Global warming concerns helped persuade the state Public Service Commission on Tuesday to reject a plan by Florida’s largest utility to build a $5.7-billion coal-fired power plant near Everglades National Park.
The denial marks the first time global warming has ever played a role in a PSC decision, and the first time in 15 years the state regulatory agency that oversees utilities has rejected a new power plant.
Gov. Charlie Crist had questioned the plant’s location, the National Park Service had raised concerns about air pollution and environmental groups had argued it would increase greenhouse gases at a time when the nation is trying to combat global warming.
| Considering that the sun shines most every day in Florida they should be working to utilize solar energy. At least they’re starting to pay attention to global warming. |
continuously polluting the air from every factory in every industrialized country for over a century could not possibly have any long term effects.
that’s just preposterous, too bad for florida, i guess they’ll only have the nuclear option
A good idea! Now, if Florida can not supply all its needed power, they can have rolling brownouts and scheduled blackouts as demand increases. Where is that FARK Florida tag when you need it?
#2 – You mean like California did… Or no… Wait, that was Enron extorting money from the state…
The notion of putting a coal plant near Everglades National Park is a bad bad idea.
when their lights go out tell them to go hug a tree
coal is the only main natural resource we have plenty of in this country and modern coal plants are quite clean.
the religion of global warming strikes again
Does anyone seriously believe that global warming was the real reason that this deal was killed? Global warming was merely an excuse (flimsy one at that).
#4 – modern coal plants are quite clean.
It’s cute when you guys say stuff like that…
If Republicans are so pro-family, why do they try to destroy the planet as if they have no kids?
because we have enough sense not to believe bullshit like global warming is caused by man, or remember the 10 years we had to fix the ozone hole or we are doomed ,HMM 20 years later and we are all here ,or 10 years till unrepairable damage is done to the oceans, well I had cod last night and its been 18 years since that was said, or the real big one the ice age is coming and by the 1990’s the plains of America will be unable to farm because of the cold
I would say your track record of the sky is falling kinda sucks were 3 your 0. I’m betting on my team being right again
Pmitchell: Apparently your team lost on grammar and punctuation, however.
By the way, have you actually worked in the power industry and have experience working at coal plants to back up your statements? I have, and you’re wrong.
#3: Surprisingly, putting the power plant right next to the park is probably not as bad an idea as putting the plant a considerable distance upwind from the park. Not that I’m saying it’s a good idea…
Science fiction driving policy – not a good sign.
Who knows, something good could come out if it if they build some other kind of power plant. As long as the end goal of providing more power at no additional cost is reached, it’s all good. If they ask the citizens to cut back their lifestyle to save power then the commission should be imprisioned.
Solar, nuclear, who cares? As long as they build something as soon as possible.
actually yes I called on the largest coal fired plant in Texas (per generator) 1.2 gigawats Tolk is its name and it is near Muleshoe Tx . It is extremely clean and also makes the power in west Texas some of the cheapest in the U.S.
So I call you Bullshit artist claiming you have worked at one because if you had you would know how clean they are and how efficient to boot
CORRECTION Tolk station is only 1080 megawatts see info below
http://tinyurl.com/27jb65
[Please use tinyurl.com – ed.]
Too bad we don’t have orbiting solar capture satellites. From the article listed below (and this is six years old):
“These “powersats” would catch the flood of energy flowing from the Sun and then pump it to Earth via laser or microwave beam. On earth it would be converted to electricity and fed into power grids to be tapped by terrestrial customers.”
http://tinyurl.com/67dhl
#7 – I, and most reasonable people, never said “the sky is falling.” What we are saying is, if something is unhealthy, lets change to something that is less or not unhealthy. If you think coal is healthy, you are nuts.
I have to go with pmichell on this. Run properly with good operators coal can be burned clean. It has nothing to do with politics. It is science and engineering. O and I do have a license to operate a coal or nuke plant.
“Considering that the sun shines most every day in Florida they should be working to utilize solar energy. At least they’re starting to pay attention to global warming.”
Naw, Florida is loaded with bitter old people who will say “no” to everything.
hhoper, the only problem I see with using solar panels in florida is the hurricanes… its not to bad w/ big buildings, but solar panels are fixed, and arent very useful inside of a building, but on top of the roofs of buildings are gonna get damaged w/ the high winds…
#15
Clean coal would be a good a idea if it weren’t for administrators so fu***ng cheap they will reject the notion because it would mean a bigger investment, just the Republican AND the Democrat who keep the coal power plant serving the White House outdated and running.
#13 – powersats are a great idea but thanks to the Sporkked up mess that is modern NASA, we don’t have a good way to get them up there or service them.
I’m all for all kinds of alternate generation methods -just get something going so people don’t have to cut back.
First, I have to confess that I only skimmed the comments tonight.
TheGlobalWarmer, (yours really sticks out this time)
How do you call this science fiction when all of the peer reviewed scientific data supports the position of anthropogenic climate change?
Why do you give more credence to people that cannot even state a strong enough case to get it published?
For my own position, I’m glad to see reason prevail, even if only in a minority of cases, it is a trend that almost gives me hope.
#19, GlobalWarmer, you’re right in that the Shuttle couldn’t do it without a monster load of engineering / extra booster tech. The sats must go into geosynchronous orbit, so why not use the tried and true Delta launch vehicle? The technology is available and proven right now, I’m wondering whether it’s the govt. supporting oil or the nature freaks that don’t want a solar farm in their back yard that are hindering the progress. So we’ve got to build transmission lines from Death Valley to civilization. Didn’t we build a transcontinental railroad once?
Pmitchell, I asked if you worked at a coal power plant before. You stated you “called on the largest coal fired plant in Texas…” What does that mean, exactly?
You can cry bullshit all you want, sir, but in reality, I worked in the public power industry in Nebraska for a couple of years, including working at Gerald Gentleman Station, a 1,365 megawatt coal burning facility. So I have a good idea how clean coal isn’t and studies have likewise shown how clean coal isn’t. In fact, working on the inside, I know another dirty little secret. If you work at a coal plant for a while, you pick up so much radiation that you exceed the maximum allowable levels for a person that would work at a nuclear power station. (Yes, Nebraska has nuclear power plants, two of them to be exact. I’m also sure the idea of public power makes your blood boil, as well, especially considering private companies have no chance at doing the job as effectively as public power does.)
I would highly recommend digging yourself out of your own bullshit pile before accusing anyone but yourself as being a hack, sir.
I remember visiting my grandmother in Palm Beach…. I swear she had the aircon turned down to 60′ I froze my *** off! I wonder if they could ‘turn it up to 78’ and not have to build the thing ..
#22, natefrog, don’t coal plants emit about 3x the radiation per unit power than nuclear plants? Did you have to wear a dosimeter?
That about sums up the global warming debate. Pay higher energy bills now or have energy rationing in exchange for maybe some lowering of temperatures in the future.
This was two 980-megawatt plants. Did anyone wonder on many square miles of solar panel would be needed to produce 980 MW of power, at what cost. On top of all that, you don’t have solar energy during nights and less in cloudy days. There is a huge difference between base load power and other type of “green” energy.
Please the proponents of solar, give me the REAL numbers on what it would take to produce 2x 980megawatt of constant base load power 24 hours a day.
Maybe nuclear is a cleaner intelligent solution.
#20 – Peer reviewed scientific data supports:
* Warming in the first half of the 20th century that had NO human contribution
* Warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century that had some human contribution.
Peer reviewed data does NOT support the Algore catastrophe that requires us to all sacrifice and suffer.
That’s a paraphrase of the chief climatologist at MIT and is the reason an increasing number of respected scientists are jumping off the bandwagon claiming there’s too much hype and not enough science going on. The media can’t be trusted because they cherry pick the worst sounding bites out of the IPCC reports.
Yes, there is a certain amount of warming happening, but in the world of real science there is even debate as to whether or not it’s even a bad thing.
If Florida doesn’t want to build a coal plant, fine – as long as they build something. I would like to see 500 or so new power plants built in this country. We have the technology to generate so much power that it can essentially be given away.
What about wave power energy for a base-load? http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11489
40% solar cell efficiency is here now! This is the greatest breakthrough in solar tech to date, topping the goal of 22%. Get some monster Li-ion battery tech and a solar farm with 40% efficiency (that’s 1 sol per panel, not concentrated), and we’re in business.
Concentrated sols on 40% panels would be extremely efficient. Tthere are new techs that use cheap reflective mylar film mounted on discarded 55 gal. drums under vacuum to create inexpensive spherical / parabolic mirrors for concentration to increase efficiency even further.
“Attaining a 40 percent efficient concentrating solar cell means having another technology pathway for producing cost-effective solar electricity. However, by using an optical concentrator, sunlight intensity can be increased, squeezing more electricity out of a single solar cell.”
From the US DOE:
http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm
Hello inexpensive power for the southwest and midwest US.
I officially apologize for italicizing the entire end of my last post. Can’t type a closing tag without more coffee in my I guess. 😉