Arkansas Blog

Just to echo statements on the environmental impact - there is no such thing as "clean coal".

from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/there_is_no_suc_1.php

"That ash has to go somewhere - so it usually ends up in landfills, along with the rest of the unusable waste. "You're replacing an air problem with a land problem - a disposal problem," said Bruce Dockter, a research engineer with the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota... And the chemicals added to clean up emissions - such as ammonia, lime and calcium hydroxide - make the ash worse, environmental groups say, because they take toxins such as mercury out of the air but leave higher levels of it in the ash."

Also, see this story on mountaintop removal - http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/10/27/clean-coals-dirtiest-secret/

Every new power plant, regardless of how clean, will be opposed. Power companies have no choice but to start construction when the permit is approved - if they ever want to complete a project. Even a wind farm was opposed by the blowhard Senator Edward Kennedy. Global warming is a joke. The real danger is global cooling.

Perhaps Ken Smith, director of Audubon Arkansas, could share with us how much electricity and gasoline he and his family have consumed over the past year. Is he another blowhard like Al Gore who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk? Does Mr. Smith drive a large SUV? What is his average monthly gas and electric bill? Has he installed solar panels on his house and/or windmills and taken himself off the power grid?

It's quite humorous that Ken Smith compalins about rising costs for construction given that opposition from his and other environmentalist whacko groups will be a driving factor for increased costs.

I love how people bring up Al Gore's personal carbon footprint, yet completely ignore the massive cumulative impact he has had on carbon emissions. Changing US government energy policy will do much more than simply changing the light bulbs in your house.
Regarding the point about environmentalists being responsible for driving up the cost of the plant:
The cost of not building the plant is $0, much cheaper than building it. This plant isn't needed by Arkansans and most of the energy will be sent to Texas while whatever pollution is dropped all over Arkansas.
Unlike Sev, many people actually care about the health of their families and themselves and would not like to see toxic mercury deposited across the state. The initial cost given for the plant was so much lower because it included only laughable plans for pollution removal. The cheaper plant would have cost Arkansans much more in the long run due to increased health costs and decreased quality of living.

Since Audubon wants construction to stop pending all appeals at the state and federal levels, I'm sure they will be posting adequate bonds to cover SWEPCO's losses while these appeals run, right?

JohnnieC,

How much of the energy that you consume is produced in Arkansas? This Texas-vs-Arkansas crap is a joke. Texas is a large energy producer. Do you propose that we only use coal/natural gas/gasoline that is produced in Arkansas, since no other state should be inconvenienced by the energy we consume?

So what's your carbon footprint? Do you have your solar panels and windmill going? Do you drive a car?

Psssst, Louie. We got another 'un! We are now the Three Amigos! (his nickname is Sev)

Best news in ages - vis a vis foreign oil dependency, coal-fired power plants, etc.!

Just in time for Christmas!

I wish people who don't believe in global warming or that emissions can be harmful would just go suck on a tailpipe.

Texas rejected several coal plants in recent years... and this plant would only help the wholesale texas market maintain a glut cheap electricity.. at all our expense.... far beyond our lifetimes.

Severus.. your refusal to address the issues factually and with ridiculous questions... even more ridiculous assertions of cooling only weakens your inane arguments.

Coal plant applications are being rejected all over the country... even in the very red self loathing states for overwhelmingly good reasons.

Thanks Max.. and thanks Ken!

So MeanGirl,

Global temperatures vary naturally all the time. It also occurs on Mars and other planets with no humans. Global cooling is what you should be fearing. There are natural cycles of heating and cooling.

Since you are so concerned with global warming, please tell us what you have done to reduce your carbon footprint. Will you be forgoing your Christmas tree lights this year? Have you disconnected your home from the grid? Do you ride a bicycle for transportation instead of a car?

I'm probably being presumptive to assume that you have a Christmas tree. It's more likely that you have an Al Gore shrine.

Sev,

PLEASE go now and take your medications before you blow something... or ====>ATTACK!!!!!
|

ArkTimes Blog,

From online sources . . .

ostracize
Etymology:
Greek ostrakizein to banish by voting with potsherds, from ostrakon shell, potsherd - more at oyster
Date: 1649
1 : to exile by ostracism
2 : to exclude from a group by common consent

The name is derived from the ostraka, (singular ostrakon , ὄστρακον), referring to the potsherds or pieces of broken pottery that were used as voting tokens. Broken pottery, abundant and virtually free, served as a kind of scrap paper (in contrast to papyrus, which was imported from Egypt as a high-quality writing surface, and was thus too costly to be disposable). Ostracism (Greek: οστρακισμός ostrakismos) was a procedure under the Athenian democracy in which a prominent citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years.

Each year the Athenians were asked in the assembly whether they wished to hold an ostracism. The question was put in the sixth of the ten months used for state business under the democracy (January or February in the modern Gregorian Calendar). If they voted "yes", then an ostracism would be held two months later. In a roped-off area of the agora, citizens scratched the name of a citizen they wished to expel on potshards, and deposited them in urns. The presiding officials counted the ostraka submitted; if a minimum of six thousand votes were reached, then the ostracism took place: the officials sorted the names into separate piles, and the person receiving the highest number of votes was exiled for ten years.

Arktimes Blog, I hereby submit three potsherds with the names LargeA**, Strangelove, chasv and Severus , inscribed. I am already treating their posts as randoms static and I am sure they are anxious to return the favor.

"It's quite humorous that Ken Smith compalins [sic] about rising costs for construction given that opposition from his and other environmentalist whacko groups will be a driving factor for increased costs." - Severus

Sev, ever heard of credit crunch? It's been in the news lately.

No, I have neither solar panels nor windmills, but you can check out my blog to see how I reduce my carbon footprint.

"Since Audubon wants construction to stop pending all appeals at the state and federal levels, I'm sure they will be posting adequate bonds to cover SWEPCO's losses while these appeals run, right? - TXK

Guess what...SWEPCO gets the money back by charging the costs to the ratepayers.

Oh, by the way, have I mentioned that we already have an unused power plant that we partially subsidized in Union County? Oh, and that the PSC's own efficiency expert said that the most cost effective way to produce energy in Arkansas is by using that existing power plant? Why Arkansans want to subsidize a power plant, let it sit idle for 5 months out of the year, and build another power plant is beyond me.

Folks, check out some PSC proceedings (and rate structure for TXK) before you deride people like Ken and JohnnieC.

Oops, it appears that my blog link didn't make it, so here it is.