine, learn something.

[Chris46227]

Engineer,
You make good points about mining, however, you have no answer to the fact that Carbon Dioxide has a cost associated with it that is currently not factored into the market equation. Once carbon is priced accordingly, the equation shifts. There is no doubt that this pricing is coming so it is best to be prepared for it rather than burying your head in the sand and pretending like it is not going to happen. CO2 is going to be priced at roughly 30 to 50 dollars per ton and that cost is going to be reflected in higher costs for fuel and for energy that leaves a carbon footprint. This is making the market work as it should, rather than pretending that we can pollute for free. Just ask GE how much it cost to clean up the Hudson river. When you pollute, you gotta pay for it.

[engineer]

Chris, I do not believe CO2 is a pollutant. I do not believe in AGW. I think CO2 is necesary for nearly all life on this planet, and regulation of it would simply not make sense (Am I going to have to pay a tax for breathing?).

I appreciate your response, and if CO2 is taxed the equation will shift. I, however, believe this money could be better spent on fighting global poverty and sickness (AIDS, malnutrition...), not to mention what a couple extra bucks in the pockets of this country's poor (who seem to only be getting poorer).

This money (taxed carbon) doesn't come out of thin air, same with costs associated with meeting Kyoto. We, as a society, really need to look out how this money should be spent, where, and who benefits. I obviously do not feel that this is the correct way to spend this money.

[Markus]

engineer,

About PVs:
*They all do not require Tellurium. You can manufacture them without its use.
*Solar panels that do use it only use it very tiny quantities. "Tellurium mines" are actually mines for other material, primarily copper. That is not an "open-mine" effort.
*Much of the cheapness of coal has been due to strip mining and mountain top mining. The hazards from PV material mining pale in comparison to coal mining.
*Even long-wall mining causes environmental and property damage. Surface subsidences causing damage to property and water systems.
*Solar, wind and other alternative energy solutions are vastly underutilized.
*We cannot afford to build more coal burning plants because of the environmental damage they cause. The additional energy needs to come from clean sources.

[Mr Giblets]

Chris46227 wrote:

Engineer,
You make good points about mining, however, you have no answer to the fact that Carbon Dioxide has a cost associated with it that is currently not factored into the market equation. Once carbon is priced accordingly, the equation shifts. There is no doubt that this pricing is coming so it is best to be prepared for it rather than burying your head in the sand and pretending like it is not going to happen. CO2 is going to be priced at roughly 30 to 50 dollars per ton and that cost is going to be reflected in higher costs for fuel and for energy that leaves a carbon footprint. This is making the market work as it should, rather than pretending that we can pollute for free. Just ask GE how much it cost to clean up the Hudson river. When you pollute, you gotta pay for it.

this is based on a false assumption - that C02 is a pollutant. What will happen when eventually the whole thing is seen to be a false alarm? Will we all get our money back? Nuclear power is good and clean - we need to stop listening to Greenpeace, FOTE, and other assorted loonies. I know coal and gas will run out, so let's get busy on some REAL alternatives - for political and security reasons. We need to be able to tell the Arabs what to do with their oil.

[engineer]

Markus-
-I didn't know that PV were moving away from Te, but I will check on that.
-Te can occur as a by-product of copper mining (which is typically large open pit mining, not always), but the grades are miniscule
-Somehow, you seem to hint at mining materials for PV or wind would somehow be better than big, bad coal mining. Mining is mining, there will be some affect, regardless of the material sought.
-Mining is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. It's safegaurded by at least a half dozen state and federal agencies. This means it is safer than ever, with more production and less impact. MSHA, EPA, DRMS (in CO), CDPHE (in CO),... Look at modern mining and reclamation techniques. All affected lands must be reclaimed, recountoured and revegetated.
-Longwall mining does cause subsidance, from the very technique it uses. However, longwall mining typically takes place below public lands that will forever be nature reserves (can't be built on)- may sound like a spin, but it's the truth - longwall mining protects land. Water quality issues are pretty minor, most longwall mining takes place in low sulfur zones; if this holds out there will be minimal problems, as water will flow the same, just thru a more fractured medium.
-Solar and wind are not underutilized, they are expensive and free market societies have picked the least expensive option
-There is no environmental damage from CO2.