Events Calendar
In This Section
Portage County hospital extending its reach
UA program draws science professionals into teaching
Reliever Chris Perez ready to close door on his poor start with Indians
Hundreds in Canton for Tea Party
Progress reported at troubled landfill
Five years after attack, woman finds her way
Most Read Stories
Blogs:
Pets:
Sunburn in canines and felines
The Heldenfiles:
Monday Notebook, New "90210" on DVD
Patrick McManamon:
Another NBA free agent goes to a Cavs competitor
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Shapiro fights to maintain normalcy
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Free agency: Another One Bites the Dust
All Da King's Men:
The Obligatory Palin Post
Blog of Mass Destruction:
The "Limbaugh Babies"
Akron Law Café:
The Veil and the Burqa – Constitutional to Ban or Restrict?
Varsity Letters:
Solon’s Baldwin could decide soon
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
ID My Bug
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jennifer inquires about a bus tour to Atlantic City
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
Morscruethal Behaviors or Just Lip Service?
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
Wadsworth, Falls, others still part of project raising environmental concerns
By Bob Downing
Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008
Plans for a new coal-burning power plant in southern Ohio are moving forward, despite strong opposition from environmental groups.
Oberlin in Lorain County has pulled out of the $2.9 billion American Municipal Power-Ohio (AMP-Ohio) project, but it is the only northern Ohio community that has changed its position on participation.
The plant, near Racine in Meigs County, is being funded by more than 80 communities in Ohio and four other states, including Cuyahoga Falls, Hudson, Wadsworth, Orrville, Seville, Lodi, Brewster and Beach City.
Last fall, the communities pledged to build the plant with AMP-Ohio, a Columbus wholesale power supplier, and to purchase the electricity that would be available starting in 2013.
But the agreement enables communities to withdraw from the project by Saturday with no
penalties.
Wadsworth is ''still strongly committed . . . and firmly believes that project is a good investment,'' Service Director Chris Easton said.
The plant ''still looks very good to us . . . although no final decision has been made,'' said Bob Bye, superintendent of the electric department in Cuyahoga Falls.
The Ohio Environmental Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Citizen Action and the Sierra Club have stepped up their efforts to get communities, especially Cleveland, to bail out of the project in hopes of stopping it.
''Oberlin took the right approach to making this decision,'' said Shannon Fisk of the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''The City Council looked at all the options available before making a choice. They found better alternatives to AMP's coal plant. . . . There are plenty of feasible and cost-competitive energy options out there. Why lock yourself into a waning technology for the next 50 years?''
Cleveland City Council held a public hearing on its involvement on Friday. A vote is scheduled Monday.
Two communities in central and southwestern Ohio, Westerville and Yellow Springs, withdrew from the project earlier.
Marc Gerken, president and chief executive of AMP-Ohio, said the company is ''very proud'' of the proposed plant — ''not only because of the jobs and significant economic benefit the facility will bring to southern Ohio, but because of the environmentally responsible technology that's being used in its development.''
The project is an important element in AMP-Ohio's plans to provide affordable and reliable electricity to member communities and has widespread support, he said.
But critics say the 1,000-megawatt plant will contribute to global warming and they call its anti-pollution system unproven and less effective. They argue that the plant will not meet federal and state requirements for best available pollution-control technology.
The critics say the plant will release 7 million tons of carbon dioxide, a key global warming gas, along with other pollutants. There are no federal restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.
They also note that participating communities must cover any additional costs in building the plant and point out that the cost estimates have climbed from $2.5 billion to $2.9 billion since June.
Technology touted
AMP-Ohio spokesman Kent Carson said the company is confident that the pollution-control Powerspan technology, with its ammonia-based scrubbing system, will make the plant the cleanest in Ohio and one of the cleanest in the country.
This process would result in the production of farm fertilizer.
Carson said the plant would be designed so that carbon dioxide could be captured in the future.
He also said that cost estimates for the plant were the result of changes in the boiler design.
On Feb. 7, the AMP-Ohio plant won its final air permit from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The Ohio Power Siting Board has held hearings and is expected to issue its decision soon.
AMP-Ohio operates a coal-fired plant near Marietta, a hydroelectric project on the Ohio River and Ohio's first commercial wind farm near Bowling Green.
Bob Downing can be reached at 330-996-3745 or bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com.
Plans for a new coal-burning power plant in southern Ohio are moving forward, despite strong opposition from environmental groups.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
