Posted By: AaronS (10:36pm 11-29-2009)

Report Abuse

You'll have to help me out here as I'm clearly not in your league. I don't suppose you have any links to any of the claims your making, do you moose?

Posted By: fmoose39 (9:22pm 11-29-2009)

Report Abuse

It does have environmental issues but nothing like coal. And disprove the reasoning if you can with facts not wishes. Utilities are a regulated industry that are guaranteed to receive a percetage of expenses as profit. Coal is expensive wind is cheap so again 15% of let us say 14,000 tons of coal at $60 per ton per day (amount of coal used by the a mid sized power plant in a day) is a lot more then 15% of the wind. And yes wind has been used widespread in the past wind was a major industry upto the 1930's after that the electric companies found they could get the government to give them money to expand power lines "free government money" the rest is history (Rural Electrification Act of 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act) This is what happened with electric, get it straight. Yes these companies have helped create a great country and the same can be said for Exxon but the facts are still the same. They care not about the USA or the people just profits.

Posted By: AaronS (7:28pm 11-29-2009)

Report Abuse

This is the reason why wind has never been used widely in the past.

That is a false statement. Wind hasn't been used widely in the past because it does not have the capability to provide the energy needed AND it has environmental issues of it's own.

Posted By: fmoose39 (8:23pm 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

One more item most utilities get their profits from the money they spend. For a coal fired unit they buy coal, pay to ship it, burn it, run the polution controls, and then landfill the waste. This cost money that they are guaranteed a 15% profit of. Wind has none of this just a little maintenance. So 15% of a large number is a lot more then 15% of a small number. This is the reason why wind has never been used widely in the past.

Posted By: fmoose39 (8:15pm 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Wind is cheaper but gets less tax benifits. AEP does have grid sized batteries to ride out periods of reduced or no wind. Coal is getting more costly. But the real reason for this plant going from coal to gas is simple. They did not have plans to install scrubbers, this is part of the pollution controls, no AOD "nox reduction" either. They had plans to build an outdated plant with no up to date technologies not a new plant with cutting edge technologies. Yes pollution! Next people the mine that was goingt sale the coal to this plant was non union as is most of the coal being burnt in the Ohio River Valley. And finally Duke had no plans to build a nuk "they had a press release a day latter that said they had no plans" and for anyone who thinks otherwise Piketon has no river where is the water comming from for a plant as AEP has already said no to the new plants and the only way they will build them is if the EPA outlaws the existing ones "shareholder report".

Posted By: rwc (2:43pm 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Earned_My_Degree ,I'd have to agree with your comment about wind and the sources,but you also forgot the smoke they're blowing right along with it.

Posted By: AaronS (9:08am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

No one will invest in a coal-fired power plant when the customer finds out that electricity from wind is cheaper.

No one except Barrack Obama and the United States Tax Payers via the Porkulus Liberal Reward Program you call Stimulus II.

Posted By: AaronS (9:05am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Wind costs half as much.

If you're going to tout wind jkotcon at least be truthful. First off, less then 5% of the viable wind lanes lie east of the Mississippi.

In WV, there are actually very few areas that have sustainable wind to turn the turbines at a constant rate and during off-peak periods, the turbines actually REQUIRE a secondary source to keep turbines powered up.

And even when win is viable, it has to be used now as there is no viable way to store the energy wind creates.

And on top of all of that, many ecologists believe that the damage to wind is more harmful to fowl and our forest then coal or other forms of energy and as such is not worth the cost and damage anywhere on the east coast.

Where wind works, I say use it. But the truth is it likely will NEVER be sufficient to replace the ~50% of energy provided by coal. Wind is simply not the end all be all you make it out to be and the dishonesty about wind is part of the problem.

Posted By: gmhoover (8:34am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Every time I read the post of the treehugger society, I wonder if these folks really have a clue. Thirty years ago, my father used to laugh at the vegetarians. He would simply say, these folks have no idea where food really comes from. It's the same with the treehuggers today. None of them have any idea where the energy they use comes from.

I got news for you guys. We are not going to roast our planet by using coal. I turn my lights on this morning, heated the water for hot chocolate, turned on the news, and am sitting here at this computer all because of a miner and an energy company. Once the hoax of global climate change is presented as what it truly is, Obama and his radicals are going to take a hike. Enjoy your moments of sunshine,,,,,,coal is not only a fact of life in the U.S.

Posted By: Earned_My_Degree (8:20am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Some people around here have to wake up and smell the coffee. There is not a problem in the world with a coal-fired power plant. If electricity from wind were feasible, we'd be in great shape as there is no shortage of wind in America these days. Sorry about that, I got my wind sources mixed up. The truth of the matter is electricity from wind is not at all feasible because sometimes the wind refuses to blow. So, unless you'd be happy with the power grid in Iraq, we're stuck with coal as far as the eye can see.

Posted By: bamsterman (8:15am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

The writing is on the wall. The demand for coal continues to decline. Natural gas is going to replace most of the remaining demand within the next five years. Yes, our fathers were coal miners, our grandfathers were coal miners and yes, we are all proud of them. I know I am, as I am proud of underground coal miners to this day. But, the reality is what it is. Folks, coal is killing people in the coalfields when it is mined and it is killing people everywhere when it is burned. It is going to be a thing of the past a whole lot sooner than most realize. The problem here is that the coal industry, including our coal governor refuses to invest in other forms of energy and industry because they are still loading their pockets with coal money. I guarantee you that they are going to continue to lie to you about coal until the end, and then they will disappear in the middle of the night. Let's stop being suckers and demand change in leadership that can read the writing on the wall.

Posted By: jkotcon (7:27am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Pay attention folks. The reason the plant was canceled was because a coal-fired plant is too expensive. And that is before any carbon tax or cap and trade. The capital cost works out to $4000 per kilowatt, and that is before they buy the first pound of coal. Nuclear power costs twice as much to build. Wind costs half as much. No one will invest in a coal-fired power plant when the customer finds out that electricity from wind is cheaper. Otherwise conservative people apparently want coal and nuclear so much that they will support corporate welfare to keep it. Do the math folks. AMP finally did.

Posted By: slaton (5:39am 11-28-2009)

Report Abuse

Nuclear is a GREAT idea. Coal "roasts" our planet and causes our children to be sick. Nuclear energy "melts down" entire cities and would probably make the OH River glow. Our children probably wouldn't get sick anymore, but when they're born with innumberable birth defects we won't really need to worry so much about them being sick.

Posted By: bongo (11:59pm 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

Good. There should never be another conventional coal fired plant built. If you want to use coal build an IGCC. Otherwise build nuclear.

Posted By: smarbap (6:50pm 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

"Not only was the coal plant going to raise people's electric rates, but it would have added to all the pollution that is making our children sick and roasting our planet,'' said Nachy Kanfer, a representative of the Sierra Club in Ohio.

Malnutrition resulting from a lack of economic growth poses a far greater threat to the well-being of children than the emissions of a coal-fired power plant ever could.

The only thing that is roasted is Ms. Kanfer's brain--or lack thereof.

Posted By: AaronS (9:30am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

AEP still has proposed their 629 MW IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plant also planned for Meigs County, OH. Once permits are issued, the Great Bend Power Plant, along with a new IGCC Mountaineer Power Plant in New Haven would replace as many as 6 current power plants AND reduce carbon emissions.

I do wonder though if the fact that Duke Energy is planning 2 nuclear power plants in OH have anything to do with this decision.

Posted By: CAPTAINJOE (9:06am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

They want to go with gas because its less headaches. Wether it's cheaper or more expensive matters not. After all, They, have a captive audience, Us.
If gas costs more, they simply charge more.
We seem to be caught in a downward spiral. The thought is "Hey, Lets go with employing less so we can maximize profits for corporate headquaters" plan.
Then the upper tier is going to complain when we raise the taxes on them, but we'll have to as there is no wone left to tax. Hummmmm, sounds like they are shooting themselves in the foot.
The Natural gas supply is also easier to disrupt than coal.
I'd rather not stick all of our eggs in one basket.

Posted By: Grouse (8:38am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

Yeah, and OB is responsible for bad weather too. Get real, they want to go with gas to avoid shortages of coal that happens because of strikes, poor line of distribution and everything else involved in the mining of coal. With gas, run a pipeline and forget it.

Posted By: CAPTAINJOE (8:29am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

That plus the most important impact of all of this, Our Sons and Daughters! Do these Environmentalists have their sons and daughters prepared to go to war for their precious OIL. Perhaps, they should be required to sign them up.
We should be distancing ourselves from the middle east not becoming more dependant on it.

Posted By: gmhoover (8:23am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

Let's just wait an see if they actually build the natural gas operated power plant. If they don't then every union construction member, every union coal miner, as well as the rest of those who voted for Obama have no one to blame but themselves. They and their leadership supported, promoted, and voted for this administration. Wonder how they are going to feel as stand in the unemployment line? How about those young people who need a job operating, maintaining or servicing this plant? Creating or saving jobs?????????? This administration is doing everything they can to destroy our jobs, our economy, and our way of life. It won't be long before we have to buy a permit to pass gas!

Posted By: CAPTAINJOE (8:09am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

It costs about $1500 to convert your electric furnace to gas. Go ahead and do that and let the rest of us know how much you are paying a month for heat. Now, If they produce electricity from natural gas as well, it will increase demand and lower supply and make residential natural gas heating as well as electricity more expensive, and will not employ as many people.
Why can't we just clean up the emissions from these coal fired plants?

Posted By: slaton (7:35am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

I think we need to fight all development and anything that might bring high paying jobs to our communities. Let's make our entire economy service-oriented. Wait, how do we pay for services? I guess the government can figure that out. It scares me that we're "roasting" our planet. Maybe we could all just walk wherever we go or sit in the dark. Yeah, that would save our planet. Whom exactly are we saving it for? Thousands of years from now global warming won't matter even if it's really happening as Al Gore claims. Good greif people!!!!

Posted By: jkotcon (6:59am 11-27-2009)

Report Abuse

Everyone knew six years ago that limits on carbon emissions were inevitable. Why did AMP waste six years on this project? because they assumed that the ratepayers would always pick up the tab for their poor planning. Until the stockholders and Directors assume some of the financial risk, short-term profits will overrule common sense. At least the ratepayers have avoided having to pay the cost for this one.

Posted By: rwc (11:39pm 11-26-2009)

Report Abuse

wvern,you don't know what your talking about.

Posted By: Grouse (11:03pm 11-26-2009)

Report Abuse

Gas makes more sense that coal in more ways than one.

Posted By: wvern (9:15pm 11-26-2009)

Report Abuse

One step closer toward the end of mountain top removal mining...