To Scrub or Not to Scrub: Public Comments Solicited
I have been away for the past few days due to problems with my home internet connection. It’s good to be back and to see what my fans at PA are saying.
On the environmental front, Entergy is seeking to charge consumers more than $1 billion to retrofit the White Bluff plant with scrubbers. Why should we oppose putting scrubbers on an existing plant? I am not an energy expert, but I know one, and he has explained the situation. (You can check out the full story at GreenArbytheDay).
What we really want is a careful look at the longterm cost-effectiveness of the alternatives to sinking $1 billion (current estimate by the company) into extending the life of a 30-year-old coal plant.
So far, three different owners of modern, efficient natural gas plants have suggested that they will make proposals to supply the energy more cheaply. Natural gas has its problems, but it pollutes far less than coal (for instance, no mercury fallout & dramatically lower CO2 cost and financial risk).
This is not merely an environmental issue. The Bush Administration issued flawed rules governing mercury and interstate smog and acid rain emissions. Those rules were thrown out by (largely Republican) judges. They will be rewritten soon within the life of the coal plant. Furthermore, the first carbon dioxide rules will be issued next March. All of those air rules, plus new water waste disposal rules might require further very expensive upgrades to the coal plant (indeed, Entergy modeling already allocates $176 million for future mercury controls). So, one of our concerns is that this $1 billion project, even without likely cost overruns, could be just the beginning; but AFTER the first big expenditure is made, it is “water under the bridge.” Similar upgrade costs might not pertain for natural gas, or for a combination of natural gas and wind power (a coalition of wind power developers also has asked to be heard). By comparison, these alternatives might be less expensive and might even return investment into in-state industries rather than coal shipments from out-of-state.
It takes very sophisticated analysis to compare these alternatives, and there are further economic and power issues not addressed here. Entergy and the plant co-owners are predisposed to want to keep its coal plant operating because that is part of how rates and revenues are justified. Clearly, any answer would need to address those issues. However, we are asking that other parties be allowed to investigate alternatives to see if a cheaper, less polluting alternative makes economic and environmental sense for the co-owners, ratepayers and the state.
You may speak out about the issue by submitting a written comment to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (airpermits@adeq.state.ar.us) by close of business tomorrow. Entergy must obtain an air permit to proceed with this work.
What we really want is a careful look at the longterm cost-effectiveness of the alternatives to sinking $1 billion (current estimate by the company) into extending the life of a 30-year-old coal plant.
So far, three different owners of modern, efficient natural gas plants have suggested that they will make proposals to supply the energy more cheaply. Natural gas has its problems, but it pollutes far less than coal (for instance, no mercury fallout & dramatically lower CO2 cost and financial risk).
This is not merely an environmental issue. The Bush Administration issued flawed rules governing mercury and interstate smog and acid rain emissions. Those rules were thrown out by (largely Republican) judges. They will be rewritten soon within the life of the coal plant. Furthermore, the first carbon dioxide rules will be issued next March. All of those air rules, plus new water waste disposal rules might require further very expensive upgrades to the coal plant (indeed, Entergy modeling already allocates $176 million for future mercury controls). So, one of our concerns is that this $1 billion project, even without likely cost overruns, could be just the beginning; but AFTER the first big expenditure is made, it is “water under the bridge.” Similar upgrade costs might not pertain for natural gas, or for a combination of natural gas and wind power (a coalition of wind power developers also has asked to be heard). By comparison, these alternatives might be less expensive and might even return investment into in-state industries rather than coal shipments from out-of-state.
It takes very sophisticated analysis to compare these alternatives, and there are further economic and power issues not addressed here. Entergy and the plant co-owners are predisposed to want to keep its coal plant operating because that is part of how rates and revenues are justified. Clearly, any answer would need to address those issues. However, we are asking that other parties be allowed to investigate alternatives to see if a cheaper, less polluting alternative makes economic and environmental sense for the co-owners, ratepayers and the state.
Recent Comments