Coal Power Plant Expansion Threatens Views, Not HealthServes Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena

Intermountain Power Plant Expansion Threatens Tourist "Views," Not Health - Serves Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena

Preface: A proposal to extend the energy contracts for Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena from 2025 to 2050 to accommodate expansion of the Intermountain Power Plant in Delta, Utah for a third coal-fired module has met with stiff resistance by the National Resources Defence Coucil (NRDC), the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations who have cited this as a "moral cause." The power plant's 710 foot stack, which is a technological marvel, removes 99.75 percent of all the particulates that would have gone into the atmosphere in an earlier day. See below:

The National Park Service recently warned that a coal plant proposed for Delta could wash out dramatic views from Utah's national parks, including some star-gazing opportunities considered so exceptional they are featured in marketing campaigns designed to lure tourist dollars to Utah. While just saying no to such a proposal would seem to be an economic no-brainer, the state's Division of Air Quality has tentatively approved the proposal, pending the final public input it receives by July 1. The warning was detailed in comments the National Park Service recently submitted regarding Intermountain Power Agency's plan to build a new 950 megawatt power plant at the existing Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah. In the letter, the National Park Service warned that emissions threaten visibility at Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Canyonlands and Arches national parks. The letter notes "expansive panoramas full of color and texture are the hallmark of these parks and vital to visitor enjoyment. Parks in this region have outstanding nighttime visibility. These parks experience some of the best visibility anywhere in the country, and light-scattering by fine particles can affect visibility during the day and night." In addition, the comments noted that these parks "are among the darkest in the conterminous United States," and that the parks "utilize this night sky as a tourist draw." IPP has two existing coal-fired boilers that can generate 950 megawatts each (one megawatt is enough electricity for approximately 1,000 homes). And, in a bitterly ironic twist, the letter from the National Park Service notes that Utah is proposing emission limits so loose they would allow the new proposed boiler to pollute more than either of the two existing boilers! Utah's economy is heavily dependent on tourism dollars generated by the national parks. For example, 27 percent of Wayne County's employment is dependent on visits to Capitol Reef and other parks. Nearly 1.5 million people visit Bryce Canyon National Park annually. Garfield County, in which most of Bryce is located, has the highest unemployment rate in the state of Utah and is heavily dependent on tourism for employment. The Division of Air Quality should not issue any air emission permits for new coal-fired power plants in Utah until a comprehensive impacts analysis is performed that measures the potential air quality impacts to our treasured national parks. The new coal-fired power plant is a clone of the 1970s technology being used in the existing facilities. If the coal plant is built, Utahns will be breathing the emissions of the new, 1970-style unit for 50-plus years.

Pundit Note: The expansion of the Intermountain Power Plant will apparently meet all emission standards: "The IPP will meet all primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The IPP will also meet Class I increments in the National Parks in southern Utah and Class II PSD increments in the vicinity of the plant." See here http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Permits/DOCS/RN0327010-04.pdf

John Adams served as NRDC's executive director and later president from the organization's inception in 1970 until stepping down in 2006. His tenure is unparalleled by the leader of any other environmental organization.

John is a graduate of Michigan State University and the Duke University School of Law. Prior to his work at NRDC, John served as assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He is chair of the board of the Open Space Institute and sits on the boards of numerous other environmental organizations. He has also served on governmental advisory committees, including President Clinton's Council for Sustainable Development.

Adams grew up in New York's Catskills and still owns a farm there, often wheeling guests around on an ancient Cub Cadet tractor. But he is not afraid to draw the ire of his allies: NRDC has taken flak from fellow environmentalists for siding with the Bush administration and fossil-fuel producers on the benefits of "clean coal," a new technology that filters out climate-warming pollutants so they can be "sequestered" underground. "We're not going to solve the climate problem unless we get industry to join us in the fight," Adams insists. Coal currently accounts for more than half of U.S. electricity production, and Adams believes that a complete shift to renewable energy will simply take too long to protect the climate. "The bottom line," he says, "is that America has to start significantly reducing greenhouse gases even before we phase out fossil fuels."

Frances Beinecke became NRDC's second president after assuming the helm in 2006. Frances served as executive director from 1998 through 2005 and has been with NRDC for more than 30 years.

Frances's leadership is informed by a strong background in ecosystem studies. She received her bachelor's degree from Yale College and a master's degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Frances co-chairs the Leadership Council of the School of Forestry, serves on the advisory board of Yale's Institute of Biospheric Studies and is a member of the steering committee of the Energy Future Coalition. She also serves on the boards of the World Resources Institute and New York League of Conservation Voters.

You didn't mention nuclear. There have been calls by some in the environmental movement to rethink opposition to nuclear power, in light of the greater threat posed by greenhouse gases. Do you agree?

We've looked at nuclear, but we continue to think it has serious problems. One is economic. If nuclear power could compete in the marketplace without major subsidies from Congress, it would be an interesting thing to look at. But that's not what the industry is proposing. And the waste problem is not solved. We haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Until they do that and can compete economically, we don't think it's a major part of the equation.

But you're not suggesting that we hold, say, solar power to the same standard of competing economically without subsidies, are you?

Solar power is a new source. We think subsidies or assistance from the federal government should go to the new technologies that need to come to the market. Nuclear has been around for a long time. When you and I were in college, it was going to be the key to the future, but it hasn't turned out that way.

Other than energy, carbon and global warming, what are your top priorities at this point? Well, another one is clearly our oceans, which basically are completely in crisis. The fish stocks are considerably depleted: 90 percent of the large fish of the oceans are gone. And, you know, the oceans are being harvested at an alarming rate and the technology that's being used is exceedingly destructive. For example, bottom-trawling essentially clear-cuts the ocean floor. It ruins the substrate, so you can't assume new fish stocks are going to develop there.

What's the solution?

It requires major changes in ocean policy at the federal level, setting aside parts of the ocean as protected areas where fish stocks can resume. You've got to remember that the majority of the world's people get major protein from fish, and so the depletion of fish is an ecological problem but also a serious human problem. We need to feed 6-plus billion people around the earth, so it's really important to take this issue very seriously.

What's the solution?

It requires major changes in ocean policy at the federal level,

HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW!!!

Get real, American fisheries are among the most regulated in the world. Most of the overfishing is done by other countries. Has Tyson Foods got a hand up your back or something?

The real solution to the ocean is to colonize it as private property with boundaries set by GPS coordinates and then set up contracts with coastal property owners for management of intertidal zones and watersheds. A claque of bureaucrats dependant upon failure for funding is the last thing the fish need.

If you had any idea what a mess the Feds were making of "salmon protection," you wouldn't drop an idiotic post like that. See tagline.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.