Reply With Quote
Manny, I see no relationship between San Antonio politicians and ing coal. Am I missing something?
If you can’t join us at Erin's, plan on meeting up with us on the side of Martin Luther King Middle School that faces the Eastside Boys and Girls Club (3503 MLK) at 9:00.
We’ll be gathering signatures to send to mayoral and city council candidates to urge them to support renewable energy and energy efficiency instead of a polluting coal plant.
We will focus most of our attention on canvassing the crowd before and after the march. The march ends at Pittman-Sullivan Park, 1101 Iowa St. Upon arriving at the park, volunteers should meet next to the "Pittman-Sullivan Park" sign at the southeast corner of the park (the procession approaches this corner from Iowa St.) for a quick roundup before canvassing the people gathered for the events following the march. We will continue gathering signatures until???? (the event lasts until five), and carpool back to Erin's. Please give signed letters to Erin Zayko before leaving the march.
Also, please let me know you’ll be joining us, and provide me with a name and contact info ( cell phone # too if possible) so that we can keep connected and coordinate our efforts. If you are interested respond to [email protected]
Manny, I see no relationship between San Antonio politicians and ing coal. Am I missing something?
CPS has plans to build a new coal plant. I'll post the info.
Comment: Conservation a better option than CPS coal plant
Web Posted: 01/01/2005 12:00 AM CST
Erin Zayko
Special to the Express-News
City Public Service is about to spend $1 billion to build a new coal plant. In addition, the plant will burn $100 million in fuel each year for the next 30 years to fire its boilers. That adds up to $4 billion.
Not only will this plant cost a lot of money, it will unnecessarily emit a variety of harmful contaminants into our skies.
CPS says it is building one of the cleanest plants in the country while also reducing emissions at its existing coal plants, but let's look carefully at the facts.
The proposed plant would add a lot of pollution to our atmosphere: more than 6 million tons of carbon dioxide; 140 pounds of brain-damaging mercury; particles that trigger asthma and heart attacks; silica, which causes black lung disease; hydrochloric acid; sulfur dioxide; and nitrogen oxide. This pollution is dangerous and will affect citizens' health and the climate for the 30 to 50 years this plant is expected to run.
Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. Almost every scientist who studies the problem agrees that the climate is changing and that the results will be bad for public health.
The impacts on Central Texas will be severe. We'll see more heat waves and droughts like we experienced in the late '90s, followed by torrential rains and floods. Far-fetched? Ask the flood control experts. They'll tell you we've had two 500-year floods and a 250-year flood in the past six years.
Almost every other industrialized country has agreed to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide. As a result, those limitations are now international law. Without U.S. compliance, trade sanctions may kick in, and we may end up paying $25 per ton for carbon emissions. Applied to all carbon dioxide emissions from this plant, this would add another $200 million a year to the cost of operating the facility.
Mercury causes brain damage. Less than one teaspoon of mercury can contaminate a 20-acre lake. The proposed plant would add up to 140 pounds of mercury to the air each year. If a pregnant woman eats mercury-contaminated fish, her child may suffer permanent brain damage, learning disabilities or attention deficits.
In economic terms, that means more taxes paid by the average citizen for programs for children with special needs. CPS says fish in the lake near the existing coal plants aren't contaminated, but fish in the San Antonio River have mercury levels that exceed EPA guidelines.
Silica causes black lung disease, and the proposed plant would emit five times more silica than the state standard, or effective screening level. Fine-particle pollution is known to trigger asthma and heart attacks. This plant would also expose people to levels of hydrochloric acid gas that exceed the state's effective screening level.
CPS will tell you these emissions would only exceed safe limits for a few hours each year, but such exposure can have serious health impacts.
This coal plant isn't needed. An internal CPS study has found that conservation measures could save 1.6 times more energy than this polluting plant will produce. Some energy conservation methods include tightening leaks, high performance windows and new high-tech lighting, appliances and air conditioners that use a third of the energy consumed by the systems most of us have in our homes today.
The choice that faces the city is simple. Would we be better off investing $1 billion into a polluting coal plant or investing that same money (or less) in making our homes and apartments cooler while reducing our electric bills?
That $1 billion divided by the 500,000 houses and apartments in the city is about $2,000 per home. That's a lot of efficiency.
Some say that San Antonians will never grasp energy conservation, but that's what they used to say about water conservation. San Antonio reduced water use by 30 percent and avoided spending billions of dollars to build an unneeded reservoir.
We don't need this plant. It will impact our health, and it will cost far more than energy efficiency.
Erin Zayko is a member of Smart Growth San Antonio.
But what can I do..I'm just....*looks around*....one man.
You can help pollution Duff by holding your breath for 3 days!God knows the population wouldn't miss your wisecracks for a while!
I want a nuclear plant.
actually i think this is pretty ed up... the parade is about Martin Luther King Jr and you guys are hijacking it for your environmental bull ... I think you and your group should show some respect and pick another day.
I respect your opinion, and I disagree. MLK fought for equality in this country, and the fact is that those plants hurt area's which are large black neighborhoods. At the public meeting 12/17, there was a LARGE turnout of minority leaders.
You're welcome to feel that way, however.
Oh, and it's a march, it's about making a political statement. It's not a damn parade.
Admit it. You are doing it that day because coal is black.
D'oh!
Cladestino, have you ever even BEEN to one of the MLK marches? I'm hoping that if you're going to lecture me on what does/should go on there you've at least gone.
Meaning no disrespect to MLK, is there anything you haven't dipped your political fingers into?
Cladestino, have you ever even BEEN to one of the MLK marches? I'm hoping that if you're going to lecture me on what does/should go on there you've at least gone.
I'm down with MLK!!!!
Sure, whatever politics doesn't effect, I don't mess with.
Thank you for a straight answer!
There's no way TCEQ should agree to let CPS build an enormous new coal plant without first taking a look at many, many other alternatives. Coal is cheap, but it is nasty dirty , especially the lignite that's used down here. Cheap or not, lignite should be one of the last options, not the first. We have hundreds of years of lignite left, but there is much work to be done to innovate ways to use it cleanly.
Are CPS's other units even MACT-compliant yet? SA has little industrial development, so I'll bet most if not all the point-source emissions come from the CPS plants. They should be putting effort into reducing emissions as much as possible on existing units before they start asking for enormous increases in their permit.
, uber-conservative Houston is phasing in energy conservation. My house is Energy Star-compliant. It rocks -- my power bill in August for a 2000 sq ft house was $130. Why can't San Antonio do that?
Why can't CPS build a wind plant a couple hundred miles to the west? Wind power is cheap too, and it's not as if West Texas desert land is unaffordable. Yeah, upgrading cables is expensive, but oh well, so is environmental mitigation from burning coal. It will also be expensive when San Antonio has development restrictions placed upon it because of federal air compliance problems and the job market dries up.
What kind of process is this coal plant going to run? Is it a conventional plant with the same old sucky 35% thermal efficiency? State-of-the-art units exceed 60% thermal efficiency, which means their raw material costs can be 70% higher and yet still make electricity more cheaply.
CPS needs to take a look at what other cities in Texas are doing. SA seems to be behaving like it's 1980 and they can do the same old thing they've always done.
This isn't tree-hugger enviro-freak stuff. There is a ton of technology out there for clean, efficient, affordable, well-engineered power generation and people just need to take advantage of it. It doesn't sound like CPS is.
ing EXACTLY!!!!
There were so many people speaking up at the 12/17 meeting and I can't begin to understand WHY other alternatives that are both cheaper and enviromentaly friendly weren't considered first!
CPS promises to lower the emissions from the other plants if they build this one, but WHY AREN"T THEY DOING THAT ALREADY?
CPS is asking for 140 pounds of mercury out of one brand-new plant when EPA is aiming for a nationwide 15-ton cap by 2018? Huh?
I think what CPS is trying to do is get this permit pushed through the state agency before EPA finishes up its new rules on coal-fired power plants. They'll be passing either a MACT or a cap-and-trade program on mercury.
That's why they want it now rather than in 20 years.
Don't put up with that crap.
Wind generated power is NOT cheap. It also requires tons of land. Land is not cheap. We already have coal plants in the area and that's probably why we are going for another one. Any new plant built will be VERY clean burning compared to the current ones in operation in the area. I wish nuclear was an option here or atleast in the area.
I don't know the specefics of how much Wind Generated power would cost compared to the coal, but the figures that CPS uses signify that coal is cheaper.
However, htere were some questions brought into account how these figures are calculated , I just don't have the info here. I need to see if I cna get copies of that.
Anyhow, what IS cheaper is focusing on conservation, and that is something CPS has completely written off.
All kidding aside Manny, I think this is a good thing you are involved in. Good luck with it. P.S. if you got a pe ion, I'll sign it.
Was it last year or the year before they had all those commercials about turning lights off and stuff? Kind of like those SAWS "Water Saver" things. I think getting a new plant may have to do with the huge growth of SA in the North/Northwest area. Toyota and the PGA stuff also are things to consider with the timing of this.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
