The C City Coal Plant and the Environment
I read an article in the January issue of Rolling Stone magazine about the new coal plants TXU is building throughout Texas, one of which is located in Colorado City.
This plant will be a big plus for the economies of both Colorado City and Snyder.
I know Rolling Stone has a slanted viewpoint and one would expect them to blast the construction of the plants as being bad for the environment.
Apparently some very strong opposition, based on environmental concerns and centered in the Dallas area, has developed to the plants.
The article did make one good point which triggered my writing this blog entry.
TXU is not using the latest technology to reduce carbon dioxide-emissions in their plants.
This technology is called BAT (Best Available Technology) and significantly reduces pollution.
At the same time it is more expensive.
In fact, TXU, according to the article, convinced Gov. Perry ( by large campaign contributions and postponing rate hikes until after the recent govenor’s election) to fast track approval of plant construction in order to get the plants approved before federal legislation mandated that all new plants use BAT.
In my opinion, TXU should, of their own volition, use the very latest and best technology in building the new plants.
Aside form the larger environmental issues, I want as little pollution dumped into our West Texas air as possible, largely for health reasons.
Thus, I have no objection to their building a plant in Colorado City.
It will greatly help our local economy.
But I do want the plants to pollute the air as little as possible.
TXU should not be allowed to build the plants unless they use BAT.
This plant will be a big plus for the economies of both Colorado City and Snyder.
I know Rolling Stone has a slanted viewpoint and one would expect them to blast the construction of the plants as being bad for the environment.
Apparently some very strong opposition, based on environmental concerns and centered in the Dallas area, has developed to the plants.
The article did make one good point which triggered my writing this blog entry.
TXU is not using the latest technology to reduce carbon dioxide-emissions in their plants.
This technology is called BAT (Best Available Technology) and significantly reduces pollution.
At the same time it is more expensive.
In fact, TXU, according to the article, convinced Gov. Perry ( by large campaign contributions and postponing rate hikes until after the recent govenor’s election) to fast track approval of plant construction in order to get the plants approved before federal legislation mandated that all new plants use BAT.
In my opinion, TXU should, of their own volition, use the very latest and best technology in building the new plants.
Aside form the larger environmental issues, I want as little pollution dumped into our West Texas air as possible, largely for health reasons.
Thus, I have no objection to their building a plant in Colorado City.
It will greatly help our local economy.
But I do want the plants to pollute the air as little as possible.
TXU should not be allowed to build the plants unless they use BAT.
posted by SnyderTexas.net at 3:10 PM
17 Comments:
I agree. I'm for economic development but I don't think we should have an industry that is polluting our air.
That will be a detriment in the long run because fewer businesses will want to settle here.
That is a bunch of hogwash. We have plenty of air space out here in West Texas.
A little carbon dioxide won't hurt anything.
Besides. How do we know that TXU is not using the latest technology.
We need jobs in Snyder.
It is TXU's benefit to put the latest clean air equipment. We are talking a 40 year investment. Just do it right.
Back in October, our U.S. Representative Mike Conaway came to WTC. You can view a video of his visit here.
At 6:06 into the video, he says TXU will not be using "gasification" technology in the new plants, which would reduce pollutants released by a coal burning plant.
According to Wikipedia, gasification is not new technology. It was developed in the 1800's.
I'm from C City. I wish you people would leave TXU alone. Our town is dying. We really need the jobs. TXU knows how to build plants without polluting the environment any more than other coal plants.
Has anyone taken time to look at what the permit for the gas plant allows them to flare into our good old Scurry County air? I think it would surprise people. Out here in West Texas it seems we have to compromise something to get economic development and retain jobs such as the plant.
The building of the plant will be such a big help for Colorado City and the surrounding area that it is very hard to oppose its construction.
Do we really know how much pollution will be put in the air and how it will affect us. There is so much misinformation around that I am very sceptical of the doom and gloom of the environmentalists.
On the other hand, if there is a proven technology which significantly reduces coal pollutants, TXU should use it.
That is just my opinion.
I wish TXU would give us true and correct information about what is going on.
It would help me make up my own mind on the issue.
Sometimes what is being compromised is our health or the health of those we love. Have you ever looked at the cancer rate for the Scurry County area?
Do not support eco-terrorism. TXU are enviromental rapists. Educate yourself.
http://www.cleanskycoalition.com/facts.html
Is it possible that the Morgan Creek coal-burning plant could recieve a visit from the ELF?
A typical coal plant each year emits as much carbon dioxide damage as cutting down 161 million trees.
Union of Concerned Scientists
A typical coal plant each year emits 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by 500,000 late-model cars.
Union of Concerned Scientists
If all of the proposed coal-fired electric plants are built in Texas, Texas will produce as much carbon dioxide as California, New York and Florida combined.
National Public Radio, Sept. 25, 2006
Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher doses of radiation than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.
Science Magazine, Dec 8, 1978
Each coal-fired power plant releases about 74 pounds of uranium-235 each year, enough for two or more nuclear bombs.
The Christian Science Monitor, May 29, 2001
Coal-fired power plants are responsible for 60% of U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions, 33% of U.S. mercury emissions, 25% of nitrogen oxide emissions, and more than 33% of the nation’s carbon dioxide air emissions.
Chemical & Engineering News, Feb 23, 2004
Coal already is the biggest air polluter in the United States.
Union of Concerned Scientists
Coal is the single, largest source of mercury emissions in the nation.
Sierra Club North Star Chapter
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of sulfur dioxide (SO2), releasing about 2/3 of the total SO2 pollution each year.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report." 2003. Appendix A
Just the first wave of proposed coal-fired electric plants for Texas would add 78 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. That is more than 21 other states combined produce today. It’s also more than many countries, including Sweden, Denmark and Portugal.
Environmental Defense
The first wave of coal-fired power plants would produce so much CO2 it would be like adding 10 million Cadillac Escalades to Texas roads.
Environmental Defense
The first wave of coal-fired power plants would produce so much CO2 it would be like cutting and burning all the trees in a section of the Amazon rainforest the size of 9,360,000 football fields.
Environmental Defense
The global warming impact of building the first wave of coal-fired power plants would be the equivalent of the annual emissions of 14 million average passenger cars.
Environmental Defense
Texas is already the number-one global warming polluting state in America. If it were a country, Texas would be in the top 10 in the entire world.
Environmental Defense
A typical coal-fired electric plant produces 170 pounds of mercury each year.
Clean Air Council
A typical coal-fired electric plant produces 225 pounds of arsenic each year.
Clean Air Council
A typical coal-fired electric plant produces 114 pounds of lead each year.
Clean Air Council
environmental not enviromental. you should educate yourself, treehugger.
there should be a coal burnin' plant on every dad-gum street corner is what I reckon. we would have cheap electricity bills and plenty of jobs for all them folks just standing in the unemployment line.
Whew! We can all breathe easy now!
Whew! We can all breathe easy now!
Whew! We can all breathe easy now!
Sounds like everyone should do some research on this subject before they start calling others "treehuggers" and such.
I've lived near one of these coal plants and put up with the coal trains coming and going. Not only is that bad, but everyone's health will suffer. It may sound great to the greedy, but you won't be thinking it's so great after a year or so. Higher doctor bills and more illnesses from the air polution. You don't want to live where the prevailing winds blow this stuff towards your home. It's no joke. We better start thinking for the future and our children and grandchildren. Our memory gets foggy as the years go by and it may look great for now, but we better learn from our past. That's why they did away with these plants years ago. TXU is hoping you will be more interested in saving a few dollars than worrying about how it will affect your health. You do not want a coal plant anywhere!
Mary
Colorado City, TX
Post a Comment
<< Home