Well, we've got good news and bad news: North Carolina air-quality officials have granted Duke Energy a permit for a new coal plant (boo) in what Duke Carolinas President Ellen Ruff says is "very likely the last coal plant you'll see coming from Duke" in the Carolinas (rah!). The permit stipulates that four older Duke coal plants in the state be retired before the new one goes online, the idea being that total emissions will not increase. "What we are signaling through these actions is our intention to reduce our carbon footprint and our openness to the public for ideas on how to do this," says Ruff. Oddly enough, two-thirds of the 1,865 written public comments received about the new plant were negative, and environmental groups may challenge the permit in court.
Duke It Out
Duke Energy will build likely its last coal plant in North Carolina 7
-
Posted 5:30 PM on 30 Jan 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
nycowboy Posted 5:21 am
31 Jan 2008
They replace older, dirtier, coal plants. The current mercury and sulfur dioxide emissions are a national disgrace.
They produce more electricity per unit of coal burned then existing old plants, reducing our carbon footprint.
If you can't get a glass completely full, it's better to half full then totally empty.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:49 am
31 Jan 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:26 am
03 Feb 2008
Earth First! had it right; "No Compromise in Defense of Mother Earth!" Humans have already destroyed most of the planet, and any additional destruction is NOT acceptable.
Permalink
gbin2000 Posted 11:46 pm
07 Apr 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:44 am
08 Apr 2008
Easy. use clean renewable energy instead. There's more than enough to meet everybody's needs if we develop it properly, 'specially with energy conservation in mind.
Texas alone has added nearly 5,000 MW of wind energy in just the past two years, and there's room for plenty more.
The Dakotas alone have enough wind energy for the continent. And then there's solar, geothermal, landfill gas, tidal, and other renewables.
We don't need coal.
Permalink
gbin2000 Posted 11:54 am
08 Apr 2008
Would environmentalist want wind towers all over the Dakotas? I have passed the farm in central Illinois (I think the town is Paw Paw) and that is weird seeing the towers for miles.
Thanks!
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:54 am
09 Apr 2008
Here are a few sources (most from the American Wind Energy Association):
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Market_Release ...
http://www.awea.org/projects/
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_ ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Sta ...
Would environmentalist want wind towers all over the Dakotas? I have passed the farm in central Illinois (I think the town is Paw Paw) and that is weird seeing the towers for miles.
Thanks!
Probably not over the entire Dakotas, no. That was just to give an example of much potential renewable enrgy there is available. Luckily, many states have wind potential, so the towers can be spread out some.
Here in Texas, we have tens of thousands of towers, many of which are bunched together and can go on for miles.
It is a little weird seein' 'em up close at first, but ya get used to it quickly. Not much different than havin' a new cell-phone tower put up (actually, I think they look much nicer than most cell-phone towers).
And they look much better than a smokestacks from a coal or gas plant, or the cooling tower of a nuclear reactor.
Permalink