Skip to main content

View Diary: 400 PPM: FIGHT BACK. (20 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You need to be realistic and consistent (0+ / 0-)

    Because the environmental movement chooses not to articulate their greenhouse gas emission reduction policies
    in the form of valid electric utility engineering and resource planning, means that you choose to separate yourself from the decisions that an electric utility must make in its decisions how its generating and transmission units can meet peak demands with a margin.....including what mix of generating source units to maintain in its slate of generating assets.

    If an electrical utility deems that they need to maintain a certain specified level of fossil fuel generation capacity in their system for base load dispatch, then your position is somehow that emissions reductions that come from coal to gas repoweringi or CO2 capture and sequestration measures must somehow be forgone for your political and ideological reasons..... opposing emission reductions
    and environmental improvements at existing power plants as an absolute which will not occur without the
    action by the electric utility on a plant that is legally allowable to operate is real loser as a stewardship decision.

    In the same vein, Environmentalists who want to prevent coal-fired power plants from making air pollution control improvements, such as mercury emission controls, are engaging in the ultimate inconsistency conundrum as all such requirements that become binding on coal fired generation units are artifacts of past enviro efforts under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site