Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
Man found hanging at playground in Stow
Relatives doubt story of suicide
FBI asked to investigate attack on white family near Firestone Park
Robbery suspect's body left at Akron hospital
Man shot in back near Akron park
Blogs:
Pets:
Zeke, the basketball playing dog
The Heldenfiles:
Friday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
For your Saturday entertainment …
Akron Zips:
Six new scholarship offers
Browns Bulletin:
Quick thought on Browns rookies
Tribe Matters:
Tribe roster on hold?
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Andy’s Signed According to ESPN
All Da King's Men:
Baby Got Barack !
Blog of Mass Destruction:
The Rogue Bush White House
Akron Law Café:
New Wiretapping Revelations from Inspector General
Varsity Letters:
Report: Ontko selects Wisconsin
See Jane Style:
Oh Baby!
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Closings….Not the Good Kind!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Margy inquires-when is a Taste of Hudson?
Sound Check:
LeVert II live performance Saturday night — "Dedication" album due July 13,
HRLite House:
DDI One of Best Places to Work
Akron Gamer:
Video game sales drop in May
By Shannon Fisk
Published on Thursday, Oct 18, 2007
WASHINGTON: The Beacon-Journal's Oct. 11 editorial endorsing the proposal by American Municipal Power of Ohio to build a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Meigs County (''Best available'') contained numerous inaccuracies that should be addressed before Ohioans consider buying in to this supposed coal-fired savior.
Far from an economic ''miracle'' for southeastern Ohio, what AMP-Ohio is really offering are empty promises for an investment in 19th-century technology that will tie Ohioans to significant economic, environmental and public health risks for the next five decades.
Everyday, we see the signs of the rising costs of coal-generated power where it hits home the most our utility bills. The $1.2 billion cost estimate cited in the editorial for construction of the AMP-Ohio plant has actually doubled in the past two years to $2.5 billion.
And under AMP-Ohio's proposed contract, communities that sign up would be responsible for increasing construction and pollution-control costs no matter how high they go. American Electric Power's recent $4.6 billion settlement of a Clean Air Act lawsuit shows just how expensive cleaning up coal can be.
Furthermore, although AMP-Ohio talks big about using Powerspan technology to reduce harmful emissions, the company has not made a legally binding commitment in its air permit application to this technology. Instead, the draft air permit allows AMP-Ohio to emit far more pollution even than other coal-fired plants.
AMP-Ohio would be allowed to emit 6,820 tons of sulfur dioxide and 3,194 tons of nitrogen oxide every year. By contrast, the recently permitted Taylorville, Ill., power center, a 630-megawatt, integrated gasification combined-cycle or IGCC coal plant (adjusted to the AMP-Ohio plant's 960 megawatt size) would emit 456 tons of sulfur dioxide and 959 tons of nitrogen oxides.
But the fundamental point is that filthy, 19th-century coal plants don't make sense in the face of 21st-century energy solutions such as efficiency, renewables, natural gas combined cycle and biomass.
Last week, the director of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel testified to a state Senate committee that energy efficiency costs 1.3 cents to 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) and wind costs 4.9 cents per kWh. AMP-Ohio has estimated that power from its coal plant would cost 6.1 cents per kWh in 2014 and 7.5 cents in 2020, without adequately allowing for the additional and inevitable costs of future carbon dioxide emission regulations.
The Beacon Journal editorial implied that alternatives do not exist. In fact, numerous states, such as Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, already mandate increased use of existing renewable energy sources.
And a growing number of utilities, such as Avista and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, have disavowed new pulverized coal in favor of cleaner alternatives such as natural gas, energy efficiency and wind.
Ohio communities have a choice.
They can lock themselves into an economically and environmentally risky, pulverized coal plant for the next 50 years. Or, they can protect their pocketbooks and the environment by demanding that AMP-Ohio invest in the cleaner energy alternatives of the future.
We urge them to do the latter.
WASHINGTON: The Beacon-Journal's Oct. 11 editorial endorsing the proposal by American Municipal Power of Ohio to build a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Meigs County (''Best available'') contained numerous inaccuracies that should be addressed before Ohioans consider buying in to this supposed coal-fired savior.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
