Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Eric in the Ozarks

New Source Review has been around for at least 20 years.

By the way, if coal is less cost efficient and dirtier than natural gas, I’m not sure why anyone other than coal miners and their bosses should be upset that plants are switching away from it.


8 posted on 05/30/2012 5:58:28 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: babble-on

Actually, the New “new source review” is being construed to include routine maintenance.

Sierra argues ANY repair reopens the plant’s operating permit, forcing a 20 year old plant to meet best available technology.


10 posted on 05/30/2012 6:11:03 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: babble-on

if coal is less cost efficient and dirtier than natural gas,

A monster if not a monstrous IF, without a shred of proof seen here. Unmentioned also would be the cost benefit comparison between any energy source and coal.

Coal is not the dirty source of energy and heat it used to be back in the day. Thanks in part to earlier interventions, we are enjoying air water and environment so clean that to make it cleaner is stretching the cost benefit scale all out of proportion.


12 posted on 05/30/2012 6:30:05 AM PDT by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson