Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
The bottom line being that 15% is too much to expect in most cases, that 15% in some of the older plants still makes them much less efficient than newer plants, and that efficiency doesn't always translate into cleaner operation.When you are looking at a power plant that is in the neighborhood of 30 years old, a fifteen percent increase in efficiency is not really unheard of. Computer modeling has come a long way since the 70's.
Hmm, do you have to be a Democrat to be susceptible to mercury or dioxins? Ohio plants alone released more than 1,600 lbs of mercury in 1998 and the state has issued warnings about eating fish caught in their waters. Dioxins are released in much smaller numbers, but are also thought to pose health risks even at very low levels. And of course the pollution Ohio creates doesn't just pollute Ohio. That's why a group of Northeast states are threatening to suit to prevent the changes from taking effect.
Spewing carcinogens? Do you write script for the Democratic Party? (I
really think the Democrats should come up with a flash animation of Bush
tossing a old lady in a wheelchair down a smokestack for this one.) Are
these the same coal plants that have despite a tripling of coal usage
managed to cut the total emission of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide? I
know you haven't mentioned it yet (why would you? :)) but the Clean Air
targets which would reduce emissions by fifty percent were not touched by by
the new rules.
http://www.eenews.net/sr_nsr2.htm This is a pretty good reference on the New Source Review.In my example the "destructive" power plant (which by the way had a 650 million dollar upgrade to meet new nitrogen oxide standards) was trying to be more efficient producing energy. I thought that was the goal. Greens (and I don't know that you are one) always push for increases of CAFÉ standards for cars and light trucks. Why does this logic not work for utilities? Why do they have to tear down existing power plants to comply with rules that are written for new power plants? Does the government have the right to sue people into buying new cars when their old cars no longer meets smog standards? The old standards worked fine. They are a great idea. I am fully in support of newer cleaner technology. I believe that in the long term it is the best for people, the environment, and power companies. The Clinton EPA after changing the "new source review" rules found that eighty percent of the nation's utilities were outside of the new regulations. So instead of questioning what's wrong here, they decided the best way to proceed is by lawsuit. But then again the Clinton administration was excellent at making short term, stopgap measures that looked good for the environment, but in the long term actually decreased the quality of life (by increased energy costs). :)
"One industry document provided to Greenwire by NRDC may stand out as contrary evidence to the industry argument that EPA has not historically enforced NSR requirements. In 1984, the Electric Power Research Institute published a number of "consensus points" that it had gathered among "work group participants" at a Washington conference on fossil-fuel power plant life extensions. The report was done at a particularly significant time in the debate -- when many utilities opted to replace parts at their existing facilities because it would be cheaper than building new plants, Hawkins said.
According to the EPRI document, the utility officials concluded it "may be appropriate to downplay the life extension aspects" of its major projects "by referring to them as plant restoration projects." EPRI also suggested that "air quality regulatory issues associated with these projects should be dealt with at the state and local level and not elevated to the status of national environmental issues." Further, the organization said project elements should be stressed as maintenance-related activities to maximize chances for NSR exemptions. "Utility accounting practices play a significant role here," the document says."
So we have the industry trying to extend the lives of the plants that pollute the most by working around the rules. It is unfortunate that one of the only ways we have to impose our values on consciousless corporations is to sue them, but there is often no alternative.
I'm not an authority, but I'll bet that there are a fair number of utilities that are more environmentally conscious than the others. Invest in them and not those that seek to circumvent the rules and you'll be doing your own bit for cleaner air. It's true that it will cost us money to solve the problem in the short term, but a clean environment saves us money and lives and increases our quality of life in the long term. I'm not insensitive to people (myself included) that desire a comfortable retirement, I just think that there are higher priorities. I'd prefer that the legacy for my generation was something like "worked to make the world a better place" rather than "insured themselves of a comfy retirement," but it seems as retirement approaches, there are fewer of us that share that sentiment.Did you know that one of the most popular investments for average Americans are the utility companies? I would like to keep them profitable, thereby creating the fortunes of average Americans. I do wish the Greens in this country would actually build a power plant just so we can see how its done. But then again, how would they pay for all their lawyers?
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
