AEP + OG&E's coal power opposition

[sgrizzle]

Anyone see the full page ad in Sunday's World?
http://tulsaworld.com/TWPDFs/2007/Final/W_082607_A_5.pdf

Their website:
http://www.knowyourpower.net/


Is this the group funded by chesapeake or someone else?

Does PSO have another "Black Fox" kind of opposition on their hands?

[RecycleMichael]

It is interesting to see a natural gas company fight an energy company over the use of coal.

Chesapeake has great wealth and has proven willing to spend it to convince Oklahomans that we should be making electricity from natural gas.

They have even partnered with many environmental groups to get out this message. That makes for some strange bedfellows.

[sgrizzle]

What I really want to see is Chesapeake partner with a mexican restaurant.

[cannon_fodder]

I'd be all about a nuke plant.

Proven safe (no US fatalities and less injuries than coal fire plants), no emissions (think dirty air list free), and cheap power.  If politicians would get out of the way, we even have a site built (costing billions) to store the waste in Nevada.

I'd be happy to have a nuclear power plant near Tulsa.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'd be all about a nuke plant.

Proven safe (no US fatalities and less injuries than coal fire plants), no emissions (think dirty air list free), and cheap power.  If politicians would get out of the way, we even have a site built (costing billions) to store the waste in Nevada.

I'd be happy to have a nuclear power plant near Tulsa.

+1

[rwarn17588]

I'm on board with Chesapeake on this.

The prevailing winds would take the smoke from that coal-fueled power plant right over Tulsa.

That's all we need: more smog on top of what we already have.

Switching to a cleaner-burning fuel like natural gas makes a helluva lot more sense -- especially since you don't have to ship it from halfway across the country.

I'm OK with nuclear except for one thing -- you screw up with the reactor, hundreds of square miles will pay for it for centuries.

If AEP really wanted to think out of the box, I'd put one or two of these babies in the Panhandle:

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/07/1-gigawatt-wind-turbine.html

[cannon_fodder]

True Rwarn, but that hasnt ever happened.  The worst (Chernobyl) wasn't even THAT bad and it was the most assbackward plant design with no safety features that Russia could come up with.  3 Mile Island never actual leaked radiation.  In the 50 years of nuclear power in the US the public has never been exposed to hazards - every coal plant exposes people every day.

No reason to be complacent, but certainly a good reason to reconsider the technology.  Not to mention the current plants are 30++ years old and will have to start shutting down soonish... do you have any idea what replacing them with coal would do to emissions/coal prices?

Something will have to happen outside of the box, that's for sure.

[Conan71]

Poor timing to build a coal plant with all the bad press they are recieving vis-a-vis global warming, even with the "ultra-clean" technology.

Still not a "smoke" issue though.  Drive past the GRDA coal-fired plant off 412 or the AEP/PSO plant at Oologah.  No smoke, lots of steam from the boilers and cooling towers.  That's a bogus argument being put forth by Chesapeake.

[rwarn17588]

Another reason to dislike coal-fired power plants: toxic coal ash, which becomes even more useless and toxic when you inject the chemicals into it to make coal pollute the air less.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/26/ap4054580.html

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Another reason to dislike coal-fired power plants: toxic coal ash, which becomes even more useless and toxic when you inject the chemicals into it to make coal pollute the air less.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/26/ap4054580.html

Recent studies (as per yesterday on NPR) are showing birds that eat spiders instead of fish are showing up with high concentrations of mercury which is affecting their reproduction. Previously it was thought that mercury was only concentrated in fish. The mercury comes from coal powered energy producers.

[sgrizzle]

Supposedly, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission has denied the application for this plant.

I saw a TV ad during Nascar. Talk about trying to reach a wide audience.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'd be all about a nuke plant.

Did you see that doc, "Crude Awakening:  The Oil Crash"?  It was ostensibly about peak oil, but the bigger picture is the conundrum we are going to be in for the next 50 years...there just aren't any good alternatives for limitless, cheap, energy, and nothing on the horizon.  One guy noted that nuclear is a bridge at best.  If we started using it as a coal replacement we'd exhaust uranium supplies in a matter of decades.  I'd never thought about it, but nuclear is finite, too.  They didn't like biomass or wind; they're sustainable, but produce unrealistically small supplies.  

Interestingly, the only ray of hope that any of them offered was the sun (pun intended).  It's the only resource with virtually unlimited potential.  But to date, all the solar cells we've created would cover about 2 1/2 square miles...and we'd need to create something that would cover an area half the size of California (75,000 sq mi) just to keep up with today's demand.  So we are only 0.003% where we need to be.

[rwarn17588]

One of the new technologies, Chicken, is triple-junction super-concentrated solar cells. These babies can take up to the sunlight of 1,000 suns (focused through lenses) and can create a lot of energy.

Dunno if the doc takes that into account or not.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I'd be all about a nuke plant.

Did you see that doc, "Crude Awakening:  The Oil Crash"?  It was ostensibly about peak oil, but the bigger picture is the conundrum we are going to be in for the next 50 years...there just aren't any good alternatives for limitless, cheap, energy, and nothing on the horizon.  One guy noted that nuclear is a bridge at best.  If we started using it as a coal replacement we'd exhaust uranium supplies in a matter of decades.  I'd never thought about it, but nuclear is finite, too.  They didn't like biomass or wind; they're sustainable, but produce unrealistically small supplies.  

Interestingly, the only ray of hope that any of them offered was the sun (pun intended).  It's the only resource with virtually unlimited potential.  But to date, all the solar cells we've created would cover about 2 1/2 square miles...and we'd need to create something that would cover an area half the size of California (75,000 sq mi) just to keep up with today's demand.  So we are only 0.003% where we need to be.

We need to perfect fusion, runs on water and no radioactive waste.

[RecycleMichael]

I am trying to perfect static electricity.

I have been rubbing ballons against my head for weeks now.