Posts
The Iowa City Press Citizen makes the case for a moratorium on coal plants from being built in the state.
They conclude...In a move that could halt a proposed $1.5 billion, 750-megawatt coal plant project in northeast Waterloo, the Black Hawk County Health Board last week urged the state to ban the construction of coal plants in Iowa until enacting tougher emission standards. That the vote was close -- 3-2 -- isn't surprising. The $1.5 billion price tag on the facility would mean jobs, taxes and investment in the county. But the board's study of the plant's potential health effects indicated thousands of people could be exposed to emissions linked to asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks and other pulmonary diseases. A majority of the board rightly looked beyond any temporary economic gain and recommended a moratorium on issuing coal plant permits; the board voted unanimously to recommend tougher statewide air pollution standards.
The state leaders would be wise to follow the board's recommendation and to deny permits for either the proposed Waterloo plant or the plant Alliant Energy wants to build in Marshalltown. Right now coal produces more than half of the electricity in the United States, but that number likely is to go down dramatically as concerns about climate change, construction costs and transportations problems are making coal less attractive and less cost-effective source for producing electricity. Last year, more than 50 proposed coal-fired power plants in 20 states were canceled or delayed because of such concerns.
In essence, the coal industry is saying, "If you allow us to build these plants, we'll then have a significant economic incentive to figure out how to build the appropriate technology and to use it efficiently." But there's no guarantee that the technology will be in place by the time the plants are scheduled to come on line -- a situation that would leave Iowa in the unfortunate situation of having to choose between allowing the plants to produce electricity without the technology or to let newly completed $1.5 billion plants sit idle.
If the coal industry needs an additional incentive to perfect carbon-capturing technology, it should be that the industry can't begin building plants until it develops a workable system.
4 comments:
Hey I had trouble finding your email on your site.... otherwise i wouldve just emailed you.. Anyway, we need a liberal voice on my forum. I was wondering if you would consider a link exchange with: http://www.515forums.com/ if you are interested you can either post it here: http://515forums.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=29
or I can go ahead and post it if you email me at veracity024@yahoo.com
Okay, but are they willing to allow nuclear plants then?
If not, they can politely shut up.
I'm tired of brushing my teeth every night too. Have been since I was 15. Unfortunately if I simply stop brushing my teeth and say I'm not doing it anymore that doesn't mean my teeth will take care of themselves from now on.
Morons.
I don't understand your example. Brushing your teeth is good for your body and coal plants are bad for your body.
A better analogy would be eating fried food. I have been eating fried food since I was young. Then I heard that fried food isn't healthy, so I don't eat it everyday, maybe just once or twice a week. If I was having heart problems, then yes, I would put a moratorium on fried foods.
Okay, bad anaology. My point that I didn't make very well is that despite coal being bad for us, it's a necessary evil for the time being. We can't just stop making coal plants without a plan to fill in the gaps in the grid with something else.
How about the troops? We can't just pull out tomorrow and hope things work out without a plan to fix the aftermath. Is that better?
Post a Comment