Print
E-mail
Share
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Coal is the key to keeping electric prices "reasonable and predictable," according to an Op-Ed piece by utility exec Michael Yackira in Sunday's Review-Journal.
Yackira, president and CEO of Sierra Pacific Resources, said conservation and renewable energy are part of the company's three-prong strategy to meet Nevada's power needs. The third leg of the tripod, coal, will help "stabilize electricity costs... (and) balance our supply portfolio and mitigate... risk."
But Wall Street is signaling that coal is becoming an increasingly risky investment. According to a Wall Street Journal story today, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley say they're sure the U.S. government will cap greenhouse-gas emissions from coal plants soon. From now on, the Journal reports, the banks will require utilities seeking financing to prove their plants will be economically viable, even if Congress enacts strict limits.
The banks told the Journal they would encourage renewable energy development first, rather than coal. This, on the heels of a decision by the federal Energy Department to pull funding for experimental clean-coal plant FutureGen last week due to cost concerns, is being heralded as the latest obstacle for coal plant developers.
I love when a "journalist" like Phoebe Sweet puts together conjecture and speculation from fractions of a story [Wall Street Journal] instead of reading the Op-Ed piece by Yackira.
As someone who's worked with environmental and energy projects since 1987, I though Yackira was SPOT ON with his assessment of the Nevada energy needs, present and future. You cannot hedge everything on renewables at this very moment and expect to provide consumers with the huge growth in energy demand.
My peers and I were laughing just today at how natural gas energy has spiked in the last several years, yet because of people like Harry Reid stalling the coal-fired power plants, we have to continue to build natural gas-fired power plants to meet demand in and around Las Vegas. Who pays for the price of expensive fuel... WE DO!
Coal will always be a part of U.S. energy. Cheap, reliable, and it continues to become cleaner for the environment.
As a side-note, I sat and listened to Al Gore back in 1995, twice give speeches and praise the glories of incineration at one of the dirtiest facilities in New England [Molten Metals] and now he's given a Nobel Prize for his hypocrisy. WOW.
Please Phoebe, I'd love to hear from you or anyone else what their solution is??? I guess as you drive to work in your polluting SUV, you'll come up with something... I'm waiting.
Right on GOD. This is the 2nd time in as many days someone only reports a portion of the WSJ article, the "black mark for coal", as it were.
REad the WSJ article and compare it with Mr. Yackira's article and everything that's been reported on their new coal plant to date.
For instance, these excerpts from WSJ:
"The standards could hurt coal-dependent utilities that haven't begun factoring a future price of CO2 emissions into their planning. But they could help utilities that have." Yackira's new coal plant plans include this planning.
"The banks are likely to continue to finance certain coal-fired power plants: those designed to capture greenhouse-gas emissions and shoot them underground if that technology became practical." Yackira includes this planning as well.
"The banks say they will encourage energy-efficiency and renewable-energy pushes before backing new coal plants." Yackira claims they are doing exactly this under his 3-part strategy.
"It's still conceivable that conventional coal plants might make the most sense in a specific location in a specific community, J.P. Morgan's Mr. Fornell says."
Every plant should be considered individually on one level, collectively on another level to make decisions. Placing a nationwide moratorium just because it's emotionally satisfying is not a good idea.
Their new coal plant will be the cleanest ever built in the nation! And they will retire older units. But lo, that's still not good enough, is it?
It's sad to see what passes as "journalism" these days. I'm thrilled that there are people willing to take the time to help dispel the myths that people like Ms Sweet are so fond of spreading.
The cute trick of including a "link" to the WSJ article (to create some sense of credibility to her comments) most likely works on many readers. However, if she truly wanted to provide the reader with the opportunity to read more for themselves, the link would actually lead you to the WSJ. Sorry, it doesn’t! If you are interested, copy and paste this in your browser.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12020907...