EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- The Terror Con
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
Popular content
Today's Top News
Historic Victory: Coal Free Chicago Will Electrify Clean Energy Movement
In a move that should electrify the clean energy movement across the country, the tireless champions with the Chicago Clean Power Coalition have announced that Midwest Generation, a subsidiary of multinational giant Edison International, will soon shut down the Windy City's two Model-T-era coal-fired plants.
The historic victory, after a decade-long battle, marks a shift in the clean energy battle for the country: If Chicago, once hailed as the "world's largest market of coal," can go coal free, the rest of the nation must surely be close behind them.
(Photo: Chris Diers)
Thanks to one of the most determined, diverse and successful clean energy campaigns in the nation--including a breakthrough campaign to pass a Clean Power ordinance--the retirement of the decrepit and deadly Fisk and Crawford coal-fired plants will end the century-long reign of the most toxic polluters in the heartland.
Birthplace of Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the world, an editorial in the Chicago Tribune asked in 1892: "Doubtless the end of the coal, at least as an article of a mighty commerce, will arrive within a period brief in comparison with the ages of human existence... How long can the earth sustain life?" The editorial lambasted Americans for our lack of vision and sense of energy conservation, and our need to "invent appliances to exhaust with ever greater rapidity the hoard of coal."
The Chicago Clean Power Coalition will hold a press conference in Dvorak Park on Thursday to formally announce the agreements signed by Midwest Generation, the Clean Power Coalition, and the City of Chicago.
"Today's victory demonstrates that people shouldn't have to tolerate toxic polluters in their backyard," said Rosalie Mancera of Pilsen Alliance. "By working with our neighbors and elected officials, Chicagoans have finally won the right to breathe clean air."
"For over ten years our communities have been fighting for the right to breathe clean air, clean land and clean water. Today we are ending over 100 years of pollution for profits and showing the power of community," said Kimberly Wasserman of LVEJO. "Hopefully, this is the first of many victories in Illinois, as citizens and politicians come together to hold corporate polluters accountable and usher in a clean energy future."
"Fisk and Crawford have been polluting Chicago neighborhoods for over 100 years," said Jerry Mead-Lucero of PERRO. "Our work is not over when the plants close. Midwest Generation and the City of Chicago must continue working to ensure these sites are properly cleaned up and returned to safe, productive use for our communities."
As a unique city-wide effort, the Chicago Clean Power Coalition includes: Chicago Youth Climate Coalition, Eco-Justice Collaborative. Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environment Illinois, Greenpeace, Faith in Place, Illinois Student Environmental Coalition, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Pilsen Alliance, Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization, Protestants for the Common Good, Rainforest Action Network Chicago, Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, Doctor's Council SEIU, Sierra Club, and the Southeast Environmental Task Force.
"This is a major victory for the people of Chicago!" said Pam Richart, Eco Justice Collaborative. "With the closure of the Fisk & Crawford coal plants, our city takes a bold step away from dirty energy and the harm it brings to human health, while at the same time opening the way for a clean energy future. We look forward to working with community groups and the City to ensure that these sites are cleaned up and restored for safe, productive uses."
"Chicago families have spoken: We have the right to breathe clean air, and we aren't willing to tolerate old, dirty coal plants in Chicago neighborhoods that harm our health and foul our air," says Faith Bugel, Senior Attorney with the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC). "This victory means cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner energy, and a safer environment for us all."
"This is a victory for the people of Chicago, who have demonstrated that grassroots activism is more powerful than the special interests of corporate polluters. We hope other communities across the country will find new inspiration to stand up for their right to clean air and a safe climate, " added Kelly Mitchell, Greenpeace Coal Campaigner.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show AllFor the most part, the older closed coal power plants are being replaced by natural gas generation - predominantly gas derived from fracking in Texas, Colorado, Wyoming and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is especially attrctive, becasue our governor is working hard to keep Pennsylvania only state where gas extraction is completely tax and government-royalty free.
Coal power generation must be phased out. But on the sort term, the closure of this plant will not help me where I live at all.
Also, this is prely a token closure anyway. There are planty of much bigger power plants down-state that will continue to burn Illinois longwall-mined coal that is turning the rich farmland down there into useless bog land.
No. Petroleum is just as dirty, and more pernicious in the environment.
Investigate fracking before you say gas is clean.
Fracking is a process where water and numerous chemicals (kept secret by frackers) is injected into shale to fracture (frack) it.
It takes many millions of gallons of fresh water per well. Pennsylvania, for example, has thousands of these wells.
Also, it takes petrochemicals to make the fracking chemicals; and coal, nuclear and petro energy to make the equipment and provide transportation.
After the shale is "fracked", some of the poisonous injected brew is withdrawn from the shale bed and dumped somewhere (often untreated), creating further pollution problems.
Much of it remains in the well forever and eventually it poisons the surrounding underground water table. Multiply this by the thousands in Pennsylavnia, tens of thousands nationally, who knows globally.
Meanwhile natural gas and petroleum is extracted at great cost, with profits going to global energy giants and the community and taxpayers are left with poisoned water and a permanently changed environment.
Such is the process of this "clean" energy.
It is much more than PR for the affected population.
So they will be replacing one source of CO2 and nitride pollutants with another source of CO2 and nitride contaminants. Trading coal derived from mountain-top removal for natural gas produced by fracking.
Gee, sounds like another PR 'win-win' for the Corporations to me.
Midwest Energy is a subsidiary of Edison International, a southern California-based energy holding company. Nearly all of its enrgy production comes from EI's subsidiary SCE (Southern California Energy).
Southern California Energy produces about 45% of its output at nuclear plants and 15-20% at dirty coal plants in the southwest.
Therefore, a majority of its energy comes from nukes and dirty coal. And as pjd points out, if it does shift its production to natural gas, that natural gas comes from hydro-fracking, much of it in his/her home state of Pennsylavnia.
So Edison International is simply shifting its pollution production to equally-bad/even-worse forms of production in different localities.
I would hardly call this a historic victory, though I honor the fight waged by folks in my former home town, and hope that they enjoy their temporary respite from the pollution of the Midwest coal plants.
It should also be noted that the vast majority of energy in northern Illinois is produced by Exelon, the holding company for Commonwealth Edison and other energy producers. ComEd is the most nuclearized private utility company on Earth and it gave birth to "clean" nuclear energy at its Dresden plant (now shut down, but polluting away for generations to come).
I've said it before, but I will repeat this statement: we need to be more judicious about our language when claiming "victories," and precise about understanding technical and political/economic matters.
Language matters.
Solidarity,
tj
I'm reminded by your post:
Both David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel worked for Exelon. Therefore, Obama has very strong ties to the company.
Excellent example of the 'monkey-in-the-middle' manipulation of emerging technology companies being crowded out. Like two slick side-steppers on a narrow plank over the polluted stream of their own industries, holding onto each other for dear life while claiming the agility of acrobats. Thanks is however due for the dry run in civic organizational refinement.
And no matter what - kudos to the coalition(s) - THATS the gem I take off my hat to. May your diversity, vitality, creativity, dignity, health and dance steps and song bring joy for generations to come. I'm praying for the very best of conditions for the Chicago gardens movements. You guys are an inspiration. Somebody please blow or plant a great big kiss for Grace Lee Boggs while you're at it - and all the elders and youth and critters that sustain each other. The Chicago Groove is BACK!- oh yes
Yes..."kudos to the coalitions."
This process is sort of like "whack a mole," but these dirty old plants in the city have done a lot of damage I'm sure. Here in Alexandria,Virginia, we have the third dirtiest plant (that began operating in 1949), which is slated to be closed as of October 1, 2012.
There is one disturbing clause in the agreement that says, if the plant is "needed beyond that date for reliability purposes," that it would be retired "as soon as it would be no longer needed."
Hopefully we can speed up this process at some point, if the majority of people can come to a consensus about conservation and clean safe energy production in general. Of course, We the People will also need to regain political power over corporations.
It could happen.
It really must happen.
Looked into this. Apparently neighborhood groups and the Chicago Lung Association, recently joined by Greenpeace and Sierra Club, have been trying to close these plants for years.
http://lvejo.org/
http://pilsenperro.org/
It may be a token closure to people who live farther away, but to residents, it is of great importance. It's huge for children's health, obviously. It does not mean the end of pollution in the region, as there are still many polluting industries nearby, some of which belch lead into the neighborhood. And mobile sources, like buses, trucks, trains, and cars, contribute large amounts of pollution.
Chicago is the only good-sized US city that has two coal-burning plants within its city limits. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Deal-to-close-Chicago-s-2-coal-fired-plants-early-3370907.php
Ten percent of the city's population lives within 3 miles of one of the plants. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/chicagos-true-cost-of-coal/blog/33381/
Most coal plants are located away from urban areas, where their toxic emissions affect fewer people (but have an equally adverse effect on the non-human environment.) Not so in this instance.
more if you want it:
http://www.lungchicago.org/site/epage/106049_487.htm
from a poster above: "There are planty of much bigger power plants down-state that will continue to burn Illinois longwall-mined coal that is turning the rich farmland down there into useless bog land."
This is not true. From a 2008 study: "Illinois imports 94% of coal burned in state" http://www.thereisaway.us/2010/05/illinois_import.html
This is largely because it is more economical to import Wyoming coal, lower in pollutants, than to spend money to upgrade pollution controls in Illinois plants.
Illinois, as most midwest states, has recently expanded its wind power enormously.
http://civsourceonline.com/2011/08/09/illinois-looks-to-expand-wind-energy-with-new-laws/
This has downsides as well, mostly due to destruction of bats, which help control agricultural pests.
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/batswindmills/
The statement that Wyoming coal is less-polluting is inaccurate:
1) Wyoming coal, as all surface-mined western coal, contains fewer BTUs per ton, which means it takes alot more coal to achieve a similar energy output and creates massive waste issues;
2) Partly because of the above, western coal is always mixed with other coal from the U.S. or globally;
3) There are massive transportation costs, in terms of both money and pollution when using coal mixes;
4) Coal processing and coal mining of any kind are highly polluting from many angles and all angles need to be looked at;
Therefore, this kind of energy-swapping moves the problem around and can even make it worse.
At issue is the fact that there is no such thing as clean coal or clean nuclear energy. At best, coal must be viewed as a bridge energy source that must be phased out, not moved around.
Nuclear energy must be stopped. Period.
A real victory here would be to immediately employ energy conservation measures and shift to less-polluting, sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and properly-compensated human labor.
Now that the nasty coal plant has closed I can breathe easier knowing it will be replaced by a natural gas produced by poisoning ground water with toxic chemicals and leaking methane like a sieve. The one-sided, electrifying victory exclamation is hyperbole based on justifying the cost and effort of the people involved. Reminds me of Bush's Mission Accomplished.
Mention was made of a clean energy future but no indication of accessing that future. Just the right to clean air and to no more dirty coal plants in Chicago neighborhoods. Presumably coal and nuclear generation outside of the neighborhood was tolerable.
But leaving out fracking natural gas, natural gas is already providing thermal heat in Chicago. Why is this natural gas not simultaneously generating electricity and thermal energy in the radically efficient process known as cogeneration or combined heat and power? Cogeneration using natural gas is the natural transition to distributed generation using renewables, a transition that should have taken place long ago. Preventing this transition has been government protection from market forces of central station generation under the guise of natural monopoly as well as the subsidy of coal and nuclear fuels in these inefficient central stations.
If I had to choose and we will end up having to choose, one way or another, I would take fracked gas in a heart beat over coal. Both are disastrous but coal is far worse. There is just no comparison between the two. How many gas company workers have been crushed, blown up, smothered or burned alive in fracking accidents? How many mountain tops have been removed? How much of the West is now mile wide open pit scars that will take eons to heal due to fracking? What is the GHG output of gas vs. coal? No comparison. We are human. We pollute, of necessity. We cannot live without severely disturbing our environment. The only question is whether we will try to be rational and apply science to the technical problems and a reverence for Earth to the philosophical problems or just go nuts and drill, baby, drill (Palin promised it, Obama delivered it).
Fracking is a nasty bit of business that also seems only marginally profitable even with various govt subsidies, bailouts and incentives and bogus mineral rights deals. Tar sands is far worse. Coal is worse than both and that's saying a lot.
FYI - methane is a bad news GHG but is non-toxic. It is flammable but only when concentrations reach the lower explosive limit (LEL). Hitting the LEL in your bathroom, due to fracking under nearby property is exceedingly unlikely.
The most reasonable solution to our energy, GHG and fossil fuel pollution problems is conservation, which can be done cheaper than coal, nuclear, petroleum, solar or wind with simple, readily available technologies, which is, undoubtedly why nobody is talking about it. It ain't sexy and it ain't centralized and it doesn't require Exxon or the Koch Bros help to make it happen. Anybody with a staple gun can insulate a house. So, knuckled under, as we are, to our enery/military/financial elites, we are likely to end up continuing to drive carbon out of increasingly more expensive and difficult substrates, as in fracking. We may be able to apply some minor course corrections, but this is the route the ship of state is taking. I am not terribly pleased with that but, frankly, I don't think anbyody can do anything about it.
When you consider the lose of water in use and pollution fracking is looking much worse than your considerations. Yes conservation and renewables. I am not sure which is worse coal or tar sands, tar sands is one of the greatest despoilers of land and water and almost negligible BTU gain after transport mining and processing BTU use.
High Frequency Trading Spreads Across Energy Markets
http://www.imackgroup.com/mathematics/758763-high-frequency-trading-spreads-across-energy-markets/
[snip]
High-frequency trading (HFT) is playing an ever-larger role in energy markets, but is it really suited to the nuanced deal sheets of commodities? Stephen Maloney considers this and asks whether HFT is in fact quietly tilting the table to favour those with the technological advantage
The current market environment – increasingly insolvent governments and greater correlation among asset classes – is characterised by high systemic risk, making hedging difficult and speculative opportunities fleeting. Such trends increase leverage and heighten sensitivity to central bank policies, especially those affecting currency pairings. Energy assets, with their dollar denomination and international flows, are directly affected.
Electronic trading is normally separated into two classes: automated trading, in which algorithms and business logic guide computer trades; and manual trading, whereby traders execute trades on an electronic platform. We take electronic trading so much for granted because it is so ubiquitous. Electronic communication networks (ECNs) carry the overwhelming bulk of trades today and provide the platform for direct trading.Background
HFT is a particular kind of automated trading, typically performed on an ECN, and characterised by reliance on high-frequency data in which positions are held for short periods of time (seconds or less).
Several market and technological factors converged over the past decade to enable HFT, including:
The 1998 US Securities and Exchange Commission decision authorising electronic exchanges.
The 2001 decimalisation of US capital markets and consequential growth, leading to tighter bid-ask spreads, lower trade size and higher volumes.
The New York Stock Exchange’s 2003 introduction of automated quote dissemination, enabling high-frequency price discovery.
The growth in derivatives products in response to higher trading volumes (tripling since 2003), further expanding price discovery and leverage for a broad range of asset classes.
The adoption of the Fix protocol and its growing role as a standard for conveying algo orders among broker-dealers, banks, funds and institutional investors.
The diffusion of advanced technology from the supply chain sector into capital markets, bringing with it low-latency middleware and feed handlers.
HFT’s growth has been driven by self-reinforcement. The Bank for International Settlements reports HFT represents a significant share of turnover in equities markets (56% in the US, 38% in Europe and 10–30% in Asia-Pacific markets).
Brogaard (2011) goes further, reporting HFT’s involvement in around 70% of dollar volume traded, and generally at the best bid and offer. He also estimates HFT trading on US equity markets earns $2.8 billion–4.1 billion in gross trading profits with a Sharpe ratio of 3.6–4.5.
Despite its large volumes, HFT is a very concentrated industry sector. Only 2% of US trading firms (around 400 or so) are active in HFT, with the dominant players including the major banks, Getco, Tradebot, Citadel and QuantLab. Leading HFT hedge funds include DE Shaw, SAC Global Advisors and Renaissance Technologies.
Note: Larry Summers had the woman who writes this blog fired for exposing his fraud at Harvard. Larry has worked for DE Shaw who has an ownership stake in First Wind/UPC.