I think the Navaho *council* has decided that the benefits outweigh the risks. And to the Navaho, given a narrow enough point of view, they may. This land belongs to them but it's on the eastern edge of Navaholand and the prevailing wind is away from them and across the rest of the state.
Nonetheless, even before we get to the environmental impact -- which is not negligable; the existing Four Corners plant affects the air in Albuqueruque halfway across a rather large state -- let's look at a $50 million subsidy and a request for $85 million dollars more for a project that will generate 200 jobs. If it's such a good deal why aren't they peddling it in Rockville MD or San Francisco, hmm? I think you know as well as I do that that 49% unemployment rate is part of why they like the location. It's a fine example of sending scarce resources out of state for dubious returns. I think you're misunderstanding me. This proposal has supporters. The Navaho Tribal Council apparently supports it. The bill was just un-tabled today so somebody somwhere is voting for it. It seems likely to pass, actually. So government as a check on corporate interests - not. Not in this case anyway. Media? I actually found one article in the locla paper after we talked. But otherwise, this is not getting coverage here, al probably less then none elsewhere. So media as a check on corporate interests -- not happening either. So that leaves environmental groups and individuals. Personally, my money's on the multinational corporation, dude. I haven't read up on the technology but I'm prepared to believe that it's an improvment over say Four Corners. It's just that this isn't saying much. That brown haze Denny was taking about the other day? Guess where it comes from. Dana On 2/22/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You seem to equate my statement with unified opposition. That isn't what I > mean. Governments are people. Media are people. Corporations are people. > Some of them will agree, some of them will disagree. In the Desert Rock > case, it looks like the people involved have by and large judged that the > benefits outweigh the risks. Some people (like Barbara Boxer, one of my > Senators) are speaking out in opposition. That doesn't mean that everyone in > government everywhere is uniformly opposed to the plan. > > As for the plan itself, I haven't studied IGCC technology in detail, but I > am very familiar with pulverized coal (PC) technology. Ten or fifteen years > ago, PC was considered advanced production worthy technology, with > fluidized-bed coal technology being the means of burning the fuel. Companies > were pursuing pressurized fluidized-bed technology, and it looks like PFB > has become a decent option for building new plants. > > http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/combustion/fluidizedbed_overview.html > > It also looks like IGCC is the newest attempt to conquer the challenge of > retrofitting old plants. By the way, don't think that utility companies > aren't interested in advanced technology. They are extremely interested. > Just google IGCC technology and you'll se AEP, Duke Power, and GE among > others interested in commercializing the technology. > > http://www.aep.com/about/igcc/technology.htm > > > That doesn't mean everyone agrees, though. > > On 2/22/07, Dana wrote: > > > > um, if you google Desert Rock (on News at least) you will see only one > > article of any substance. This one, which was written by a freelancer, > > notice. And a blurb that the $85 million subsidy went to a hearing > > again today. Government is not opposed to this...Jeff Bingaman and > > Barbara Boxer are *federal* legislators commenting on a matter that is > > currently in a state legislature. > > > > > -- > --------------- > Robert Munn > www.funkymojo.com > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:228785 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
