FPL has announced that it intends to build one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the world in Glades County on the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Their reason is to, “diversify [their] fuel supply and meet the state’s growing demand over the next 10 years.” They also cite as further justification the rising price of natural gas and disruptions in supply due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Although coal-fired power plants use the most abundant fuel and are the cheapest way to make electricity, nothing contributes more to the emission of greenhouse gases. A Dec. 12, 2006 article in the New York Times said, “The iconic culprit in global warming is the coal-fired power plant.” In the same article, James E. Rogers,
chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, was quoted, “Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,” Mr. Rogers said. “And we need to start now because the longer we wait the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.”
While I believe that FPL has one of the better track records in the power industry in minimizing environmental impacts, building a huge coal plant is NOT the answer. In fact, it's the worst possible choice. The world should be dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not adding to the problem.
FPL says the proposed plant will use ultra supercritical coal technology, which produces steam at very high temperatures and pressures, resulting in higher efficiency and fewer emissions. It would still generate about twice the tonnage of CO2 as a natural gas fired power plant per unit of electric power generated. Furthermore, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel with respect to toxic pollutants. Even with the best pollution control processes available, FPL cannot eliminate toxic ash and emissions of toxic mercury and sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which contribute to acid rain and smog. According to FPL’s disclosure, for example, about 21% of the mercury will still be released to the surroundings. Do we really want this on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, the headwaters of the Everglades? I believe FPL should set an example by employing low carbon emission technologies to the fullest extent possible.
Besides writing to FPL to tell them we disagree with their decision, we can send them an affirmative message that we are serious about regenerable energy from solar and wind power by signing up for FPL’s "Sunshine Energy" program. I have. By paying a modest premium of $9.75/month, FPL will purchase renewable power from other producers. According to FPL, “In just one year as a Sunshine Energy customer, you can avoid over 8,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions nationwide – as much as a car would produce in almost 9,000 miles of driving.” The money also helps FPL and the industry accelerate development of solar and wind technology. So far, only 24,000 customers statewide have signed on. Imagine the impact if a million households did the same. That would tell FPL loud and clear that “We want global warming reversed and we are each willing to pay a little more to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
A significant fraction of power requirements can probably be supplied by renewable energy, but FPL points out that solar and wind are dependent on weather conditions and cannot be relied on as for baseline power supply. Natural gas is preferred over coal, but in order to persuade FPL to build more natural gas fired power plants, they will need increased natural gas supplies, such as by importation of liquefied natural gas from South America and Africa that is not vulnerable to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. If natural gas is in short supply, they will be forced to build coal-fired plants. Consideration should also be given to nuclear power as a carbonless long range solution for baseline power demand.
FPL has announced that it intends to build one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the world in Glades County on the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Their reason is to, “diversify [their] fuel supply and meet the state’s growing demand over the next 10 years.” They also cite as further justification the rising price of natural gas and disruptions in supply due to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Although coal-fired power plants use the most abundant fuel and are the cheapest way to make electricity, nothing contributes more to the emission of greenhouse gases. A Dec. 12, 2006 article in the New York Times said, “The iconic culprit in global warming is the coal-fired power plant.” In the same article, James E. Rogers, 
chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, was quoted, “Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,” Mr. Rogers said. “And we need to start now because the longer we wait the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.”
While I believe that FPL has one of the better track records in the power industry in minimizing environmental impacts, building a huge coal plant is NOT the answer. In fact, it's the worst possible choice. The world should be dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not adding to the problem.
FPL says the proposed plant will use ultra supercritical coal technology, which produces steam at very high temperatures and pressures, resulting in higher efficiency and fewer emissions. It would still generate about twice the tonnage of CO2 as a natural gas fired power plant per unit of electric power generated. Furthermore, coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel with respect to toxic pollutants. Even with the best pollution control processes available, FPL cannot eliminate toxic ash and emissions of toxic mercury and sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, which contribute to acid rain and smog. According to FPL’s disclosure, for example, about 21% of the mercury will still be released to the surroundings. Do we really want this on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, the headwaters of the Everglades? I believe FPL should set an example by employing low carbon emission technologies to the fullest extent possible.
Besides writing to FPL to tell them we disagree with their decision, we can send them an affirmative message that we are serious about regenerable energy from solar and wind power by signing up for FPL’s "Sunshine Energy" program. I have. By paying a modest premium of $9.75/month, FPL will purchase renewable power from other producers. According to FPL, “In just one year as a Sunshine Energy customer, you can avoid over 8,000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions nationwide – as much as a car would produce in almost 9,000 miles of driving.” The money also helps FPL and the industry accelerate development of solar and wind technology. So far, only 24,000 customers statewide have signed on. Imagine the impact if a million households did the same. That would tell FPL loud and clear that “We want global warming reversed and we are each willing to pay a little more to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
A significant fraction of power requirements can probably be supplied by renewable energy, but FPL points out that solar and wind are dependent on weather conditions and cannot be relied on as for baseline power supply. Natural gas is preferred over coal, but in order to persuade FPL to build more natural gas fired power plants, they will need increased natural gas supplies, such as by importation of liquefied natural gas from South America and Africa that is not vulnerable to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. If natural gas is in short supply, they will be forced to build coal-fired plants. Consideration should also be given to nuclear power as a carbonless long range solution for baseline power demand.
1 comment:
Barry, Greetings from a fellow birder! I have just read your "Say no to Coal" article and find it quite interesting. There is a growing need for energy here in Florida and I applaud FPL for laying out the capital to build a new plant. I have some questions for you. If you don't want another coal plant what do you suggest that we do? Ted Kennedy has fought aginst the use of windmills on Martha's Vineyard. Why? The use of ethanol is another farce because it takes a gallon of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol. The polar bears are not endangered because there are more now that were ten years ago according to the Canadian government. Believe it or not I am an environmentist and a conservationist but also I am a conservitive and most importantly a realist. As long as we are in a capitalist society with ownership of personal property, we have a deliema. I feel that if we do not want a particular system to produce energy we should propose an alturnitive instead of just saying that global warming is the cause and we are the fault. Nothing is gained unless we offer something else to produce the energy we require. Do you honestly think that the majority of the public will change their habits and lifestyles to reduce their energy use? That would be nice and helpful to the planet but if the USA curtains its use, there are 139 other countries who most of their repective popululations are just trying to find food for their next meal. Those folks do not give a flip about global warning just survival! What are we to do to China? China in the next few years will be the largest polluter on the planet. How are we to get China to reduce their usage of petrolum? That answer will solve all the planet's problems. But as China has done in the past they will carry on with their lives and if USA tells, suggests or whatever, we will be told to take care of our own country and stay out of theirs. I am only debetting your premise, not disrespecting your ideas. I do not agree with the global warming theory as yet. In my research I have found that there is just as many scientists that anti as pro on global warming. The latest I have read is that there is a consensis that global warming exists and is damaging the ozone layer. This action has occurred in the past when there was a large amount of volcanic activity on the earth. But the most amusing is that a few hundred years ago there was a consensis among the learned men of that time stated that the earth was flat and that all the planets revolved around the earth. That theory now has been disproved. Thanks for your time and Happy Birding to you! Frank Sessions 954 523-9355
Post a Comment