Permit for Power plant denied over CO2

[Fash]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02452.html

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment yesterday became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment.

The decision marks a victory for environmental groups that are fighting proposals for new coal-fired plants around the country. It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

In the past, air permits, which are required before construction of combustion facilities, have been denied over emissions such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. But Roderick L. Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, said yesterday that "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."

The Kansas agency's decision caps a controversy over a proposal by Sunflower Electric Power, a rural electrical cooperative, to build a pair of big, 700-megawatt, coal-fired plants in Holcomb, a town in the western part of the state, at a cost of about $3.6 billion. One unit would have supplied power to parts of Kansas; the other, to be owned by another rural co-op, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, would have provided electricity to fast-growing eastern Colorado.

Together the plants would have produced 11 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, nearly as much as a group of eight Northeastern states hope to save by 2020 through a mandatory cap-and-trade program they plan to impose. The attorneys general from those states had written a letter opposing the permit.

The proposed Holcomb plants had become the center of a political dispute in Kansas, inflaming traditional tensions between the eastern and western parts of the state, dividing labor unions and posing a test for the energy policies of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who is head of the Democratic Governors Association and is believed to harbor aspirations for federal office.

Kansas, long a conservative Republican stronghold, is not generally considered to be on the leading edge of environmental causes. The GOP leadership in both the state Senate and House of Representatives endorsed the project. Although the regional United Steelworkers union opposed the plant, the state AFL-CIO supported it.

"Now the Sebelius administration rockets to the forefront of the states [working] to solve the global warming crisis," said Bruce Nilles, a Sierra Club lawyer.

Like many governors, Sebelius has been promoting the expanded use of renewable energy, especially wind. In her state of the state address this year, she said: "The question of where we get our energy is . . . no longer just an economic issue, nor solely an issue of national security. Quite simply, we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of this state."

But she said she was leaving the air permit decision on the Holcomb plants to Bremby, her close political ally.

Tri-State and Sunflower spokesmen sharply criticized the decision and said they were examining their legal options. Bremby's decision "has no basis in law or regulation," said Steve Miller, a Sunflower spokesman. "We still believe fiercely that this is the right project, that this is the right thing to do for customers and that the secretary has made a horrible error."

Miller said that Sebelius had pledged not to oppose the plants but that her position was clear after her "moral steward" remark. "That implies that we're not moral stewards of the land, which we don't appreciate one bit," he said.

Lee Boughey, a spokesman for Tri-State, said Bremby had disregarded his own staff, which had recommended issuing the permit.

The plants' powerful supporters included the speaker of the state House, Melvin Neufeld, who had earlier gathered the signatures of 46 GOP members, including key committee chairmen, for a letter to Bremby. The letter said, "Without your approval of the permit as proposed by Sunflower, our state and its citizens will lose access to the low-cost energy source and millions in economic development." Thirty-one Republican House members declined to sign the letter.

Neufeld said the plants would bring in new tax revenue, create hundreds of jobs, prompt the expansion of transmission lines that could also be used for wind power and keep energy costs low for Kansans by producing enough power to export to other states.

But the plants had aroused strong opposition, especially in the half-dozen eastern counties from Topeka to Kansas City, which have enough voters to carry statewide elections.

Bob Eye, a former state legislator, said of yesterday's decision: "Is it without precedent? Yes, as far as I know, in this state or any other." But he argued that "CO{-2} . . . is a pollutant, not just because the Sierra Club says it, but because the Supreme Court said it."

Holcomb's previous claim to fame had been the savage murders that Truman Capote described in his book "In Cold Blood." Holcomb was a place, Capote wrote, that stood "on the high wheat plains of western Kansas, a lonesome area that other Kansans call 'out there.' "

But Eye argued that wind projects were building a new constituency for renewable energy resources even "out there" among the people who were supposed to be the biggest backers of Sunflower's plans. FPL Group, a Florida power firm with a wind farm in Kansas, said it is making payments to about 30 landowners there.

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 include 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.

Even without yesterday's permit denial, the Holcomb project faced economic challenges. A proposal to build a third new unit there was dropped earlier. Tri-State must also meet a renewable portfolio standard adopted recently by Colorado. (Tri-State supported the measure.) That requires utilities to use renewable energy sources to meet 10 percent of their sales. Because Tri-State's purchases of hydropower do not count, it uses less than 1 percent renewable resources. Two-thirds of its power comes from coal. It is negotiating to acquire some wind power.

If I had my way, the country would be covered in those awesome looking wind turbines.

[Aardor]

With the advancements in regards to safety and Nuclear power, I really wish we would switch over to it at a faster pace.

[Sueven]

Awesome!

The Supreme Court case referenced is Massachusetts v. EPA. One of my professors was on the team who won it. She was very excited that day. She took us to the bar. I tried to buy her a shot but she wouldn't take it because she had to go on c-span .

Glad to see that the ruling is being heeded, at least a little bit. She was worried about that.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

With the advancements in regards to safety and Nuclear power, I really wish we would switch over to it at a faster pace.

Exactly. With all the technological advancements since the last Nuke plant was built in the 1970's we could really have a productive and environmentally safe source of power.

[Tyek]

If I had my way, the country would be covered in those awesome looking wind turbines.

You need a steady wind, technology is getting better, but not there yet. The payback for the cost vs. energy output makes wind air one of the slowest returns on investment. The most efficient way is Nuclear Power, only issue is what to do with the waste generated by it.

[Aardor]

I read a good bit about anything involving nuclear power (mostly weapons), and this is my take on the situation. Also note, I'm going off memory, since I can't look up sources right now, but either way, what I say may be incorrect, and if you know it is, please correct me.

Our current level of technology, particularly nuclear technology, makes it nearly impossible, i recall something like 1 in a trillion chance, of a nuclear meltdown occurring on a newly built plant. Nuclear meltdown occurs when the nuclear reaction you are using to produce energy becomes out of control, heats up intensely, and melts the reactor walls (thus meltdown), release the nuclear(radioactive) materials all over the environment. So a safety system would prevent the heat up/instability from occurring.

This is done through the use of a control rod. The control rod is filled with boron gas (pretty sure it's boron), and when the reactor his a certain temperature a membrane in the rod melts, and the boron gas is released. The gas has this great property of absorbing the neutrons produced by the nuclear reactor, thus preventing it from producing more energy/heat. The boron gas instantly stops the reaction, and thus prevents a meltdown. Since the rod is not controlled by a computer which monitors the reaction, and it is only when it is hot enough to melt the membrane, this eliminates all possibility of a computer problem.

So the system relies entirely on this control rod deploying in order to stop a meltdown. To counteract the possibility of the rod failing (which already has a very very low chance of happening), a concept called the 6:1 redundancy ratio was put into place. This means that instead of using 1 control rod, they use 6, each of which can individually stop the reaction instantly. This is where i got the trillion number from, the chance that all 6 rods would fail. Additionally, after this occurs, clean up takes 18 (?) months, and the reactor could be back online soon after that, baring any major overhaul needed.

Nuclear waste is the other problem with nuclear power that needs to be addressed. Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR) have addressed this issue. These reactors are able to produce their own fuel, and for the most part run on that fuel without any outside source. Additionally, when they have finally expended the fuel, the byproduct which is produced is inert (not radioactive). If the byproduct is radioactive, it means it can still be used as fuel in the reactor. The problem with these reactors is that they are expensive to build. They are cooled through liquid metal, which accounts for most of the cost vs other types of nuclear reactors. In turn, the liquid metal is cooled using water, which is the only "waste" the reactor produces (it's not radioactive, just really hot!)

With all of the above in mind, I have a hard time justifying a coal plant vs a nuclear power plant, in regards to environmental safety.

[Acies]

If I had my way, the country would be covered in those awesome looking wind turbines.

You need a steady wind, technology is getting better, but not there yet. The payback for the cost vs. energy output makes wind air one of the slowest returns on investment. The most efficient way is Nuclear Power, only issue is what to do with the waste generated by it.

Well, I know that about 10 minutes from where I live is a Nuclear power plant that was built only a few years ago (during the Gray Davis episode) and within 10 minutes of that is Dow chemical facilities. Now I am uncertain as to the nature of the operation, but they have engineered bacteria (I believe) to eat the radioactive components of the water used in conjunction with the rods, and poop out pure h2o. Lemme see if I can find an article or a paper or something...

[Fash]

Permit for wind farm denied over appearances...
http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... 22&sp=true

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts Thursday denied Cape Wind's application to bury electric cables needed to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound to the state power grid.

Cape Wind said in a release that it would challenge the Commission decision. The Cape Cod Commission is a local organization created by the state in 1990 to manage growth and protect Cape Cod's natural resources.

Sen. Ted Kennedy and many residents who own coastal property from where they could see the wind turbines on a clear day oppose the project along with some environmental groups concerned about disrupting the patterns of migratory birds and the potential effect on local sea life.

The project's supporters, who include other environmental groups, meanwhile claim it would provide renewable energy, improve air quality, lower electricity costs and increase the reliability of the power grid.

Although the wind farm would be located in federal waters, the transmission lines connecting the project to the grid crosses land controlled by state and local authorities.

The Commission said it did not have enough information to make a decision. Local papers said Cape Wind could offer to provide more information to the Commission or appeal to the state to override the local authorities, or both.

"The Commission's denial based, not on the merits but, on claims that Cape Wind provided insufficient information does not square with the record," Jim Gordon, president of Cape Wind, said in a release.

CAPE WIND HISTORY

Energy Management Inc, of Boston, the developer of Cape Wind, proposed in 2001 to build the offshore wind farm, on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.

At that time, Energy Management hoped the project, expected to cost more than $500 million, would start generating electricity in 2004.

The project consists of 130 General Electric Co 3.6 megawatt wind turbines, capable of generating over 400 MW, which is enough to supply about three-quarters of the electricity needs of Cape Cod and the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

The turbines, located more than 5 miles away from the Cape Cod coast, will stand about 440 feet from the surface of the water to the tip of the blade.

Due in part to an increase in global demand for steel and wind turbines, Cape Wind now expects the project to cost about $1 billion and the permitting process to continue through 2008 or beyond.

The lead federal agency needed to approve the project is the Minerals Management Service, a bureau in the U.S. Department of the Interior. MMS manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf.

MMS has said it expects to issue a draft report on the project later this autumn.

If approved, it would take Cape Wind about 18 months to construct the wind farm.

sad... i find the turbines attractive... There is a line of them in my area and for some reason I can't stop looking at them when they're in view.

[Tyek]

The largest wind farm in the world is starting to be built in Tehachapi California. They also are building giant solar farms in the desert. The main issues against both technologies is space needed, (land is expensive and to generate enough energy to have any chance at payback you need lots of space), and appearance. Everyone wants power, they just do not want it near them.

I recently demo'd a underground switch that requires no vault to a couple electrical utilites. They are using vaults and water gets in them, eats them away and is very unreliable. Problem is, when offered a switch in a green box that would eliminate the problems and give them more reliability, a couple said they wanted to switch, but could not, because the spots they would need to put the boxes, outside a few homes over a large area, they would receive complaints. So they are in no win situations, provide power with an unreliable but unseen solution, or affect a very small part of someone's property and get better power, but hear complaints all the time.

No one wants a box in their yard, no one wants lines over their heads, but they never want to be without power, go figure.