Coal plants get burned

[jpak]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/01/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_coal.fortune/

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- These are troubling times for any company trying to build a coal-fired power plants - and more than 150 of them are being planned across America.

Opposition is mounting to coal plants because they contribute to global warming. The plants are getting harder to build because activist groups try to stop them, causing delays that raise operating costs. And investors are paying attention. Federal regulation of carbon emissions, which is being actively considered by Congress, could also make burning coal more expensive.

"Wall Street is every day becoming more aware of the risks of building new coal plants - both the carbon-cost risks and the reputation risks," says Dan Bakal, director of electric power programs for CERES, a coalition of environmental groups and institutional investors.
Texas's big global warming battle

Coal-fired plants suffered a stunning setback when two private equity firms agreed to buy TXU (Charts) for $32 billion, and immediately dropped plans for eight of 11 planned coal plants. The buyers, Texas Pacific and Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts, sought the approval of environmentalists before announcing the deal. Before then, TXU had staking its future on coal plants.

<more>

[brentblack]

1. The Answer is....

....Clean burning and SAFE nuclear power.


But not too popular...

[texastoast]

3. Bwwaaaaaaa

You are kidding, right?

One of my friends worked on the South Texas Nuclear Project when it was being built. She said that half the welders came to work ripped (this was before the days of drug testing) and that the bad welds were passed because the plant's construction was so bad in cost overruns. The concrete wasn't the correct grade half the time and on and on. Everyone I know says the only way to fix the tremendous problems that occurred during the construction of that plant was to take it back to the ground and start over.

And, nukes are a primo terrorist target. God forbid, but if something did happen, it would be on the scale of Chernobyl.

And the waste? I think you have to plan for about 1000 years for just this year's waste. Then we have to plan for next year.

To quote a favorite bumper sticker, "The answer is blowing in the wind." (And shining in the Sahara as well. And the Outback. And Arizona.)

[Ezlivin]

4. Nuclear power is great, the waste is a big problem

Others will probably note that the construction of a nuclear power plant releases tremendous amounts of CO². And others will undoubtedly note that most people are NIMBY (not in my backyard) when it comes to siting a nuclear power plant.

But the one big problem that is vexing is waste disposal. No state is signing up to be a waste repository. Additionally you have to figure out how to transport all of that waste to the repository. Again, most people will not want trains or trucks filled with radioactive waste passing through their town; we've all seen what happens when a train carrying chemicals overturns. Now imagine a radioactive waste spill.

I would love for the fusion reactor to become reality, but it seems to be at an impasse.

[GliderGuider]

2. Good. The fewer of these species-killers the better.

Better ramp up them wind turbines. If the anti-coal lobby is successful, as they should be, we will need a tonne of them to take up the slack. Especially after Peak Gas.

[NickB79]

5. It will be interesting to see what happens

When electricity prices skyrocket. Will most people stick to their environmental guns and learn to live with less, or cave in to their immediate desires of the cheap electricity they grew up with and accept new coal plants?

[GliderGuider]

6. You a betting man?

The outcome of that scenario is as close to a sure thing as I've ever seen.

"So the planet gets a bit warmer in 20 years. Screw it, I'm cold right now!"