Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGeorgia Judge Yanks Coal Power Permit on Climate Concerns
ATLANTA - A Fulton County Superior Court judge today issued a decision that blocks construction of the first coal-burning power plant proposed in Georgia in more than 20 years. The judge ruled that the new plant must limit its emissions of the heat-trapping gas carbon dioxide.
This is the first time any court has applied to an industrial source an April 2007 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court recognizing that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act.
Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore overturned the ruling of an administrative court approving the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's decision to issue an air pollution permit for Dynegy's planned Longleaf power plant south of Columbus, Georgia.
In a challenge to the air permit brought by two environmental groups, Judge Moore held that the state environmental agency must limit the amount of carbon dioxide, CO2, emissions from the Dynegy power plant.
In June 2007, Friends of the Chattahoochee and the Sierra Club filed suit challenging the Dynegy Longleaf permit allowing a 1200 megawatt coal-fired power plant to be built in Early County on the banks of the Chattahoochee River.
The groups challenged the permit because it failed to include any limitations for carbon dioxide.
Now, Dynegy cannot begin construction of the 120 megawatt plant unless it obtains a permit from the Environmental Protection Division, EPD, that complies with the Judge Moore's ruling.
"In a case that is being watched across the country, Judge Moore has sent a message that it is not acceptable for the state to put profits over public health," said Justine Thompson, executive director of GreenLaw, the Atlanta public interest law firm that represented the environmental groups.
"This ruling goes a long way toward protecting the right of Georgians to breathe clean air and sends a message to EPD that it must tighten the standards it uses to approve air pollution permits for companies seeking to build any more coal-fired power plants in this state," Thompson said.
Healthcare providers and patient advocacy groups around the state spoke out against the proposed plant and submitted supporting briefs in the case. The Medical Association of Georgia issued a resolution opposing any new coal-fired plants in the state.
The permit also was challenged because the plaintiff groups say it failed to set safe emission limits for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist - pollutants that contribute to smog and acid rain.
Fine particulate matter has been known to cause sudden death, premature birth, lung cancer, lung disease, asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, heart attacks and chronic respiratory diseases.
"I am thrilled that the judge understands our concerns about public health and global warming here in Early County. Coal plants are a bad idea all around, they hurt our lungs, they hurt our land, and they hurt our livelihood," said Bobby McClendon, a leader of Friends of the Chattahoochee.
This plant would produce nine million tons of carbon dioxide pollution annually, an amount the plaintiff groups say is equal to adding 1.3 million cars on Georgia's roads every year. A typical plant produces 3.7 million tons annually according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In addition, the Longleaf plant would violate the U.S. EPA's air quality standards for fine particulate matter where the plant is located, the groups alleged.
"The Clean Air Act was enacted by Congress to protect public health and with Judge Moore's decision that is what is finally going to happen here in Georgia, said Patty Durand, Georgia Chapter director of the Sierra Club.
"Our state can find other ways to produce cleaner, more economically beneficial energy," said Durand. "Other states are doing it. Why can't we?"
Dynegy provides wholesale power, capacity and related services to utilities, cooperatives, municipalities and other energy companies in 14 states in the Midwest, the Northeast and on the West Coast. The S&P 500 company's power generation portfolio consists of more than 19,000 megawatts of baseload, intermediate and peaking power plants fueled by a mix of coal, fuel oil and natural gas.
Dynegy has the most proposed coal-fired power plants of any company in the United States. An appeal of Judge Moore's ruling is expected, but for the moment, the plaintiff groups are celebrating.
"Coal-fired power plants emit more than 30 percent of our nation's global warming pollution," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "Thanks to this decision, coal plants across the country will be forced to live up to their clean coal rhetoric."
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008
29 Comments so far
Show AllIt just could be that a method can be devised to extract a lot more power from wind than is now done. As a light plane pilot, I can attest that there is wind energy available almost everywhere once you get above the tree tops and the turbulence that ground features introduce. Why not build towers to hold generators to a thousand feet AGL-- we do it now for communications towers. If you do not believe there is energy there, look up--- even on a relatively calm day and watch the clouds drift by. They are being moved by wind.
Even though energy levels are lower at lower velocities, there is energy there. Is it not
possible to collect some of it? I think it is and so what if effeciencies are low-- the energy is free. I believe I know a way to collect it.
All of the pie in the sky "electric vehicle"
schemes seem to ignore the fact that one must have the electricity to charge batteries. The true breakthrough must come in finding clean methods of generating it, not in building more fossil powered plants.
Where are you going to get the power to charge a battery car? If america were to mass produce and drive electric cars, we would need a coal fired power plant in every city. Or the other option would be nuclear power.
China is building 400 new coal plants. The only way human beings upon the earth would never destroy themselves & most other critters by their own hand through either weapons or the destruction of the earth would have been for everyone to live as the Native Tribes used to live upon the earth.
Stephen Hawking has expressed his concerns of Global Warming turning the Earth into a "Firey Venus." Climatologist Hansen spoke to your Leaders about stopping the use of coal, but that would turn off most of the electric. No electric means no machines. No machines means no food. The vicious cycle of destruction insures the human poplulace they will eventually destroy themselves through their weapons or the destruction of the earth.
SAY NO TO COAL POWER....WHY?? Because....
***The largest source of mercury emission in the United States is coal-fired electric power plants***. Google it.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/sources.asp
Know Where It's Coming From
Each year power plants and chemical facilities create many tons of mercury pollution, which makes its way into our homes and bodies in fish.
Two of the biggest sources of mercury pollution are chlorine chemical plants and coal-fired power plants. Chlorine plants, which use massive quantities of mercury to extract chlorine from salt, "lose" dozens of tons of mercury each year; power plants emit around 50 tons of mercury pollution annually. Facilities that recycle auto scrap are another big source of mercury pollution, pouring 10 to 12 tons of mercury into the air every year. The most common way Americans are exposed to mercury is through tuna fish.
Power Plants
Coal is naturally contaminated with mercury, and when it is burned to generate electricity, mercury is released into the air through the smokestacks. The bulk of this mercury pollution could be eliminated with the installation of pollution-control devices. Similar devices have proved very successful on municipal incinerators, which were once a significant source of mercury pollution.
But in January 2004 the Bush administration proposed to weaken and delay efforts to clean up mercury emissions from roughly 1,100 coal-fired boilers at more than 460 electric power plants. Essentially, the administration's plan treats mercury as if it were a run-of-the-mill air pollutant instead of a hazardous air pollutant, allowing the Environmental Protection Agency to avoid requiring power plants to reduce emissions by the maximum amount technologically achievable.
We're talking about carbon sequestration here in Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, and Mora counties,in New Mexico where oil and gas corporations want to begin drilling in pristine - or as they say "unconventional" - areas. We're talking about leaving it in the ground! We're talking about the counties getting carbon tax credits for this and using that money to fund renewables, alternative fuels, public transportation. 1.2 trillion barrels of oil and no telling how much coal is already sequestered, let's leave it in the ground.
If you know Georgia, you can't believe this ruling will stand. Politicians at every level are totally corrupt and in the pockets of Big Power, Big Timber and the loan sharks and insurance companies. Thanks to Judge Moore, but this glimmer of hope is certain to be extinguished.
I'm surprised that no one has claimed this judge to be an activist judge … yet. The right will always claim this when all else fails. We shall see if the ruling stands. I, for one hope it does.
This is not the only plant planned. There is also one planned for Sandersville GA (east-central).
USE LESS ENERGY, it's the only way!
Also the one on Sea water for fuel http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4271398.html
For those who haven't found the link on the water car http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561
It Could be the same or simular technology used by late inventor Stan Meyer http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html
This could be a hoax but well see. Run our power plants on Sea Water? With too much seawater why not? It takes lots of energy to compress air or charge a battery so this could be great.
Also here is a link that works for the compressed air powered car http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
talking about cars the air car is the answer to SOME of our problems. Great ruling.
Good ruling, lousy reason. CO2 is not a pollutant, is a natural part of our atmosphere and mostly just plant food. And since there is no global warming it kind of blows that reason... but we still do not need another coal fired power plant...
At least somebody still able to think clearly!
I have never heard of the possibility of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Sequestration even on site (at the coal plant) is unproven on a large scale and requires tremendous amounts of energy for compression, transportation and insertion.
Who favors sequestration of carbon over a moratorium on burning?
Who throws the term "clean coal" into every discussion of CO-2 reduction?
George Bush and all of his friends and supporters in the coal industry.
Sequestration is another way to divert the public from real solutions.
There is one Bush administration approved carbon sequestering technique.
Burying alive all the people that refuse to genuflect every time a neocon says something.
For proper link to Water Car video, delete the hyphen at the end of the link.
The specifications stated in an article entitled.
"New Fuel Cell System 'Generates Electricity with Only Water, Air"
Indicate that their device produces 300W of power. 300W can power three, 100W incandescent light bulbs that we are all familiar with. A decent solar panel produces about 150W, a basic consumer model wind-turbine can make up to 900W in a good wind.
300 watts = 0.402306627 horsepower
Definitely not a Silver-Bullet, in my opinion.
Win a few - lose a few
"PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- Rhode Island's Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a first-in-the-nation jury verdict that found three former lead paint companies responsible for creating a public nuisance, rejecting a closely watched case that had been seen as a bellwether for potential suits across the country."
Leave no child behind but Suffer the Children, eh?
So many of these R.I. judges hawe their names associated with ethics questions...
http://caught.net/caught/judlstp.htm
zaz, a water-fueled car unfortunately is a hoax. Not only would it solve our energy and climate problems, but also overturn the laws of thermodynamics! Chances are they add a chemical to the water that produces hydrogen than runs the engine. But the chemical is most likely more expensive than oil.
I do think sequestration is worth reseaching, as part of a broad portfolio of renewable energy and conservation programs. Chances are that we'll probably need to sequester some of the carbon already in the atmosphere, even if a breakthrough is made in other areas. In some ways, sequestration would restore part of the "natural" carbon cycle, after all, fossil fuels were made up of sequestered carbon in the first place.
heavy y runner - Either the car in the video is running on water or REUTERS UK has bought into a hoax. I had trouble connecting so anyone interested in a water fueled vehicle may have to do a little work. Google - WATER FUEL JAPAN.
No one can reduce CO2 emissions by building new coal power stations. Renewable energy exploitation and power demand reduction are the way to go.
Water can't be a fuel. Chemically it does not have potential energy.
I agree with the idea of nationalizing our oil companies and conversion to renewable energy and electrically powered transportation.
The growing meddling in the coal industry shows not all is well with the state of our nation's energy. As with previous federal government interventions in railroads, airlines, and other industries, what begins as well intentioned Court rulings in time degenerates into constant meddling, taxing, and over-regulation. The less competitive the industries, the less able they are to compete with foreign entities, and they end up losing out, as Big Three did to Japan.
Domestically sourced energy will take years to develop, and prices are set internationally, so the more demand for oil globally, the more it will cost. (Check out chipero's comment and the superordinate article by Michael Fox. We can only conserve. Coal is the dirtiest of energies, plus its mining is increasingly destructive.
Hurray! The tide is turning!
http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561-- Water for fuel demonstration in Japan. Rumers appear to be true.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html-- New compressed air vehicles to be produced.
Carbon sequestration is the typical dump of our problems on to future generations.
"Carbon sequestration" is an absolute crock.
Yes, our science has proved itself so solidly reliable, we can promise ourselves that we understand the Earth's geology well enough to "store" carbon for, let's see, how long?
Our "big answers" have destabilized the climate and the entire living ecology of the Earth. So obviously, rather than humility and a reduction of our arrogance, we'll just come up with an even bigger "big answer". We'll burn all the coal, but we'll just stash all that carbon, er, somewhere! Nothing can go wrong with this scheme! Naysayers just hate humanity! Let the coal industry define the problem and the solution, no conflict of interest here!
"Carbon sequestration" is an absolute crock.
We've known for decades that we can no longer burn
fossil fuels -- but on they have gone in their
suicidal pursuit of dollars and power.
NATIONAL
IZE
THE
OIL
INDUSTRY
PUT
ELECTRIC
CARS
ON OUR ROADS
*****************
I don't know the Georgia legal system. I assume this decision will be appealed by the utility. If this decision is upheld, it will be one more nail in the coffin of coal without sequestration.
The sooner this becomes the law in all 50 states, the better off we will all be.
Bill