The Albany Herald yesterday had this one sided story about a proposed 1200 megawatt power plant. The article is practically a press release for Environment Georgia. The story on WALB’s website was no better.
How about getting a quote from the people who want to build this plant? How about a comment about why this power plant was proposed in the first place?
The proposed plant, once constructed, would emit about nine million tons of carbon dioxide, which is linked by scientific studies to global warming conditions, said Leah Edwards, a development associate with the Sierra Group.
Edwards and Jennette Gayer, an advocate with Environment Georgia, are on a statewide tour in an effort to halt the permitting of the pulverized coal plant’s construction, Gayer said.
Because the plant’s electricity-producing technology is so outdated, there are many other ways to produce power that would be more environmentally friendly, Edwards said.
“It’s a dinosaur of a plant; the most antiquated technology we can be using,” Edwards said about the plant. “It causes asthma and all sorts of lung problems (through pollutants). It emits mercury into the rivers, which fish eat and then we take it in and it can make you sick.”
The plant currently has a draft permit, meaning that a company has proposed construction plans for the plant, Edwards said. The Environmental Protection Division has held public hearings on the plant and is considering the opinions expressed in those hearings, she said.
The plant is slated to receive its final permit in May, Gayer said.
Unfortunately, the opposition to this plant has no serious plan to deal with the growing power needs of Georgians. Sorry, but windmills and bicycles won’t get the job done. Plus, windmills kill birds.
A Google search of this issue led me to this article in the New York Times.
If a pulverized coal plant is not the answer, there are other alternatives. For example, a process called “gasified coal” would allow the plant to operate much like a natural gas fueled plant. Gasified coal plants cost about 20% more to build, but it is an alternative. As the Times says:
Some environmentalists dispute the need for new coal plants, but unless there is very rapid progress soon in realizing energy efficiencies or developing the ability to extract and store huge amounts of wind and solar power at reasonable cost, more coal plants seem certain. Compared with cleaner fossil fuels, like natural gas and oil, coal is cheaper and more widely available. So finding a way to capture the greenhouse gases from these plants is critical.
Maybe the environmentalists could drop the scare tactics and actually help find a workable solution in instances like the proposed Early County power plant.