A revealing and disturbing article in the New York Times shows both the powerful allure of coal in developing nations and its soaring environmental costs.
China and India are investing heavily in coal plants for their exploding energy needs. Coal is cheap and abundant, but besides contributing to climate change, it’s causing widespread illness and billions of dollars in crop loss.
One Chinese coal-town resident, who suffers from coughing fits, echoed the argument made by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius: “The coal, it produces electric power that we send to other provinces. But we are left with the pollution.â€
In China, there’s no talk of “clean coal†— most Chinese plants have no pollution controls, and the resulting clouds of fine particulates, laced with mercury and other deadly chemicals, drift halfway around the world, their toxins showing up in smog in cities and in fish in the U.S. Northwest.
Half of the mercury contamination in the United States comes from overseas, especially China, one expert said.
As our editorial today notes, the impact of burning coal goes far beyond Kansas’ coal debate. Coal pollution is a global problem, requiring a global solution. And unless developing nations are brought on board, the prospects for addressing climate change and coal pollution look bleak.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
87 Comments
We could do the amazing thing of selling our technology of pollution controls to China. In order to prevent piracy we’d have to create a deal with the government to be the sole supplier of the technology.
Agreed Doug. I would add that we could help with nuclear technology both in China and elsewhere.
May the grandchildren of the CONs suffer the most from what their fathers have wroght.
apparently JM doesn’t have children, parents don’t wish anything bad upon others peoples children, no matter what their views are.that is just a hateful post that added nothing to the conversation..
I don’t think China gives a hoot as to their polluting ways.
Ben you do realize that China is a Nuclear power. and they did have Nuclear power plants, they just won’t build them do to cost.. what do you want to do? give them money. hell they own half of America now??
Probably more just tech-sharing. I know they are a weapons power – don’t know how much they have done in the power area.
Solution: develop a clean, viable alternative and sell it to them.
If all that stuff comes from other countries, how are we going to control our own destiny in the environment?
They said stuff like one-fifth of mercury contaminations come from China.
How much stuff from other countries get dumped on the U.S. and we get blamed for it?
BTW, did you know that that particulate matter in the air over central and eastern Asia blows across the Pacific and measurable amounts end up here in the US of A?
Brian, that’s second hand smoke therefore it must be harmless.
Yes, now you know why we didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol unless India and China signed it to??
A couple of obvious points, that the Eagle won’t mention:
The opponents of the new Kansas coal powered plant never talk about “clean coal” technology.
Even their dumb ad, paid for by a Natural Gas firm (That reminds me of Enron) bashes CURRENT Coal plants for their emisisons.
NOBODY is talking about the fact that this proposed plant would be, perhaps, the cleanest plant in the world.
Before we can “export” this new, “clean coal” technology, don’t we need to demonstrate it here, in the US, first?
Next, China will STILL be producing CO2 in their coal plants, even with “clean coal” technology.
Man-made global warming is a hoax, anyway, —
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history.html?q=blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
But even if there was any truth to the “man made global warming” hoax, China and India will never cooperate anyway.
Therefore, changing US behavior is pointless, where CO2 emissions are concerned.
If we refuse to burn our coal, here, we will end up shipping it to China so THEY can burn it.
Whats the difference?
We should build a ton of coal fired plants in Mexico.
This would provide work for the Mexicans and power for the United States.
The answer is easy, bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
The plant will not be built in Kansas.
It also will not be built in Oklahoma or Colrado.
The plant is not needed or wanted.
The greatest untapped source of energy is conservation of it.
Phantom
So, you want to decrease the supply of energy, increase the cost of energy, and the cost of production —
And your goal is get more manufacturing jobs to materialize, in that environment?
Econ–
Apparently you missed the excellent letter to the editor the other day.
If “clean coal” technology is so wonderful, why don’t they use it at the Holcomb plant NOW.
The fact is that algae smoke eaters and all that other bogus green technology can’t begin to deal with the massive amounts of CO2 and mercury belched out of these smokestacks.
You can experiment on your own kids, but not on mine.
And your goal is get more manufacturing jobs to materialize, in that environment?
Posted by: Econ101 |
Damn right.
Manufacturing wind power turbines. LED lighting. Electric cars. Home and business solar arrays. Geothermal heating. Super insulation. Recycling.
First
CO2 is a non issue.
Carbon Dioxide is a completely natural gas, and producing more of it will simply mean our plant life will have more of it to use.
“bogus green technology”???
You, on the one hand, tell us that we must fund new technology to meet our fuel needs, then you bash that technology if it helps us use a fuel you don’t like?
I have an honest question:
You greens push these new “energy saving” light bulbs on us, which contain mercury.
You tell us that it is a “trade off” because these bulbs will mean LESS coal will be needed, which also spreads mercury.
However, what happens when you succeed in making coal illegal?
What will the trade off be, at that time?
Will you make us get rid of all of our mercury contaminated light bulbs, since they no longer reduce the burning of mercury containing coal?
You libs just want to tell people what to do.
You look for your excuses later, after you figure out what you like and dont like, or who you like and dont like.
“NOBODY is talking about the fact that this proposed plant would be, perhaps, the cleanest plant in the world.”
Posted by: Econ101 | November 08, 2007 at 02:51 PM
Because it would not be, and it would emit HUGE amounts of CO2.
econ101: “Man-made global warming is a hoax, anyway, —”
Poor econ101 does not know the difference between climate scientists and meteorologists.
John Colemanhttp://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html
“”Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam,” says KUSI NEWS’ 6, 10 and 11 PM weathercaster. Then he laughs.”
Poor econ101 cannot understand the difference between mercury from coal-fired plants polluting lakes (fish) etc — and mercury safely contained in CFLs, that are later recycled.
And NO econ101, CFL’s will not be banned in the future, unless LED’s or other light sources can replace them.
The higher efficiency of CFL’s makes renewable energy more feasible.
“producing more of it will simply mean our plant life will have more of it to use.”
BS Paul. If I made a claim like “junk bonds and crazy ARMs are good” would you question whether I am competant to make such a judgement? Well Paul; you are not competant to make the sweeping BS claim you made.
“CO2 is a non issue.”
Posted by econ101
FALSE! CO2 levels are very important to Earth’s climate. A NATURAL DROP in CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age!
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm
“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
econ101: “producing more of it will simply mean our plant life will have more of it to use.”
Extra CO2 does make poison ivy grow faster, and have more potent oils. Most other plants are/will be stressed by the higher temperatures, changes in rainfall, etc.
Plants evolved to grow best in the climate we had in the recent past.
We should set an example and go green no matter what the cost to our competitiveness. That way, when Chinese industry buries us, they will know that we had the very best of intentions.
The entire planet will pay the environmental cost of shifting production to China.
Thanks, Cosmos, for refuting Econ’s idiocies so well.
Econ writes, “CO2 is a non issue.
Carbon Dioxide is a completely natural gas . . . ”
Natural, yes. So is opium, so is radioactive uranium, so is arsenic, so is mercury, so is the deadly poison ricin found in castor beans, so is the botulism toxin, so is cancer-causing tobacco.
For that matter, bubonic plague, syphilis, and gangrene are perfectly natural.
Just because something is naturally present in the environment doesn’t mean we should concentrate it and expose ourselves to it.
No, Dummycrat.
The Chinese will bury us because we’re DEAD.
Salt is natural. However in our drinking water supply it is a problem.
Carbon dioxide, as a natural gas, is a lot different from the items mentioned above. It’s produced by burning anything: coal, gas, oil, metabolism, breathing. Plants use it for photosynthesis.
But, if we’ve got all this coal, and we’re not allowed to use it, I can see a silver lining: export it to China and India. They WILL use it. We need the exports. They need the coal, and the electricity. And their goods, produced with cheap electricity, will compete with ours.
Or James, we could just have everyone in the US replace ONE incandescent bulb with one compact flourescent bulb and reduce our CO2 output by 1 TRILLION pounds . . .
Dummocrat,
Do you mean “our competitiveness”, like U.S. vehicles being banned from China, because they fail to meet mpg requirements?
Coal is not cheap, when all the serious external costs are included. There are health risks, such as lung disease, mercury, etc. There’s acid rain.
Read the header post: “Coal is cheap and abundant, but besides contributing to climate change, it’s causing widespread illness and billions of dollars in crop loss.”
And future costs of climate change are incalcuable — sea level rise, droughts, more crop loss, etc.
Avoiding coal will make the U.S. more competitive in the future.
“It’s produced by burning anything: coal, gas, oil, metabolism, breathing. Plants use it for photosynthesis.”
Posted by James A.
But burning huge amounts of coal, oil, and gas is NOT part of Earth’s natural carbon cycle. That carbon was safely sequestered underground.
The carbon we exhale comes from the plants we ate, which recently captured the carbon from the atmosphere.
And you left out a VERY important “use” of CO2 — controlling the temperature of our Earth’s climate.
OK, but having each U.S. citizen replace one incandescent light bulb will do nothing to reduce China’s increasingly large carbon footprint. We can do all we want in the way of conservation and banning coal. But in the meantime we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. The atmosphere is global; it doesn’t just remain over Kansas–or over China. And coal is a fungible and saleable commodity.
Hey, let’s send the ‘coal-burning’ western kansas politicians to China. They’ll love it there….on the other hand maybe not, there won’t be any fat campaign contributions there.
“producing more of it will simply mean our plant life will have more of it to use.”
Only if CO2 were the limiting nutrient. That is RARELY the case. In Kansas water is a more important limit. No water; no plant growth. Doesn’t matter how much CO2 you have.
Go take a biology class.
“Or James, we could just have everyone in the US replace ONE incandescent bulb with one compact flourescent bulb and reduce our CO2 output by 1 TRILLION pounds . . .”
Hey Capn, let’s just give the Chinese 1.3 billion of those florescent light bulbs. One for each one. Surely that will more than make up for all that coal produced CO2 in China! Plus, then they have to deal with the mercury pollution from the bulbs. So we trade a global CO2 problem for something the Chinese have to deal with.
Brilliant!
‘Climate MYTHS: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11655
Ben
Plankton never run out of water, do they?
Dummy–
You confuse mercury contained under glass (not harmful) with mercury in our environment working its way up the food chain (harmful).
You really are a dummy.
plankton credits:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902553.html
CapnAnd when those mercury bulbs are put in the waste dump, or are dropped or broken?
No, but with higher water temperatures the ocean’s primary productivity is declining.
Paul – iron addition is not new. It has been tried with very limited success.
I hope they can find a way to pull it off but I’ve taken too many biology classes.
Fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. The standard fluorescent lamp contains approximately 20 milligrams of mercury. While there are no known health hazards from exposure to lamps that are intact, improper disposal of fluorescent lamps can contaminate the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over 800 million lamps are produced each year to replace 800 million lamps that are then disposed. Since 1 gram of mercury is enough to contaminate a 2-acre pond, there is enough mercury in those lamps to contaminate 20 million acres of water.
Mercury is toxic to the human nervous system. Chronic breathing of mercury vapors can cause a range of physical symptoms, including inability to coordinate body movement and impairment of hearing, speech and vision. Exposure to mercury in other forms can lead to skin rashes and kidney damage.
http://www.worldwise.com/recfluorlig.html
Check it out. That mercury is nasty! Look what we can do to those Chinese with florescent bulbs. Stealth weapon.
Yes, the Hg needs to be dealt with. But at least it is contained and that gives us the opportunity to do so.
And you know what else, Dummy?
(of course he doesn’t)
1. The amount of mercury used in the lamp is very small. Less than 6 mgms. Some low mercury lamps have been developed using less that 2 mgms.
2. The amount of mercury used in the lamp is less than the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere of a coal burning plant to power an incandescent lamp of the same output and time.
3. CFL’s can be easily recycled and their mercury kept out of the ecosystem, unlike airborne mercury in coal smoke.
By the time it burns out, most of the mercury vapor in a fluorescent tube has been absorbed into the phosphor, glass, and other parts.
Right Ben,
Warmer oceans = less phytoplanton (and less CO2 absorbed).
For econ101,’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html” “Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere play a big part in global warming,” said lead author Michael Behrenfeld of Oregon State University, Corvallis. “This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume.That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate MORE rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce MORE warming.” “
You’re right. I mean those on the left. I love mercury too.
Mercury teaches us that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Here we have some true greensters defending a potent neuro toxin pollutant because they fear another pollutant.
We Democrats are a gas! Not CO2 though!
Ok truth in blogging.
“Econ 101″ has not been airing his proper disclaimer.
Econ is and has been a trader and broker in the fossil fuels industries. His opinions here are no doubt more related to his work than any base in anything approaching reason or fact.
In matters of climate change, and fossil fuels, he would compare to a pusher uptalking the benefits of a fix.
JRThe Green commercials on TV, applauding the decision NOT to build a new coal plant, were paid for by a natural gas firm.
What is your point?
I have family, friends, and my own health to worry about.
I am guessing that everyone reading this Blog has at least some investment in a company that mines or burns coal, through your pension plan.
You give “simplistic” new meaning almost every day, JR!
JRBy your logic, everyone who receives government benefits should refrain from talking about those benefits, right?
By the way, their is a “writers strike” going on right now.
Wish you were in that Union.
there their lol I guess I am on strike too, in my own way.
Do yourself and your clients a favor econ.
Invest in green. Invest them in green THAT is the future.
The stone age did not end because we ran outta rocks.
Oh and it’s easy to be simplistic with ya Paulie. You’re about as deep as ya are honest!
Hey hooray for the commercials against the pollution plant WHOEVER ran them. Even if their intent was selfishly directed. Means and end ya know?
Nice shot Paul!
Except, I aint on government benefits anymore than you are a writer. Hey truth never got in your way before. Stick with fiction. Maybe…comic books?
JR
I am Santa
Here is your lump of coal! lol
Your grandkids will be burning coal long after you are gone.
Industry will find places to build plants, that want them.
Or, Mexico will take those jobs and that money.—-
By the way, if you are so darn smart, why do you cry for government handouts all the time?
Cant you figure out how to do for yourself?
JRYou want FREE health insurance.
You want handouts.
Most Americans want some level of government available health care for those without care econ. I know, I know, you are behind on THAT issue too.
I do so tire of taking you to school. Sigh…the ox is slow. But the Earth is patient.
JRYOU HAVE HEALTH CARE!
Health insurance is designed to protect the money and wealth of people who have money or wealth.
Health insurance is not health care access.
And, from what YOU have told us, maybe you don’t need health insurance!
“The prospects for addressing climate change and coal pollution look bleak.
Posted by Randy Scholfield”
I don’t know about you Randy but Nature will address climate change with you or without you.Giving to comparison of natural selection, survival of a species against all odds within our own galaxy, our intelligence may be what defines us as a higher intellect deserving of a membership in the galactic community or just another dumb animal due for extinction.
And now you are getting heavy with the punctuation and straying far from the topic.
So, I will leave you to flail away. I’ve brought you more atttention already than you deserve.I don’t need to feed your rant.
The people who work at the coal fired electric plants have health insurance.
Utilities pay huge amounts of money in taxes. In nearly every taxing unit in Kansas, utilities are top property tax payers. On top of that, you have income taxes on the company and the employees.
We will need that tax revenue to pay for all the programs that people like JR want us to hand them.
Oh no you don’t.
I’ll leave you to flail Paulie but you do not get to lie one me.
I, like most Americans, believe that Americans should NOT be the only civilized people of the Western world without some form of health care. To suggest that as something people want “handed to them” is an indictment against the majority of the American people.
There are other forms of welfare.
A utility company wanting to suck the water resources of the people of the state of Kansas dry, WHILE polluting their air FOR power for people in a different state?
WHy that sounds like corporate welfare to me. The people of Kansas agree. They are not required to subsidize coal fire power plants.
econ101,
“Quotes about oil, which also apply to coal, from someone who is much wiser than you.
“Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil — and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground.
The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the Oil Age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil. … [Fuel cell technology] is coming before the end of the decade and will cut gasoline consumption by almost 100 per cent… On the supply side it is easy to find oil and produce it, and on the demand side there are so many new technologies, especially when it comes to automobiles.”
Sheikh Zaki Yamani, Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia (1962–86), June 2000.
one day, libs post nonsense about “peak oil” — the idea that we are running out of oil
another day, the libs post nonsense about alternative energy.
Question, did the Sheik, who’s opinion you quoted above, have his learned opinion “peer reviewed”??
I believe that Oregon is a bit more liberal than Kansas.
The voters of Oregon just voted DOWN a state health care mandate.
“Utilities pay huge amounts of money in taxes.”
Posted by econ101
Okay econ101, now tell us the source of those “huge amounts of money”.
And tell us how they pay their income taxes, and pay their employees.
Hint: It’s not from people who live off of the electric grid.
We must nuke China, if we want to stop their coal pollution attack on the planet.
The nuclear attack will help cool the world by stopping the coal pollution and through the global cooling affects of nuclear winter.
As I have long stated the United States should only trade with nations whos values reflect those of our own. It is our fault that China is turning into an out of control superpower that, in my opinion, will be far more a danger to the world- and this country- than either Nazi Germany of the USSR was. China is a facist country. People like to say it is “communist” but is nowhere near communist. It is facist. Facism is when the means of production is in private hands but governmentally controlled. And we are the ones financing it by buying their lead based date rape drugged toys and all the other stuff they make just to save a dime or two over what it would cost to buy the same things from Mexico which is much safer.
We could do the amazing thing of selling our technology of pollution controls to China. In order to prevent piracy we’d have to create a deal with the government to be the sole supplier of the technology.
Posted by: Doug | November 08, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Sounds like a good idea with the exception of being the sole supplier of technology, doesn’t that defeat the notion of free market? Do you really believe they would agree to that and adhere to it?
It would make more sense to sell them the technology at a reasonable price and allowing them to develop and manage it within there borders — if I were them I’d be afraid that the ultimate goal of the US was to meddle in my politics and culture as they have done in the middle east. If it’s for the good of the world seems like a good idea
If Gore was smart enough to invent the internet, why wasn’t he smart enough to build nuclear power plants. He could have made a lot of money.
Obvious solution – Voluntary Conservation. Build smaller but better insulated houses and drive smaller and lighter cars. Will it ever happen in Wichita? Not until the price of electricity & gasoline soars. Free markets do work as long as the cost of exernalities (i.e. polution) are costed into finished products which China & India do not want to do until their city dwellers get really really sick from the polution.
“”"We must nuke China, if we want to stop their coal pollution attack on the planet.
The nuclear attack will help cool the world by stopping the coal pollution and through the global cooling affects of nuclear winter.”"”
The prblem with that is that China can nuke us back.
Ken, there is no such thing as a free market, especially in China. If there were competition then we could sell our technology, the Chinese could copy it, and then reject our product and manufacture their own products based on our technology The Chinese government runs the company so who would prosecute them for stealing the technology?
ok so recognizing there is no such thing as a free market — then why be concerned about prosecuting them for using what we sell / give them ? Why must there be a string attached — to insure profitability of an American product? It would seem that under your idea that sitting on a technology because some one may steal it is counterproductive — we;ve been selling them manufacturing technology and equipment for well over a decade — and we haven’t made an issue of them stealing any of it — heck in the mid 90’s Israel sold China some piece of our muclear technology (I believe it was) and we did nothing about it ….
I don’t think China wants the associated cost of pollution control. But the cost to their environment will be much more dear.
I disagree with the “costs” point in the Eagle’s editorial (link in header).
“Critics are right: There are huge challenges in meeting this goal.
One is cost. Transforming the economy and transportation infrastructure from carbon to renewable sources will be a massive, costly undertaking. Consumers inevitably will pay higher energy costs.”
It’s cheaper to save electricity with higher efficiency, than build expensive new coal plants to produce it. Consumers will have lower utility bills if the new coal plants are NOT built.
Rates WILL go up, if the $3.6 BILLION Holcomb plants are built.
And what will really hurt consumers is to pay for new coal-fired plants, and pay the future carbon taxes on coal-fired electricity…and then pay a third time, for higher energy efficiency and renewables, when the coal plants are shutdown, to try to stop global warming.
Same story with “transportation”. Current technology and materials could roughly double the mpg. $3 per gallon gasoline “costs” $1.50.
State of the art technology could quadruple the mpg. Gasoline “costs” 75 cents.
But U.S. automakers want to maximize their profits by avoiding design and retooling costs — so they instead maintain the status quo.
econ101,
You still have not figured out where utilities get “huge amounts of money” to pay their taxes, and employees?
From what I’ve read, Kansas does not now regulate CO2. Yet, CO2 emissions seem to the main reason for denying the plant permit. Did the regulator even follow the law? If the main point of not building the power plant is to prevent global warming, then it seems to be an unequal burden on KS: our 1 plant not built vs hundreds to be built in China and India? Even the Eagle says it’s inevitable that consumers will pay higher electric costs.
I guess I understand why we don’t want coal plants, we can build more nuclear power plants, but what I can’t figure out is why we can’t drill for oil in Alaska, we could reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, reduce price of oil at home, impact the cost of crude in the world market.. why does it have to be all or nothing. the technology isn’t available yet to off-set Gasoline and it definately is not affordable by any means at this time. I don’t know about Global warming yet, but I will agree nobody will dsagree with cleaning the planet up. when technology becomes available we can switch to clean technology but until then lets capture the ability to take care of this country’s oil dependency first.
Here’s a link to Q&A about the AWR
http://www.arcticwildlife.org/oil10myths.htm
BG,
Where did you get the idea that Alaska’s Arctic Refuge oil would perform all of those miracles? At best, if oil prices stay high, and with lots of luck, it might help maintain the status quo.
The U.S. has already pumped most of our small reserves of oil.Higher mpg vehicles, then biofuels, batteries, and hydrogen are the only viable solutions.http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
And the 800-mile pipeline is so indefensible a drunk shut it down with a hunting rifle, during heightened security. See the photos,http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1584553.stm
“Even the Eagle says it’s inevitable that consumers will pay higher electric costs.”
Posted by: James A.
No offense to the Eagle, but they are not energy experts.
Choice 1:Consumers pay $3.6 BILLION (or more) for the construction of two unneeded coal plants, and then pay carbon taxes for decades (unless the plants are forced to shutdown due to global warming).
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org
In the “Media/Docs” 2006 press release archives,
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/Tri-State%20report%20update%201pr.pdf
“But the WRA analysis demonstrates that the company is dramatically inflating those forecasts to justify the plants.
…According to the WRA analysis, Tri-State’s wholesale rate could spike 80 percent above current rates by 2011 and 160 percent by 2019 as a result.”
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/KDHE%20decision%20-%20final-1.pdf“the proposed Tri-State and Sunflower units would have emitted more than 11 million tons of global warming pollution annually. Recent estimates for emissions pricing range from $10 to $40 a ton by 2020, meaning that Tri-State would have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year in extra operating costs and billions over the plant’s lifespan.”
Choice 2:The cheaper, cleaner, faster strategy — using efficiency, cogeneration, and renewables.
‘Energy Tribune Speaks with Amory Lovins’http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=672
A very detailed report,Climate: Making Sense and Making Money, (462 KByte) http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C97-13_ClimateMSMM.pdf
It won’t solve the problem with oil proices, but maybe it will lessen the effect a little. I just can’t get it out of head about an old lady sitting in the cold because see can’t afford the heating oil bill. I don’t understand how a Hurricane can raise prices of oil, but finding new supplies won’t effect the price a little?? The New technology is so expensive how can allot of the people afford it?? I see those working for the future but not in the next 5 years??
posted by BG: “I don’t understand how a Hurricane can raise prices of oil, but finding new supplies won’t effect the price a little??”
It’s beginnng to sound like a catch 22. Disrupting supplies raises prices. But finding new supplies won’t lower prices, because we think that we’re going to get taxed more for the CO2 emissions. In fact, if we find more supplies we’re supposed to ignore them, as well as all that excess coal. How much will I have to pay just to continue breathing? If I hold my breath I won’t exhale any CO2, at least until I pass out.
BG and James A.,
Where are getting the idea that Arctic Refuge oil would reduce world oil prices?
James A.,
Do you eat coal, crude oil, and natural gas, that were safely sequestered underground?
If not, the carbon you that you exhale is from plants that recently captured it from the atmosphere, and it’s carbon neutral.