Problems with Coal-Based Electricity Generation

The Big Stone II Coal Fired Power Plant Project met it's demise this week in NE South Dakota. On the one hand I 'm not sorry to see it shot down. On the other in the process of building another Power plant they were supposed to clean up the plant already on line.
Ottertail Power Company announced that they would abandoned the project this week.

The following is a blurp on coal from another site.

Courtesy of http://www.grinningplanet.com,
Thanks,
Guys

Beyond the environmental problems with coal mining, burning coal to generate electricity is notoriously dirty. While great improvements have been made over the years in air-pollution-control technologies for coal plants, many old, fume-belching plants remain online. Despite industry proclamations of the wonders of "clean coal" technology—coal-gasification combined cycle (CGCC) power plants are indeed a quantum leap from plants with even state-of-the-art emissions scrubbers—almost none of the coal plants currently under construction or on the drawing boards around the world are this super-clean type.


Even if you give the coal industry and its political allies the benefit of the doubt and assume a wholesale move to clean coal-burning technology, that would still leave the intractable issue of the pollution and environmental damage caused by coal mining. There are no easy solutions for that problem, and increasing the demand for coal will also increase the environmental problems associated with coal mining.

Is There A Pattern Forming Here?

"Green Building" is a broad term used to describe the design and construction of sustainable and environmentally conscious buildings.

The driving force behind this is to lower our negative impact on the environment and, at the same time, make the buildings we live and work in safer and healthier for us.

According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) statistics,`buildings are responsible for all of the following:

* 39% of US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

* 70% of US electricity consumption

* 15 trillion gallons of water consumption



Even though there is still some controversy over the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment, the last two statistics are very important for those of us living in urban areas experiencing continuous growth, especially the American Southwest. With our population expansion, aging water and electrical infrastructure, and shrinking landfills, designing and constructing green and sustainable buildings makes practical sense from a utilitarian perspective.

In fact, USGBC data shows that green buildings use 36% less energy, require fewer raw materials, and divert less waste to our landfills. Furthermore, the "increased" cost of green building is only one or two percent more expensive than a conventional building. This minute difference exemplifies the tangible and long-term benefits of sustainable design, primarily due to the fact that green buildings conserve water and electricity. Thus, while they are more expensive to build, green structures will save money by conserving more energy over time.

Another push towards the green build movement is by local governments. More and more municipalities
are adopting the USGBC LEED® (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) guidelines for new
and renovated buildings. In 2006, at the USGBC Greenbuild expo, the Mayor of Denver challenged other major cities to see who can have the most LEED® certified green buildings. They are accomplishing this by offering tax breaks to private corporations and mandating sustainable construction for city-financed projects.

This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of sustainable projects built by LEED® Certified general contractors. However, this growth has not come without challenges. Currently, the following issues are restricting the number of green projects being built:

* Increased demand for green products has lead to long lead times

* New and unspecified materials are labeled “green” products which are not necessarily certified

* Building officials are struggling with a steep learning curve on how to evaluate these new products and sustainable building techniques



Despite these difficulties, the USGBC, sustainability advocates, and green building construction management firms are meeting to overcome these challenges.

The LEED® process is constantly under review and continues to adopt the latest codes and products. This includes Standard 189, a new minimum standard for green building. The USGBC is currently developing LEED® 3.0 and working with national code writers to include new products and techniques.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has even rolled out a new initiative called "Sustainability 2030," which at its roots, is looking to design all buildings by the year 2030 as carbon neutral. The USGBC has even initiated the Green Advantage Builders Certification for contractors to certify their knowledge in green building
techniques.

So what does green building mean at the end of the day? It's simple yet profound: Do the right thing for you, the environment, and the next generation. While most companies are concerned with their bottom line, they ought to embrace the idea that energy and water conservation, green building, and the use of "green materials" in construction stands to increase their savings over time while positioning them as a leader in environmental stewardship.

According to the USGBC, we spend 90% of our time indoors. Due to this fact, scientists have identified an increase in allergies, asthma, absenteeism from school, and even work. There have been numerous studies done on post occupancy productivity levels, which have increased within "green" built facilities. Not only does
green adaptation result in less sick days taken, but also shows an increase in productivity, job
satisfaction, and in the case of schools, better grades.

Are You Driving a Pig!

Many of the vehicles driven today fall into one of four categories; van, car, pickup or an SUV. Very few of the American models get the mileage they should. Everyone is up in arms about mileage these days and here we are with an American automobile industry that is tooled up to manufacture vehicles that average 20 miles to the gallon(I'd say that estimate is being generous).

I couldn't figure out for sure what people were thinking when they would buy an over sized 4 wheel drive to get groceries and go to work. I live 20 miles from town in South Dakota and I never owned one myself. I couldn't justify one then and I darn sure can't justify it now.

I used to have a 1986 Pontiac with a 4 cylinder motor in it. This little car was every misers dream. The dang thing got 36 miles to the gallon on the interstate driving 70 mph. What happened to those cars anyway? Sheesh, if you were mad at it and drove it 75 or 80 it still got 28 mpg.

How fast do we have to get places anyway? My little Pontiac probably wouldn't do 60 mph between stop lights like cars made now but you could sure pass a lot of gas stations. Last year I had to go European to get a car that would get in excess of 30 mpg and still haul my family without stacking them in. German actually . . .first time I ever bought a vehicle that wasn't made in the USA; it bothered me too. . .not too bad though. I mean really; what options did Detroit leave a person that was concerned about fossil fuel consumption? None that I could see.

I read an article today published in the Topeka Kansas newspaper. It was written by a lady that claimed she was upside down on her SUV. She claimed not to be able to trade it even on a brand new economy car; the dealers won't take them. Now this is an intelligent person; educated and teaching at a mid-west college. What are people like this thinking of when they buy one of these 4 wheel drives? I don't think they are thinking. How can reasonably intelligent people quit thinking when they go buy a new vehicle? What really gets me is like most everyone; she justified her purchase by giving us the classic answer everyone gives when you ask them about there SUV.

"I'll be glad I have it when the snow comes and the roads get slippery."

Every time I hear this statement I want to scream! If I count the number of days of work I've missed in ten years because of the weather I can come up with about four . . . well maybe five days . . . in ten years. Now how can you justify the extra expense of fuel, maintenance and payments on an SUV for a measly four or five days in ten years. It is impossible.

I will get off my vehicle soap box now. I think everyone has the picture. I will not mention it again. It is a very sore subject now with many people. BTW, I sure like my Mercedes Benz I bought last year.