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.
I've seen what the power plant near Page, AZ does to the sky and it isn't pretty. I didn't know there is presently a fish consumption advisory at Navajo reservoir for mercury from this plant. Nor the vast amount of water used. Nor how the balance of ozone is even now seriously affected.
And they want to build another one?
You know why they are probably trying to build this. Because it is an expedient way of producing energy we are too lazy not to waste or find better ways of producing. So they've got to stick these things somewhere and that somewhere the middle of nowhere, as most people would perceive it. With a small population and relatively weak political influence. Despite all the spin it is patently clear where the heads of the Federal Government, the Navajo Nation and the Coal Industry are at.
Good at least that the State of New Mexico is standing up against this.
No doubt they (we) desire more energy. But if they are just as serious about the environment and the local inhabitant's health they might begin by decreasing the emissions from the power plant at Page until they are negligible. If they can't or won't do that then remove the power plant at Page and don't build another one.
Either that or pump all the effluent into their 'own' homes.
I agree, but until power becomes "expensive enough" we will need more coal fueled power plants. The reality is that America is dependent on electricity and we want it CHEAP! At least the "out of pocket" cost needs to be cheap. I don't like what we are doing to the environment, but we are out of rivers to dam for electricity and the die hard enviromentalists really would like the rivers wild that are damed. I hope that the newer tecnology of stack scrubbers continues to be improved and the air can be cleaner around the coal plants, because right now these are the cheapest to supply energy for our homes and busineses.
How much electricity would be required if the US population were half its present size, or a little over 150,000,000? Or if it even stopped growing and just stabilized?
Much of what the US uses in energy is to make things. These are things that get exported (food, chemicals, machinery, clothing, consumer products). If we suddenly had half as many people, the rest of the world would still demand these things, and in fact, we'd use more automation (more energy) to make these things since we'd need to do it with half the people (hopefully the better half).
Electricity is pretty much the cleanest, most efficient way to transmit vast amounts of energy over great distances. It started out being 100% clean (all hydro) and only over the past 100 years has it become mostly dirty. I would chase after the dirty sources rather than the medium by which they arrive to us.
I'd be on board with Desert Rock if and only if by opening they caused another dirty, water-guzzling grandfathered coal plant to shut down. Otherwise, let 'em build it in Houston (where they're from and where the air is already fubar).
Well... I know we treat a lot of cancer patients... if that's what you mean. I can't count the number of oncology clinics/centers we've designed here.
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 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.
The 'environment' is our home
