here, for the click-impaired:

coal hunger: The Four Corners Power Plant on Navajo land near
Farmington, N.M. is one of three power plants in the area. It is also
about 10 miles from the proposed site of the Desert Rock plant.
MOISES VELASQUEZ-MANOFF


Before regulation hits, a battle over how to build new US coal plants
Environmentalists and economists are wrestling with how to meet
growing energy demand responsibly.
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
Page 1 of 2

FARMINGTON, N.M. - A half-hour car ride south of Farmington, N.M., a
modest trailer sits atop a small rise in the spectacular landscape of
mesas and upward-jutting rock formations. Known as Ram Springs to the
locals, the hill is on the eastern edge of the Navajo Nation, a West
Virginia-size tract of land spread across New Mexico, Arizona, and
Utah. A stenciled cloth hanging out front reads "Doodá Desert Rock."
Desert Rock is a proposed 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant being
sited nearby. "Doodá" (pronounced "DO-da") means "no" in Navajo –
emphatically no.

Worried about pollution and the prospect of getting pushed off their
land if the power plant is allowed to be built, a group of Navajo, or
Diné – "the people" in their native language – "sit vigil" on this
windblown hilltop day after day. The protest group, now joined by a
coalition of religious and environmental organizations, spotlights the
growing national debate over the direction of US energy production.
It's a pivotal moment; the human hand in global warming has gained
increased recognition, but carbon regulations have yet to be put in
place.

As America's appetite for energy grows, environmentalists and some
lawmakers argue that new coal-fired plants should use the newest –
albeit more expensive – technology available to keep coal-produced
pollutants in check. But some in the power industry counter that
guessing about future regulations and investing in new, largely
untested technology is no way to run a business.

The fact is, demand for energy in the United States is projected to
increase 1.1 percent each year through 2030. Economists say cheap and
abundant energy is necessary to maintain a vibrant and healthy
economy. Faced with ever higher oil prices and possessing ample
reserves – more than any other single country – the obvious choice for
the US is coal, say experts.

Indeed, there are some 150 proposed coal-fired plants across the
country, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory. But
the vast majority of these plants, Desert Rock included, utilize what
critics call "old" technology – pulverized coal (PC), rather than the
technology known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC),
which captures pollutants more efficiently.

Nationwide, the proposed plants are receiving scrutiny from lawmakers
concerned with climate change as well as from citizens who would live
near them. The utilities industry finds itself caught "on the horns of
a dilemma" about how to proceed before regulations are in place, says
Bruce Driver, an independent water and energy consultant in Boulder,
Colo.

For their part, the majority of elected Navajo Nation officials
support the $2.5 billion Desert Rock plant. They say it will bring
much-needed jobs – 1,000 during construction and 400 upon completion –
to an area with 43 percent unemployment.

"It's considered to be the largest single economic development
anywhere in native America," says George Hardeen, communications
director for Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr., who supports the
project. "It's going to provide jobs for everyone from the engineers
to the burrito lady."

But opponents say enough is enough. The Four Corners area already
hosts three power plants. A brown haze often hangs over the region on
still days. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has issued
advisories not to eat fish caught in area lakes and streams because of
high mercury content. (In the US, emissions from coal plants account
for one-third of all human-released mercury and 34 percent of all CO2
emissions.) Health officials note that the nitrogen oxides, ozone, and
particulates that spew from coal-fired plants are known respiratory
irritants. And the Desert Rock plant will emit some 10,500 metric tons
of CO2 annually, an amount equal to what New Mexico governor and
presidential hopeful Bill Richardson has pledged to remove from the
state's emissions by 2012.

"We've become an energy sacrifice zone for the country because of our
natural-gas reserves, coal, and uranium," says Mike Eisenfeld, the New
Mexico staff organizer of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, a social and
environmental organization opposed to the project.

Carbon issues aside, Sithe Global Power, co-owner of the proposed
Desert Rock plant with the Navajo-owned Diné Power Authority, has
responded to at least some of these concerns in a voluntary
emissions-reduction plan that it says would make Desert Rock operate
10 times cleaner than existing plants in the area. As for carbon, if
and when "carbon capture" technology becomes available, the plant will
be easily retrofittable.

"We have done our best to be a good neighbor," says Frank Maisano,
spokesman for Sithe Global. In the meantime, Southwestern markets need
some 2,300 megawatts' worth of energy and the Navajo Nation is eager
to exploit its vast coal reserves, he says. "The Four Corners region
can't afford to wait," he says.

But some say this approach ignores the reality of global warming and
the eventuality of carbon regulation and lower caps on mercury
emissions. Pulverized coal is a "mature" technology, says John
Nielsen, energy program director at Western Resource Advocates, an
environmental nonprofit in Boulder, and it has most likely reached its
full potential.

IGCC, on the other hand, is ahead of the curve. Even now, the capture
of pollutants is much more efficient and cost-effective in IGCC, which
removes them before reaching the combustion chamber rather than
scrubbing them from the exhaust. And although IGCC plants are 15 to 20
percent more expensive to build than PC plants, if regulation comes
into play, scrambling to retrofit a PC plant may prove more expensive
than having initially built an IGCC plant, says Mr. Nielsen.

Others see something more sinister at work in the nationwide rush to
build PC plants: an industry attempt to get cheaper, "dirtier,"
facilities on the ground before Congress puts carbon regulations in
place. "The barn door is open now, and a lot of facilities are trying
to get in before it closes," says Denise Fort, a law professor at the
University of New Mexico School of Law in Albuquerque.

At least two lawmakers seem to agree. In a Jan. 19 editorial in The
Dallas Morning News, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico and Sen.
Barbara Boxer (D) of California, both of whom chair powerful Senate
environmental committees, issued what amounted to a stern warning:
Utilities building plants with old technology should not assume they
will be "grandfathered in" when carbon regulations arrive.

Inside the trailer, a handful of Navajo elders alternately chat, doze,
and talk with a reporter around a propane heater. Most speak some
English, but all prefer to express themselves on this contentious
issue through an interpreter in their native tongue. For them, the
issue is simple. Yes, jobs would be nice, but at what cost?

"It's just going to mess up all our land," says Lucy Willie. "This is
our land to live on. Where are we going to move? Where are we going to
stay?"


On 2/22/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Read this and tell me what you see.
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0222/p13s01-sten.html
>
> Dana
>
> On 2/22/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Dana wrote:
> > > Pfft. Corporations make things. That's great. Look at a bigger picture.
> > >
> >
> > What's bigger than that?
> >
> > 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Deploy Web Applications Quickly across the enterprise with ColdFusion MX7 & 
Flex 2. 
Free Trial 
http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:228773
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5

Reply via email to