More bad news for coal / good news for humanity. This is a particularly delicious morsel, to be savored slowly, like a fine truffle.
For years now, a power company called Sunflower has been pushing to build two 700MW coal-fired power plants in Kansas, backed by the usual happy-horseshit PR about how clean and modern and awesome the plants would be.
Then there was a public comment period, and guess what? The public wasn't into it. And also, remember when the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate CO2 as an air pollutant? Turns out that gave some air quality people some ideas.
Or at least one air quality guy. My new hero, Roderick L. Bremby, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, gave Sunflower an answer today: Oh hell no.
"I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing," said Bremby.
...
"Denying the Sunflower air quality permit, combined with creating sound policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can facilitate the development of clean and renewable energy to protect the health and environment of Kansans," said Bremby.
This is the first time a coal plant air permit application has ever been denied on the basis of CO2 emissions. Wooord up!
(And crap, just as I was in the middle of writing about this, the WaPo beat me to it with a front-page story. Go read that.)
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:40 pm
18 Oct 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
jthurston08 Posted 11:57 pm
18 Oct 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:12 am
19 Oct 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:45 am
19 Oct 2007
What has me suspicious about all these coal plant cancellations (see other Grist article) and this is -- well, how can they just cancel these plants?
I mean, if it was so important to have all these coal plants, or any plants, wouldn't we be having all these shortages and brownouts and so on?
Or are we just spending the public's money willy-nilly on unnecessary overcapacity?
In fact, could we do away with some of our base load capacity and reduce CO2 immediately and by far reaching proportions?
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:28 am
19 Oct 2007
Not using energy is a wedge. And so on.
It all seems so simple...
Permalink
carfree Posted 5:48 am
19 Oct 2007
Perhaps investors are getting the message that coal is now officially, a crap investment.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:25 pm
20 Oct 2007
Sunflower, which already has a smaller coal-fired plant in Holcomb, has portrayed the proposed plants as part of a "bio-energy center" that would [have] include[d] an ethanol plant and an $86 million facility that would use a still-experimental algae process to capture carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed generating units. But one investor in the center had pulled out before yesterday's decision.
Permalink
sgreerpitt Posted 2:42 am
21 Oct 2007
Even if some day some one were to make electrical generation from coal carbon nuetral for the atmosphere (fat chance!), coal mining would still be environmentally devastating, removing forest cover, destroying ecosystem, and ruining watershed.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:56 pm
23 Oct 2007
The sun continuously leaks energy at a rate of 3.846e26 watts. Would you suggest plugging that leak, to save energy?
Permalink