Page one article in July 25th Wall Street Journal reports that plans for coal powered power plants are being shelved due to the "green movement".
"As recently as May, US power companies had announced intentions to build as many as 150 new generating plants fueld by coal, adding to the 645 existing units that produce one half the nation's electricity."
A number of the units have been delayed or cancelled. Nuclear power plants are years away from being viable. Wind and solar generators are not reliable. That leaves natural gas as the energy choice to take care of our growth.
Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."
Coal companies are working to develope alternative uses for their fuel, the article reports.
So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.
Comments?
ed
The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.
We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.
No surprise here. Late last year I posted a thread "End of the line for coal?" that linked to a story in Business Week.
The emerging consensus among power industry analysts was that coal was going to become more and more untenable as a power source because the newly elected Democratic congress was likely to enact carbon emissions taxes. Some of the more vocal members of this group went off on a completely irrelevant tangent, disputing the scientific basis for global warming. (Which is probably why the thread was removed.) What we’re really talking about is political reality. That has progressed beyond scientific debate and Congress is now considering bills to tax carbon emissions.
Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.
Link to the original poster's WSJ story (may require subscription)
the same people that want to levey taxes on "carbon emstions" are the same ones that waste more resorses on pet projects.. privit jet aircraft flights to and from god knows where at there whim...this global warming is just another "hot button" to figer a way to get new taxes...you will see no major changes in anything other then the cost of living becouse anyone with half a brain knows that buisness dont pay taxes...they just pass what they would pay onto the consumoer with higher prices for goods and services...just another tax for them to pad there payroll and pention with if you ask me.. tax and spend..tax and spend..dont matter what party you vote for..the D and R both the same thing.. only out for themselfs.... and who gets the bill... you..me..and every other tax payer and consumer....
csx engineer
The article indicated growth in electricity use around 2 - 3% per year, which is about the same as GNP. It would seem at some point in time we would be facing some serious issues about supply of electricity. If coal is the least perferred method of production, if nuclear is years away and other sources are unreliable, then demand for natural gas will jump. Hang on to your wallet if you are heating your house by natural gas.
I dont really want to start a "green vs the masses" conversation, but something's gotta give at some point.
Safety Valve wrote: The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.
How will solar cells work when it is daylight only half of the time and it is overcast or raining/sleeting/snowing a third or more of the daylight period?
JonathanS wrote: Safety Valve wrote: The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.How will solar cells work when it is daylight only half of the time and it is overcast or raining/sleeting/snowing a third or more of the daylight period?
But even solar energy, especially on large scale, isn't completely enviro friendly. Battery systems do give off a gas and they must be disposed of when worn out. And the last I heard (and maybe that's changed) it took about a 1/4 of basement space for enough batteries to power a solar powered house.
I wonder what they mean by nuclear power not viable now. UK is going almost all nuclear, and Europe isn't far behind. Japan is almost, if not completely, nuclear powered. The only unviable part of it is NIMBY.
eastside wrote: No surprise here. Late last year I posted a thread "End of the line for coal?" that linked to a story in Business Week.The emerging consensus among power industry analysts was that coal was going to become more and more untenable as a power source because the newly elected Democratic congress was likely to enact carbon emissions taxes. Some of the more vocal members of this group went off on a completely irrelevant tangent, disputing the scientific basis for global warming. (Which is probably why the thread was removed.) What we’re really talking about is political reality. That has progressed beyond scientific debate and Congress is now considering bills to tax carbon emissions.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.Link to the original poster's WSJ story (may require subscription)
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.
When it was discovered that concurrent warming is occuring on the other planets in the solar system, the idea of anthropogenic CO2 being a causal factor for Earth's observed warming went from being a highly auspicious debatable concept to a downright absurd notion, one that could only be carried forward by populist ignorance.
Hmmmmm......."populist ignorance"......that pretty much explains the 2006 elections.
There is no scientific basis for the notion of man made global warming. It is quite simply a religious disawakening, one on par with the 12th Iman. It is dis-evolution.
Opposition to coal is legit if it is based on normal environmental concerns, e.g. disruptions from mining the stuff, coal dust flying off unit trains, emissions of mercury, that sort of thing. But basing opposition to coal on the notion of CO2 inducement of climate change is for the tin hat crowd.
We had a discussion at our last meeting about how we're going to meet our future energy demand predictions. Since the state decided to mandate a 30% renewable energy portfolio combined with a ban on long term contracts for coal power without CO2 sequestration, we like so many other utilities have decided to just ride it out and take advantage of the ability to pass on the higher costs of renewables, conservation programs, and ultimately passing on the cost of buying merchant energy at 10 times the cost of self facilitated coal power. It is the consumers who will finally wake up to all this fraud once it hits them in the pocketbook bigtime, and then we'll finally see a reversal in this CO2 paranoia. Maybe 5 years, 10 years down the road.
At least that's what the corporate directors are banking on.
Did U C the program called boneyards on History Channel in which they showed used RR ties being shredded & then ship to a power plant in California because they no longer can use coal?
MP173 wrote: Page one article in July 25th Wall Street Journal reports that plans for coal powered power plants are being shelved due to the "green movement". "As recently as May, US power companies had announced intentions to build as many as 150 new generating plants fueld by coal, adding to the 645 existing units that produce one half the nation's electricity." A number of the units have been delayed or cancelled. Nuclear power plants are years away from being viable. Wind and solar generators are not reliable. That leaves natural gas as the energy choice to take care of our growth.Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."Coal companies are working to develope alternative uses for their fuel, the article reports.So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.Comments?ed
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
"Populist ignorance"......
Well, I suppose I can agree with that.... combine that with "political reality", and there you go. The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this. It's not a "fringe" movement anymore, it is solidly in the mainstream. According to the science I have read, the "human cause" of so climate change is so much horse hockey, but, the fact remains, that it is becoming accepted by many people. If anything more and more people are developing a "something must be done, regardless" kind of attitude, and that attitude is what the proponents of global warming are couting on. There is a lot of political pressure out there, especially when prominent Hollywood types are on the bandwagon and these people carrry alot of weight with the younger crowd, who are the main force behind the "something needs to change" mentality. This younger crowd is going to be voting age soon, or are already there, and the politicians need to court this group to maintain their position. When you combine the steady stream of "Global warming" and "Green is Good" messages coming out of Hollywood, and in popular culture, as well as in our public schools, aimed at possibly the most powerful voting bloc that is of age, or coming of age, with politicians who desire to remain in office, and be popular you wind up with a cause that real or imagined, is going to drive not only legislation, but political thought as well. Add to that, businesses that want to stay in buisness are going to be proactive, and are going to do what they have to to avoid being taxed out of existence. So, if that means buying "hybrid" vehicles, egaging in "eco friendly" manufacturing processes, and adopting "green" energy use policies, the businesses will do it. Will it cost? Most likely, but some businesses may decide that the cost of making changes may outweigh the extra taxes, and fees that a future Congress may legislate, or, the potential boycott, and demonization of their product/business if they don't embrace "eco friendly" policies. Can that happen? Of course it can, the apparatus is already in place. Just look at any national election, and the smear ads candidates run against each other, or worse, the ones that some "special interest" groups air as well. All it takes is those people who create those ads to turn their skills toward making, or breaking a business, and you will have an atmosphere where businesses will stay in business, not based on their service, or product, but their perceived "goodness" or "evil" depending on how "eco friendly" they are.
So, there we are, the political reality of the situation. As the movement gains more and more traction, especially among the young, things will change, and it may not be for the better. There is a persistent desire among the "greenies" to think that all we have to do is stop using oil, coal, and chemicals, and we will be in a Utopia of a clean envirnoment. The economic ramifications seem to be beyond them.
You can call it BS, or propaganda, or label it the Left's way of usurping our rights, and forcing socialist type legislation or whatever, the fact remains that "Global Warming" or whatever the cause is here to stay, at least for the immediate future.
My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.
Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.
MP173 wrote:My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long.
TimChgo9 wrote:The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this.
The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this.
what none of these people that suport this global warming issue tell you is...that natural prosseses such as a volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the air in a day then the US dose in a year...
MP173 wrote: Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.Comments?ed
I think this issue of coal versus green is the heart and soul of the Rochester coalition.
MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.
Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml
Triton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml
Jupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm
Pluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
Interestingly, different explanations are offered in different cases, notwithstanding their common relationship to the sun.
Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.
The electric power industry also notes that the STB has proven at best lethargic in dealing with rate issues, the STB most recently proposing, in the view of the industry, that it has no jurisdiction at all over such rates. See, "Interpretation of the Term "Contract" in 49 U.S.C. 10709", STB Ex Parte No. 669, in particular, "Comments of the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Association", June 4, 2007.
While I have expressed my opinions about the "shoot in the foot" theory of the railroad industry in the past on other rate matters, this may well be another example that affects a broader community of victims.
Best regards ....
MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edAnd more importantly, what are their citizens doing about it?
What, you never saw "War of the Worlds"?
The Martians are coming, and man oh man are they pissed off! Why? Because we caused their global warming, now they're coming to take over our planet!
Because, as we all know, global warming is caused by Earth man's carbon footprint. It is consensus science. It is irrefutable. The debate is over, and anyone who dares refute this *fact* is a global warming denier, punishable by Nuremburg-style war crimes trials.
I for one welcome our new Martian Overlords. They can't be any worse than the current 14% approval rated Democrat-controlled Congress?
MichaelSol wrote: MP173 wrote: Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.Neptune: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtmlTriton (a moon): http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtmlJupiter: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVAMars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stmPluto: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html
Thanks for posting these, Michael. Saved me at least a couple of hours worth of work to get all the necessary links!
Ed, it shouldn't suprise you that you haven't heard about this in the MSM. Such information would blow the doors off the presumed Presidency of Mx. Hillary Clinton and her presumed running mate Obama Barrack. Best to keep this info under wraps until after the 2008 elections!
My anywhoooo......
PS - "Mx" denotes gender neutrality, or at least gender uncertainty!
The Wall Street Journal doesn't have all of their facts right. A coal-fired power plant using a new technology known as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is in the midst of the permitting process for construction in Bowie, Arizona, as we speak.
snagletooth wrote: MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edoops, I thought you were paraphrasing, talking about the invisible "they sayer's". we have the ability to build very safe npp's, it just takes along time and a lot of money. And that's after you get past the NIMBY crowd that demands cleaner fuels, but refuse the best choice we have right now. By the time they wake up to it, it'll be to late to build enough fast enough without making inferior, thereby dangerous, npp's.my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long.
MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
Actually, Snag has hit this nail right on the head. Nuclear has become the dark horse darling of the energy biz almost overnight, and knowing how these things evolve it will take some time for the tin foil hat left to respond with the anti-nuke NIMBYism. Once plans for aggregate nuclear plant construction becomes the norm, the eco-nuts will mount their counter attacks.
FYI - That nuke plant proposal in Southern Idaho has moved very rapidly toward having it's first spadefull of dirt being turned over. They now have the backing of some very prominent financial institutions, something the coal plant proposers couldn't muster!
Meanwhile, the railroads will ponder what might have been..................
TimChgo9 wrote: "Populist ignorance"......Well, I suppose I can agree with that.... combine that with "political reality", and there you go. The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this. It's not a "fringe" movement anymore, it is solidly in the mainstream. According to the science I have read, the "human cause" of so climate change is so much horse hockey, but, the fact remains, that it is becoming accepted by many people. If anything more and more people are developing a "something must be done, regardless" kind of attitude, and that attitude is what the proponents of global warming are couting on. There is a lot of political pressure out there, especially when prominent Hollywood types are on the bandwagon and these people carrry alot of weight with the younger crowd, who are the main force behind the "something needs to change" mentality. This younger crowd is going to be voting age soon, or are already there, and the politicians need to court this group to maintain their position. When you combine the steady stream of "Global warming" and "Green is Good" messages coming out of Hollywood, and in popular culture, as well as in our public schools, aimed at possibly the most powerful voting bloc that is of age, or coming of age, with politicians who desire to remain in office, and be popular you wind up with a cause that real or imagined, is going to drive not only legislation, but political thought as well. Add to that, businesses that want to stay in buisness are going to be proactive, and are going to do what they have to to avoid being taxed out of existence. So, if that means buying "hybrid" vehicles, egaging in "eco friendly" manufacturing processes, and adopting "green" energy use policies, the businesses will do it. Will it cost? Most likely, but some businesses may decide that the cost of making changes may outweigh the extra taxes, and fees that a future Congress may legislate, or, the potential boycott, and demonization of their product/business if they don't embrace "eco friendly" policies. Can that happen? Of course it can, the apparatus is already in place. Just look at any national election, and the smear ads candidates run against each other, or worse, the ones that some "special interest" groups air as well. All it takes is those people who create those ads to turn their skills toward making, or breaking a business, and you will have an atmosphere where businesses will stay in business, not based on their service, or product, but their perceived "goodness" or "evil" depending on how "eco friendly" they are. So, there we are, the political reality of the situation. As the movement gains more and more traction, especially among the young, things will change, and it may not be for the better. There is a persistent desire among the "greenies" to think that all we have to do is stop using oil, coal, and chemicals, and we will be in a Utopia of a clean envirnoment. The economic ramifications seem to be beyond them. You can call it BS, or propaganda, or label it the Left's way of usurping our rights, and forcing socialist type legislation or whatever, the fact remains that "Global Warming" or whatever the cause is here to stay, at least for the immediate future.
You've nailed it, as far as I can see.
The problem with populist global warming paranoia is that it affects all of us. Coal fired power plants are bad be cause they release CO2. So, we take our only cheap, local, plentiful source of electricity and make it so difficult to develope that no one wants to build. This is a great plan on paper except that the harm we are doing to ourselves in the process far outweighs the risks proclaimed in unproven science. (If anyone actually claims as Al Gore, that the debate over global warming is done, then they need to start reading the actual science. Coincidentally, Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist.)
I believe that coal fired power plants will be plundered by the government under the guise of a carbon tax much the way gasoline is taxed today. Everyone hates the thought of using coal, but everyone hates the thought of being without AC on 100 degree days even more (Imagine the sweat rings on Bar-bra Streisand..........) So, why not enact a 'carbon tax' to show the simple-minded that you really care about the enviroment but still allow coal to be burned? We don't like gas (it pollutes) but instead of banning it outright the government taxes it so much that the government makes three times as much money off of it then the oil company. And somehow there are idiots who blame the oil companies for high gas prices........
I could see the same thing happen to coal. Instead of banning coal outright (wouldn't that be the most beneficial for the enviroment?) let's just pretend to care by taxing the hell out of coal while continuing to allow it as a fuel. It will provide one more important source of revenue for a government that continues to be all things to all people and bankrupt itself in the process. And then, in a moment of pure genius, we'll convince people that it is actually the coal mining companies that are making obscene profits on the backs of the disadvantaged and the envronment. Yep. Sounds like America.
futuremodal wrote: snagletooth wrote: MP173 wrote: My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.edoops, I thought you were paraphrasing, talking about the invisible "they sayer's". we have the ability to build very safe npp's, it just takes along time and a lot of money. And that's after you get past the NIMBY crowd that demands cleaner fuels, but refuse the best choice we have right now. By the time they wake up to it, it'll be to late to build enough fast enough without making inferior, thereby dangerous, npp's.my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long. Actually, Snag has hit this nail right on the head. Nuclear has become the dark horse darling of the energy biz almost overnight, and knowing how these things evolve it will take some time for the tin foil hat left to respond with the anti-nuke NIMBYism. Once plans for aggregate nuclear plant construction becomes the norm, the eco-nuts will mount their counter attacks.FYI - That nuke plant proposal in Southern Idaho has moved very rapidly toward having it's first spadefull of dirt being turned over. They now have the backing of some very prominent financial institutions, something the coal plant proposers couldn't muster!Meanwhile, the railroads will ponder what might have been..................
Wow, my head hurts... hey everybody, I had this strange dream where F-M and I might have been on the same page about something and...(Thunk!)
Just kidding here, FM.
Well it's good to see the people of Southern Idaho see the big picture.
MichaelSol wrote:Regarding the coal industry, the individual power companies have begun utilizing recent very large rate increases by the railroads for their IRR calculations for new power plant construction. The size of many of the recent rate increases has taken the power generation industry by surprise, as the cost of transporting coal, in particular Powder River Basin coal, now exceeds the cost of the coal itself by 2-3x. The transportation cost of coal is becoming the single most important factor in evaluating the potential of new power plants and their locations, and even though most power rates are still cost-based, the sharp rise in transportation costs, coupled with rapid changes in transportation costs, have made it difficult at best to justify to investors and lenders a long term investment based upon unpredictable and rapid cost changes.
One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.
NY Times Story
I keep thinking of that ancient malediction, "May you live in interesting times."
I was the radiation safety officer at one point for the Air Force Base in Comox, BC. As part of my training, we toured the Darlington Nuclear facility in southern Ontario that was about half-built at the time. It was a real eye opener, but what opened my eyes most was what I learned about nuclear radiation and detection, including shielding and mitigation. I am a fairly bright fellow, all things considered, and I came away thoroughly convinced that nuclear energy, whether palatable or not, was going to be our energy provider on a global scale over the foreseeable future. I do feel bad, now that it seems to be coming about, that it is doing so at the expense of understanding and knowledge. Folks are being sold a bill of goods, as unethical a process as I have seen from those who should have taken the time to launch and support a decent and good cause.
Soap box is now put away.
eastside wrote:One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.NY Times Story
That idea has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before. The problem with siting the generating plant at the source of the coal is that it also requires copious amounts of water, something that is scarce in Wyoming and the Four Corners.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
futuremodal wrote:Because, as we all know, global warming is caused by Earth man's carbon footprint. It is consensus science. It is irrefutable. The debate is over, and anyone who dares refute this *fact* is a global warming denier, punishable by Nuremburg-style war crimes trials.
Considering the shameful state of science education in America, does this really surprise you?
Follow the French???
80% of Franch electric power is Nuclear -- 80%. In a country that has the Alps for water power.
No wonder the TGVs are all electric.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
blhanel wrote: eastside wrote:One of the ways to finesse transportation charges is to site the generating plant at the source of the coal. The Navajo reservation in New Mexico has large reserves of coal. Because they have sovereign status, and are thus immune from state laws, you’d think it would be easy for them to build a generating plant near the Four Corners. However, they are facing intense opposition from other Navajos and environmental groups.NY Times StoryThat idea has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum before. The problem with siting the generating plant at the source of the coal is that it also requires copious amounts of water, something that is scarce in Wyoming and the Four Corners.
Well, They can expand the Casinos to accumulate the Financing and pipe the water in from somewhere.
Or unite with other Soveriegn Indian Nations in this Country and site a new COOP Nuclear Plant that does the most benefit to the Nations.
COOP Power, Nuke style. Especially when sited somewhere with water and free from USA's influence except as a Foreign Power.
I dont know about other folks, but it is my experience that if you are inside a Soveriegn Indian Nation, the laws of the United States no longer applies to you, only Tribal Law for that location. Eventually I think with the new-found capital these Nations are enjoying from a Casino and other profitable ventures they may someday be forming such a Nation with united States if you will within our own USA.
Generally Im treated as a Foreigner and that is ok.. unless I try to shop lift a pack of gum from one of the Indian stores. (No Im not talking about the Kwik Mart neither)
Let's talk some more about Coop Nuclear power shall we?
Finally to the poster who pointed to France with her Nuclear Power and TGV's I offer a statement that this US of A is incapable of such achievements within our own time except for one isolated corridor filled with watered down Acelas.
Heavily taxing the use of coal doesn't surprise me at all, the one fuel we have plenty of and now we can't use it.
Didn't all the political parties scream for increase use of coal, to help lower our dependence on imported fuels a year ago?
Lets see how this lays out; the government taxes coal; miner owners don't really care, they pass the cost to the power generators. The power generators don't really care, just pass the cost off to the consumers. Consumers do care and scream n holler about increased cost. So, congress holds investigations to find out why the cost are so high, that go nowhere, because the government making a killing from the taxes to fund the tax breaks for power companies and coal producers for improvements and research for cleaner alternatives, that go really nowhere.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.