Corporation Commission rejects Coal Plant

[swake]

I think this is good news, we have enough ozone and haze issues now. This would have made it worse.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070910_1__OKLAH47621

[rwarn17588]

Yup. The ozone issue was enough by itself for me to oppose the plant.

[cannon_fodder]

Chesapeake ran a really good campaign against this.  While I am OK with it being rejected, it had better not be followed up by complaints of higher energy prices or demands for reductions in consumption.  

/hoping for a nuke plant (less nuclear waste than a nuclear[edit] (oops) coal[/edit]plant anyway, I learned today)

[sgrizzle]

Nuclear plants are under such high regulation these days the startup costs and time to startup make it very cost prohibitive. There are two relatively new & unused plants in tulsa county that could probably be purchased for less than a Billion dollars.

[Conan71]

I heard on the radio last week that the NRC is starting a push to get some more permits in the hands of electric companies and they are looking for proposals.  They said this will be a rennaisance for nuke power not seen in over 20 years.

Incredibly expensive to build, much better technology is available these days, no emissions, and yet, I'm sure the global warming crowd will still be disappointed.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I heard on the radio last week that the NRC is starting a push to get some more permits in the hands of electric companies and they are looking for proposals.  They said this will be a rennaisance for nuke power not seen in over 20 years.

Incredibly expensive to build, much better technology is available these days, no emissions, and yet, I'm sure the global warming crowd will still be disappointed.

Not the "global warming crowd" per se.  As you noted, these things don't put out greenshouse gasses, and so, would have a mitigating effect on global warming.

I know what you are saying, but it's important not to lump all environmentalists into the same group...especially if you want to get something like nuclear back into the discussion.

[rwarn17588]

I'm OK with nuclear ... I'm not concerned with the safety aspect so much with the disposal aspect. Nuclear waste is nasty, nasty stuff, and is toxic for centuries. It's also a public-security issue.

I see no reason why AEP-PSO can't put mega wind turbine or two in the Panhandle or Roger Mills County for a fraction of the cost of a nuclear plant.

And I haven't even begun talking about solar and high-efficiency triple-junction solar cells.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I'm OK with nuclear ... I'm not concerned with the safety aspect so much with the disposal aspect. Nuclear waste is nasty, nasty stuff, and is toxic for centuries. It's also a public-security issue.

I see no reason why AEP-PSO can't put mega wind turbine or two in the Panhandle or Roger Mills County for a fraction of the cost of a nuclear plant.

And I haven't even begun talking about solar and high-efficiency triple-junction solar cells.

Oklahoma's grid needs to be shifted.  it should be shfited in a way so that western OK is powered by a very high percent of wind power.  There is too much transmission loss to bring wind power electic to eastern oklahoma, but there is no reason that western OK power being generated by coal or gas couldn't be shifted to central oklahoma and shift central OK power to eastern oklahoma.  Less transmission loss.

[sgrizzle]

AEP-PSO buys a lot of power from western oklahoma wind farms, but the way power is bought and sold, who knows what it actually powers. Roscoe "P Coltrane" Turner was mentioned in the Sunday paper pushing for wind power. The osage hills could generate a good amount.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there are multiple plants that were built in oklahoma by companies preparing for a deregulation that never happened. One is south of Jenks and another one is in Coweta. I would think those would be potential options for more power.

One way or the other, I'm suprised that of all places, Oklahoma drew a line in the sand.

[southof30a]

Chesapeake won big time.  No coal plant means that a natural gas fired plant will be built.  Just happens to be the business they are in...

[cannon_fodder]

On a side note on nuclear power, after spending years and several billion constructing a site in Nevada that sits empty... do you know where nuclear waste is currently stored?

In the basement of the plant in which it was utilized.  

That's security for ya.  Yet another way this country has no REAL security.  Just the illusion of security.  If making me take of my shoes at the airport makes grandma think the government is doing something, that's all they need.
- - -

Also worth pointing out that wind power is very expensive compared to Nuclear or Coal unless it is in an optimized location.  Then it is comparable (NE or Central OK or even Western OK is not prime):


Source:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html#How%20much%20does%20wind%20energy%20cost

and a neato overview:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html

[Johnboy976]

There was a retired CIA agent who was interviewed for a History Channel program concerning conspiracy theories over 9/11. He was asked whether America could possibly keep secret such theories (being presented in the program) from being known, if they were true... he replied with something like, "America can't keep secrets. It's too big a country. We can't hide anything." Undoubtedly most people who want to know where that nuclear waste is stored can find it fairly easily.

[Trams]

Yeah, Chesapeake has its fingers all over this one.  I saw a commercial on TV tonight narrated by Scott Meacham -- the State Treasurer!  Since when does he have the expertise to comment on this issue?  

In a former life, Meacham was an attorney specializing in "commercial law, probate law, and estate planning. In 1989, he became CEO of First National Bank and Trust in Elk City, Oklahoma, serving in that capacity until 2003."

I seriously doubt his qualifications to render commentary on a coal-fired plant.  Where can we find info on Chesapeake's campaign contributions?

[rwarn17588]

I did a search for political contributions on the Oklahoma Ethics Commission site. Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon has made a couple dozen political contributions in the past few years to both Republicans and Democrats, but Scott Meacham was not one of them.

Didn't find any contributions from Chesapeake to Meacham, either.

As for Meacham's qualifications, it doesn't take a genius to realize that 1) coal plants pollute; 2) Tulsa, which has plenty of air-quality problems, is downwind from the proposed coal plant.

[HazMatCFO]

Why was Meachum allowed to use the Seal of the State Treasurer's office in his advertisement against the coal fired plant?

When I saw that in the print ad, I thought, does the State of Oklahoma endorse his opposition to the coal fired plant and if so, why? Why is the State endorsing one side or another?

I can see Scott Meachum as a private person who is State Treasurer opposing the coal fired plant, but why was he allowed to use his office to do so?