U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-23-2008, 10:26 AM
 
949 posts, read 2,708,359 times
Reputation: 266

Advertisements

New ozone standards are coming out and it looks like San Juan County (includes Farmington) might not meet them.
Counties face hard choices with new ozone rule - SantaFeNewMexican.com

Earlier it looked like Dona Anna County (includes Las Cruces) might not meet them, Curry responds to EPA's new ozone standard - Las Cruces Sun-News (http://origin.lcsun-news.com/ci_8560547 - broken link) but that seems to be no longer mentioned.

Ozone can come from a variety of sources, including those out of state, but many people suspect that it is coal burning that pushes SJC / Farmington over the edge.

This is bad news -- people come to a place like San Juan County for exercise in the great outdoors. But if ozone gets too high, then outdoor exercise can be detrimental to your health.

The really bad news is that the new standards may not stop coal burning projects that are in the works.

We may need coal to generate electricity. But why do they pick on San Juan County? I assume it is because they have the coal right there.

The good news or bad news -- depending upon your point of view -- is that the new standards will limit growth.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,192 posts, read 17,084,019 times
Reputation: 4709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin Bent View Post
New ozone standards are coming out and it looks like San Juan County (includes Farmington) might not meet them.
Counties face hard choices with new ozone rule - SantaFeNewMexican.com

Earlier it looked like Dona Anna County (includes Las Cruces) might not meet them, Curry responds to EPA's new ozone standard - Las Cruces Sun-News (http://origin.lcsun-news.com/ci_8560547 - broken link) but that seems to be no longer mentioned.

Ozone can come from a variety of sources, including those out of state, but many people suspect that it is coal burning that pushes SJC / Farmington over the edge.

This is bad news -- people come to a place like San Juan County for exercise in the great outdoors. But if ozone gets too high, then outdoor exercise can be detrimental to your health.

The really bad news is that the new standards may not stop coal burning projects that are in the works.

We may need coal to generate electricity. But why do they pick on San Juan County? I assume it is because they have the coal right there.

The good news or bad news -- depending upon your point of view -- is that the new standards will limit growth.
Yes, I saw that in the paper this morning....and to my way of thinking, it's not a good thing for San Juan/Farmington at all.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
40,476 posts, read 44,340,383 times
Reputation: 23527
Burning coal for electrical generation creates environmental problems when and where ever it is done. IMHO the best use for coal is to hold up the ground it is under.

From an environmental point of view I would prefer an electrical utility system powered by nuclear fission with a full fuel recovery and recycle arrangment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2008, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,388 posts, read 6,524,201 times
Reputation: 2392
I tend to disagree with the fission approach. Fuel recovery and recycling sounds better in principle than store-and-or-bury-it-where-we-can-get-away-with-it, but those technologies aren't used much in practice, and there's no guarantee they'll be any less expensive than the current flawed approach.

Further, building a huge smattering of nuke plants to replace our existing coal capacity would be very expensive, and I dare say probably even more expensive than a matching baseload-adjusted capacity of solar thermal and wind plants, and that's assuming fuel recovery a) buys us time against running out of economically recoverable uranium reserves and b) costs the same as the non-fuel-recovery approach.

I'm glad to see Sithe is having so much difficulty getting that stupid Desert Rock plant off the ground. We have enough air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as it is from San Juan County.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2008, 06:18 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
40,476 posts, read 44,340,383 times
Reputation: 23527
I am not as concerned with first cost or even the end cost of spent fuel storage of nuclear power plants as the long term cost to the entire world of the CO2 and other pollution associated with coal combustion. We now have the technology to stop the contamination and we should do so and encourage China and India to do the same. I would actually like to see the coal fired steam generators at existing power plants replaced with nuclear steam generators so the existing turbines, generators and switchgear could be used and not have to be replaced.

France has been running on a nuclear fuel and recycle program for about three decades and has actually used, as have we, the uranium cores of nuclear weapons for power generation. In addition, the coal fired power plants have concentrated enough uranium in the fly ash pits at recoverable levels to power the country essentially forever.

IMHO the coal producers have funded a remarkably effective propaganda campaign to protect their interests by lying about the effects of coal and the safety of nuclear power. Just because the industry says something does not make it true. The same applies to government.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2008, 06:37 AM
 
Location: San Juan County, New Mexico
261 posts, read 769,212 times
Reputation: 299
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, along with Stewart Brand and other early proponents of the green movement have changed their positions over the years and come to the realization that nuclear has a critical role in supplying our energy needs.

Sadly, we will probably never see another plant built in the US. We can thank the luddites along with the petroleum industry AND the solar industry for continuing to throw up roadblocks. Solar and wind have sold their souls when it comes to a honest discussion of nuclear. Not suprising.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2008, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
40,476 posts, read 44,340,383 times
Reputation: 23527
I have noticed that selling your soul to Mammon is a common affliction amongst environmental and business associations. This is regrettable in the former and expected in the latter.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top