Skip to comments.Illinois (RAT) gov signs bill boosting coal-to-gas plant (in Chicago - Sierra Club ticked off)
Posted on 07/15/2011 6:59:41 AM PDT by Libloather
Ill. gov signs bill boosting coal-to-gas plant
AP Wed, Jul 13, 2011
CHICAGO (AP) Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation Wednesday that could lead to the construction of a new plant in Chicago that converts coal to natural gas.
Quinn signed the legislation at a former steel mill site on Chicago's southeast side where New York-based Leucadia National Corp. wants to build the $3 billion plant.
"This project protects Illinois consumers, while continuing our position as a leader in clean energy technology by utilizing home grown resources to create the jobs of today and tomorrow," Quinn said in a statement.
Quinn vetoed earlier versions of the bill to avoid huge price increases for consumers. The new legislation limits natural gas bill increases to 2 percent per year.
The Sierra Club wasn't happy with Quinn's decision to sign the law.
"Creating synthetic natural gas is a very dirty way of getting our natural gas," Becki Clayborn, a representative for the Sierra Club's Midwest Clean Energy Campaign. "It's dirty, it's dangerous and it's unnecessary."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
This really makes no sense at all, unless you figure that someone has a fleecing in mind on the Illinois people. There are thousands of undrilled development wells waiting for higher gas prices. That equates to hundreds of years of supply. Why would you need to make synthetic gas?
She'd absolutely freak out if it was a coal-to-liquids plant................
The gas that you get from coal-to-gas is very clean, so the Sierra club is clueless here (for a change). The process uses water, though, so maybe they should see if there are snail darters or something that they can use to stop the project. As for the project being “unnecessary,” well, I guess using electricity is unnecessary too. Mining gas is not allowed, drilling for oil, using nuclear energy, or cutting down trees to burn firewood... none of that is apparently necessary to the Sierra Club either. But we don’t have plants that convert unicorns to biodiesel yet, and the rainbow-powered plants aren’t built yet.
Because coal is really, really cheap too.
What happened to the usurper’s campaign promise was to shut down all the coal mines? Was that another lie or do we need to call his bluff on it?
Someone’s getting a kick back sure as night follows day. It’s the Chicago answer to git-r-done.
“But we dont have plants that convert unicorns to biodiesel yet, and the rainbow-powered plants arent built yet.”
Just freaking great. Get PETA involved.
It’s a tart, at least.
Now maybe they can build a coal-to-electricity plant.
Illinois has lots of coal - although it’s bituminous, not anthracite. I’ll bet it has lots more coal than gas. Now, you might say, “So what - you can still buy gas cheap.” Ah, but if it’s produced outside of Illinois there’s no Illinois jobs and no production to tax.
Someone please tell this poor ignorant poster-—Is it cleaner to turn coal into gas and then burn the gas to produce electricity or is it clener to just burn the coal in the first place.
I assume it is cheaper to just burn the coal than to make synthetic gas out of coal, but is it really cleaner?
Shhhh. Biodiesel plants run on PETA people too. All you need is crowds of them protesting the unicorn processing plant.
cause illinois is full of coal...dirty coal that nobody wants ? gotta do somthing with it.
And Illinois has alot of it. Too much sulphur to burn, but converting it to gas will be perfect, and the leftover sulphur has value to farmers.
The type of coal found in Illinois has a lot of sulfur in it. It’s far cleaner to take the sulfur out while processing it into gas that is then burned for fuel than it is to burn it for fuel first and then try to remove the sulfur from the products of combustion.
That sounds cool.