Sun editorial:

No on new coal plant

Utilities should look at denial of Utah permit as a sign and invest in renewable energy

Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008 | 2:05 a.m.

An Environmental Protection Agency appeals board last week said the agency could not issue a permit for a proposed coal-burning power plant in Utah because it had not considered the effects of global warming.

The Sierra Club, which brought the appeal, said the decision would likely delay plans for other coal-fired power plants as well. That includes proposals to build three plants in eastern Nevada, which are all awaiting federal approval.

As Phoebe Sweet reported in Saturday’s Las Vegas Sun, the board’s decision is part of a larger debate over the regulation of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The EPA has claimed it doesn’t have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The board, however, found it does. And recently the Supreme Court ordered the agency to determine whether the gas is a danger to the public. If the EPA finds carbon dioxide is, it will have to regulate it.

For the public that is good news because of the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming. The country should be doing all it reasonably can to reduce greenhouse gases, and that includes limiting and regulating the emissions of power plants.

It is also good that the decision on the Utah power plant, as well as the Nevada plants, will likely end up in the hands of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration. After eight years of the Bush administration’s minimizing of global warming, the Obama administration has the potential to take positive action toward reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

That may not be good news to the utilities, which will be forced to install better technology to control carbon dioxide, but they have an option — invest in alternative energy sources.

In the past, utilities have preferred to build plants that spew hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide. But now the board’s ruling should make it clear that it’s time to move away from fossil fuels.

Discussion: 30 comments so far…

By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

The brand new Solar One plant generates power that is sold to the grid at 2.45x the current price of energy.

In 10 to 20 years, there will be very large increase in the utility bills and most like brown/blacks during the summer days because of the lack of energy.

I am sure that Vegas Sun, Reid and the Democrats will say again, "Who me?"
By Future2012

11/18/08 at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Now that the Bush administration's EPA Appeals Board has stopped power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the question is what will the Obama administration do.

Coal and natural gas power plants produce the vast majority of the power generation carbon dioxide footprint in this country.

Stopping new Coal and natural gas power plants as Bush has done will cause the longer term effect of leaving in place the older dirtier and less efficient plants. These will disappear as the cap and trade program kicks in with the stated Obama intent to bankrupt the power companies.

Since Obama has said that he will not support nuclear power, this leaves only the wind, solar and battery industry to fill all of the U.S. needs. We know that these industries will not be capable for 20 years.

Would Obama establish new rules to allow carbon release from Coal and natural gas power plants - I think not.

So we need to learn quickly what Obama's plan is to deliver 100's of megawatt of power to consumers at a price they can afford.
By KDR81

11/18/08 at 8:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

If Homeland Security had the same broad sweeping powers the EPA had, Homeland Security could say "No Arabs on Airplanes - its for the health and welfare of air travelers."

How would you feel about that?

The EPA needs to be shut down. They violate property rights, they make things horribly expensive, and they are simply the militant wing of the environmentalist extremist movement in America.
By Geoffrey_Lawrence

11/18/08 at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

The Sun has it wrong when it says "That may not be good news to utilities." In fact, utilities love regulation because they are guaranteed a profit that is a percentage of generating costs. In most states, they are guaranteed profits of around 11 or 12 percent.

When regulations increase the cost of generating electricity, they also increase the profit margins for utilities.

Utilities rarely complain over expensive regulations. The "evil" people that the Sun is targeting are consumer groups - you know, mothers and fathers who struggle to pay rising power bills as well as businesses that will not be able to stay in business because of artificially high energy costs.

Opposition to higher costs for "renewable" energy sources has always come from consumers themselves. Most states have had voluntary programs that allow customers to pay more on their power bill in order to subsidize renewable energy. Nationally, these programs have averaged about a 1 percent participation rate. Clearly, this is a case of a wealthy minority imposing their preferences on the majority.

http://www.stopwaronpoor.org/
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

The current price of energy in Las Vegas is 10.3 cents per kilowatt hour. That's taken directly from my power bill for October.

According to the company that built Solar One:

"The power generated by the plant, minus any subsidies, may not get to parity with electricity generated from conventional plants until around 2020, added Nikolaus Benz, a development manager for Schott. Solar thermal electricity, according to statistics from Schott's publications, will cost around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour in the U.S."

15 cents is not 2.45x the current cost of energy. It is 1.45x the current cost of energy.

Looks like jfnance32 needs some remedial math classes!

Also, this does not take into account the increasing cost of coal. The cost of coal has increased 50% in the past year in China.
By mikegino

11/18/08 at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

What's wrong with coal? As a child, I got used to receiving a nice lump of anthracite every Christmas.
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

I got the 2.45x from another article that was talking about the Solar One plant.

But even your estimate shows that solar and wind will have a big impact on your power bill.

Higher utility bills will increase the cost of goods and services in the USA.

Be prepared to have your standard of living go lower in the next 10 to 20 years because of higher energy cost.
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Please list that source, otherwise stop repeating the fallacy that it is 2.45x the current cost of energy.

Do you not realize that the cost of energy from coal plants is rising due to cap and trade?

The cost of energy is rising regardless of source. The question is: do we invest in clean technologies now and ease the transition, or do we sit on our hands and wait for the cost of energy to become untenable?

Only a fool would advocate sitting on our hands.
By KDR81

11/18/08 at 11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Sit on our hands and let the market take care of it.

As prices rise people look for alternatives.

If the government steps in to aid current alternatives we risk the possibility of never discovering or creating better alternatives because it has become artificially profitable to produce things the old way.

See ethanol as a prime example.

Only people think about as clear and deep as a mud puddle will advocate subsidizing alternative energy (or any energy source).
By Geoffrey_Lawrence

11/18/08 at 11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

ksand:

The price that you see on your bill is a composite of (1) generation, (2) transmission and (3) regulatory costs.

On your bill, the generation component is the average cost of generation for all generating facilities in the state. Some of these will be relatively low-cost coal or nuclear sites while some are high-cost solar facilities. This component is likely to be about 60% of the price on your bill.

Transmission costs include the construction and maintenance of the grid in addition to the cost of grid management. Grid management becomes very complicated when there are generating facilities such as wind or solar that generate very sporadically. This increases the grid management cost.

There is also a small regulatory cost that funds the operation of the state's Utilities Commission and any other relevant regulatory agencies.

The 10.3 cents that you see on your bill is a composite of all of these. As far as generating costs go, jfnance is likely correct. This is in line with what I would expect for NV. I recently relocated here from NC where the cost of solar power (due to a lower capacity factor) was closer to 9 times the cost of coal power.
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Solar thermal plants aren't cheap. The construction tab for building Solar One will likely run about $250 million, said Cohen. The power generated by the plant, minus any subsidies, may not get to parity with electricity generated from conventional plants until around 2020, added Nikolaus Benz, a development manager for Schott. Solar thermal electricity, according to statistics from Schott's publications, will cost around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour in the U.S. Residents of Las Vegas now pay around 7 cents a kilowatt hour. "

http://news.cnet.com/Full-steam-ahead-fo...

Solar One is generating expensive energy even with tons of taxpayer dumping into it.

On top of that, even though the plant has expensive energy storage capacity, it still does not have the ability to generate 24/7 reliable energy.

What does that mean?

That means that we have duplicate 24/7 reliable energy plants from coal, natural gas and nuclear to kick in when solar or wind can not provide the needed energy.

Most countries do not forecast no more than 20% of energy can come from solar and wind because they can not provide 24/7 reliable energy.

We need coal or nuclear. Natural gas will become too expensive.

Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid will greatly impair our energy grid. It will become much more expensive and mostly will generate brown/black outs in about 10 to 20 years.

Of course, they will say then "Who us?"
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yes, thank you for quoting the same source I did.

I asked you to quote a source proving your "2.45x the current cost of energy." 17 cents is not 2.45x 10.3 cents. Duh!

"Most countries do not forecast no more than 20% of energy can come from solar and wind because they can not provide 24/7 reliable energy."

Do not forecast no more than? Are you familiar with the term "double negative?"

"Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid will greatly impair our energy grid."

Yes, because NEWSPAPERS SET PUBLIC POLICY.
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

I guess you must think that the cost of solar technology will never decrease and the cost of coal will never increase. Must be so nice to live in your little world. Tell me, are the walls padded?
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

7 cents times 2.428 equals 17 cents.

So, you should read the article. They say current price = 7 cents...Solar One generates up to 17 cents.

Also, I guess you are saying that newspapers have zero impact on political process that sets policy. Hmmmmmmmm.....I guess you should call the Sun and tell them to stop editorials because they are of no value.

Coal techonology is also improving and that should lower cost, too. The only reason why coal cost is rising....suprise.....government policy.

Lastly, solar and wind can not, at this point in time, generate power on a reliable 24/7 basis even with the expensive storage technology.

I think that is very hard to get around in your crazed "I could care less about what happens to our economy" world.

Be sure to wipe the kool-aid off your mouth.
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

"7 cents times 2.428 equals 17 cents."

I asked you to cite a source which backs up your "2.45x current cost of energy" talking point. I am still waiting.

"So, you should read the article. They say current price = 7 cents...Solar One generates up to 17 cents." My power bill says 10.3 cents, the article is out of date. Either way, you still can't prove your original talking point.

"Also, I guess you are saying that newspapers have zero impact on political process that sets policy. Hmmmmmmmm.....I guess you should call the Sun and tell them to stop editorials because they are of no value."

Hey, you made the assertion that a newspaper is going to, "greatly impair our energy grid." Please, explain how an editorial "greatly impair(s) our energy grid." It's a ridiculous statement that has no bearing in reality.

"Coal techonology is also improving and that should lower cost, too. The only reason why coal cost is rising....suprise.....government policy."

Is government policy going to change? No. Coal-based power will continue to escalate in price. The only hope for coal comes in the form of unproven and vastly more expensive carbon sequestration.

Thus, we're looking at increased costs regardless.

"Lastly, solar and wind can not, at this point in time, generate power on a reliable 24/7 basis even with the expensive storage technology."

That would matter if ANYONE was advocating a power grid made up ONLY of solar and wind. No one is arguing that. You need to look up "straw man argument."

"I think that is very hard to get around in your crazed "I could care less about what happens to our economy" world."

See, this is when you just become incomprehensible. I see reality, which is escalating energy prices, if we stay on our current path. Advances in technology and storage will make solar and wind more efficient and cheaper. Regulation will make coal more expensive. In the near future, the cost of clean energy will be less than that of dirty energy.

You'd obviously rather keep driving the car toward the ditch, oblivious or ignorant of what's ahead.
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

"My power bill says 10.3 cents, the article is out of date. Either way, you still can't prove your original talking point"

Sorry that you are paying so much for energy.

Do you think that part of the 10.3 cents is because you are now paying for that expensive energy from Solar One?

" Please, explain how an editorial "greatly impair(s) our energy grid." It's a ridiculous statement that has no bearing in reality."

If you quote me then do not do that lame half-ass quoting. I said: "Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid will greatly impair our energy grid". The Vegas Sun is giving political cover for Reid and Obama for that impairment effort. If you do not know how politics work then I can not help you little head to understand the roll that media plays in politics. You should take a class in that deals with newspapers and politics.

"Is government policy going to change? No. Coal-based power will continue to escalate in price."

Thanks for agreeing with me that government is driving up the cost and not the market.

"That would matter if ANYONE was advocating a power grid made up ONLY of solar and wind. No one is arguing that."

So if coal plants are being prohibited from being built and Obama is not pushing for new nuclear and Solar/Wind can only provide some the new power then where in your magical world were the extra new power come from?

"Advances in technology and storage will make solar and wind more efficient and cheaper"

This is a hope. You people are rolling the dice with our economy. If it comes up short then we all suffer greatly.

Why not wait until technology matures?

No...that would be too wise to do. Lets jump off the cliff and cross our fingers.
By Geoffrey_Lawrence

11/18/08 at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

While the cost of coal-generated electricity could theoretically eclipse the cost of wind or solar power thanks to increased regulatory costs, it is highly unlikely that wind or solar will ever be competitive with other clean energy sources such as nuclear or hydropower. Not only do these resources enjoy a significant cost advantage, they also are reliable and dispatchable resources.

Even if utility-scale storage technology is developed at some future date, this will impose yet an additional cost to wind and solar power. Wind and solar power hold little real value for meeting electricity needs. They have much more potential to fill political needs.

If there was truly an intention to move toward non-emitting energy sources, nuclear power would be the major baseload source and hydropower would serve for peak load. Of course, this will happen anyway as neither wind nor solar is suitable for either of these roles. But we will pay extra for duplicative energy generated by wind and solar power. As happens in Denmark, this electricity will mostly not reach the end user, it will simply be dumped off of the grid in order to prevent surges.
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Sorry that you are paying so much for energy. Do you think that part of the 10.3 cents is because you are now paying for that expensive energy from Solar One?"

You're not so good with math, are you? Did you bother to read the article you linked? Solar One, "can provide enough power for 15,000 homes." As of January 1, 2006 there were an estimated 737,000 homes in Las Vegas.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/...
Let me do some simple math for you... that means Solar One can provide energy to 2% of Vegas homes. That means I'm paying an extra 1/5 of one penny per kilowatt hour. Probably less, since several thousand homes have gone up since 2006. Is that worth it? Of course.

Yes, you said that, "Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid will greatly impair our energy grid." I didn't realize it was ONLY AS A TEAM EFFORT. Sorry, you weren't specific enough. LOL!

"Thanks for agreeing with me that government is driving up the cost and not the market."

So you're advocating for a system that will only INCREASE in cost as time progresses. You're advocating for more expensive energy. Don't you know that energy prices are killing Las Vegas jobs?!?!?!? Why do you want energy to be more expensive? The cost of solar and wind energy has decreased significantly. Geoffrey Lawrence said that older solar in NC cost 9x the price of coal, now we're a fifth of that.

The price of solar and renewables is decreasing, the price of coal is increasing.

"So if coal plants are being prohibited from being built and Obama is not pushing for new nuclear and Solar/Wind can only provide some the new power then where in your magical world were the extra new power come from?"

Please state a law that says coal plants cannot, under any circumstances, be built. I must have missed that law. Oh, that's right, that law doesn't exist.

'Why not wait until technology matures?"

Solar's been in use for over 30 years. Using economies of scale and new technologies it is cheaper and more efficient than ever before. What are you waiting for?

"Lets jump off the cliff and cross our fingers."

Yes, like with Solar One. That's crazy talk! We shouldn't have any solar or wind powerplants at all! That will save us!

This level of reasoning, if you could call it that, is just dumb. No one is "jumping off the cliff." No one is saying "Going forward, ONLY solar and wind!"

So are you finally going to admit that "2.45x" was just a completely made-up figure, jfnance32?
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Yes, you said that, "Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid will greatly impair our energy grid." I didn't realize it was ONLY AS A TEAM EFFORT. Sorry, you weren't specific enough. LOL!"

Wow......you FINALLY learn to read......Boy, it makes a difference!!!!!!!

LOL...you probably will blame Republicans for the problem, too!!!!!!

Coal can be cheap if the government changes it policy.

You say that solar is a mature technology yet is so expensive and still can not provide 24/7 reliable energy. Wow...30 years got us to this poor piss state of solar technology...even you say it is an expensive source of energy.....it is going to take another 30 year to gets us to the next level....LOL

"Please state a law that says coal plants cannot, under any circumstances, be built"....you should read the original story. It is obvious that coal plants will be very hard to build. Obama is not going to push coal or nuclear. Solar and wind is not capable of providing a significant (if any) of reliable 24/7 energy. We are going to come up short because of these stupid policies.

I am confident...if we are alive....that 10 to 20 years from now....you are going to be one of the loudest that will be bitching about high utility bills and high cost of good and services and why you do not have power because of a brown/black outs.
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

I didn't "learn to read" so much as you finally made your point clear. Your language makes no sense when parsed. If I were to make an empirical statement like "Billy, Bobby and Nancy go to the lake." It follows that I could say, "Nancy went to the lake." That's the commonly-accepted usage of commas, jfnance32.

You should have been more specific in saying "Obama, the Vegas Sun and Reid TOGETHER will greatly impair our energy grid." Unfortunately, you're still wrong.

"Coal can be cheap if the government changes it policy."

The policy is not going to change. You know what else would be nice? If bread was free. That doesn't mean it's reality. Coal is only going to increase in cost, and thus the energy prices will increase.

"You say that solar is a mature technology"

You are just lying out your teeth. I did not claim it was a mature technology. I said it had been used for 30 years and is more efficient and cheaper than ever before. You can only feebly put words into my mouth. How sad!

"It is obvious that coal plants will be very hard to build. "

Well duh, but that's not what you said, is it? You said, "coal plants are being prohibited from being built." Please, quote or reference a law. You can't.

Still no evidence to back up your "2.45x" lie, I see. Also, the price of coal is increasing while the cost of solar, which has already dropped dramatically in the past 10 years, is decreasing. When are you going to get on board? You're sure we're going to see higher utility bills. I'm advocating for the cheaper end-solution while you're stuck whining with no solutions.
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

"I didn't "learn to read" so much as you finally made your point clear. Your language makes no sense when parsed"

LOL.....You were the one that left out 2 other subjects in the sentence and then tried to say how just one of the subjects can do all those things...... You silly boy.

"The policy is not going to change." Wow....you are now God or a dicator. You have absolute power over policy. You do know that we will have some more elections in the future or you going to do away with those....God?

" I did not claim it was a mature technology. I said it had been used for 30 years ".....That is truly sad........a technology that has been around for 30 years and has not matured!!!!!!

Wow....solar must really suck.

My solution is to change policy so that it will not increase the price of coal. Also, we need policies that are more nuclear friendly.

Those technologies can now provide 24/7 reliable energy.....not some "hope" that one day solar might mature (LOL) into some reliable cheaper energy source.

Your policy will harm our standard of living. You are guaranteeing high energy prices.

It is doubtful that your polices will generate enough new energy power to support our economy in the future.

Your policy will surely lead to suffering.
By ksand99

11/18/08 at 4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

This is like arguing with a kindergartener.

I like spaghetti.

"But you didn't say you like pizza. You must hate pizza! Why do you hate pizza! So many people love pizza, you must not like them! Why do you hate so many people?"

You ARE a logical fallacy, jfnance32.

First, you erroneously assert that solar is "2.45x the current price of energy." When challenged to prove that, you prove yourself wrong.

Then, you foolishly assert that a newspaper writes public policy and will somehow magically inhibit energy progress. Here's a hint: the Sun, and most other newspapers of record, are in favor of renewables. Renewables are the future and continue to decrease in cost. You're grasping a dirty technology that is dead and will only continue to escalate in price.

Then, you say we should abandon all environmental regulations on coal plants... since that is the only way the price of coal-based energy will stop increasing.

Apparently, you think energy prices will be low forever under coal. In your fantasy land, coal-based power is the answer to all our problems. If only we had more coal!

We cannot progress under jfnance32's "way" of thinking. He's stuck in the past, unwilling or unable to consider alternatives. He's stuck grasping for dear life to what is comfortable, even at the massive environmental cost of coal-based power.

You're stuck in the past, jfnance32. Twenty years ago, you were the guy screaming about how expensive it would be if we had mobile phones.

Forty years ago, you said we would never be able to fit a computer on our desks.

Sixty years ago, you said we could never land on the moon.

You can continue to stand in the way of progress. The problem is... you're gonna get run over.
By jfnance32

11/18/08 at 5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

ksand99's, Obama's, the Vegas Sun, Reid and his democratic friends support polices are quaranteeing that energy prices will rise significantly over the next 10 to 20 years. ksand99 has admitted to this.

Also, they have no plan to deal with energy capacity that must deal with aging power plants and growth in the economy and population.

They really just push solar and wind even though neither can provide true 24/7 reliable energy.

They are not pushing for any signficiant new coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. They really do not believe in those technologies.

This will bring suffering to our country.
By Geoffrey_Lawrence

11/18/08 at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

This discussion reminds me of a funny quote from Nathan Lewis of Caltech's Powering the Planet project:

"We already have electricity coming out of everybody's wall socket. This is not a new function we're seeking. It's a substitution.

It's not like NASA sending a man to the moon. It's like finding a new way to send a man to the moon when Southwest Airlines is already flying there every hour handing out peanuts."
By PatriciaLV

11/19/08 at 6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Geoffrey_Lawrence:

What is your stake in this discussion? Are you connected to oil, coal or nuclear? I ask because you seem to be doing (or at least posting) much to dampen any enthusiasm for alternative means of energy.

You see, jfnance ALWAYS does that; it's what he does. Jim hates the left-wing slant of the LV Sun (ONE paper out of how many LOL) yet he INSISTS on posting here. He posts the same nonsense over and over and over and twists people's words to fit his own belief system. It's easier for him to then be the "victim". We've grown somewhat accustomed to it though it's still incredibly grating.

Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is about developing alternative sources of energy. Everything "new" is expensive at first. But as the technology advances the price comes down. And at the rate technology advances today .....

And aren't solar and wind and geothermal pretty much endless and safe sources unlike oil, coal & nuclear?
By johnevegas

11/19/08 at 7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

ksand99, be advised, nance is not about discussion, hearing what you have to say, or about anything even reasonably close to an exchange of ideas.

He is about pressing his personal agenda of condescension for all that is not ultra-right and having fun using phrases like "LOL" and "you hate..." to make it appear as though he is somehow superior to you.

He isn't going to acknowledge your points (no matter how considered they may be) and he isn't going to admit being wrong, about anything at all, ever.

I'm enjoying the exchange. Just wanted you to know that you may be wasting your time.
By jfnance32

11/19/08 at 7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

JohnVegas is a shining example of honest discussion on exchange of ideas......

Woooooo.......LOL...........Thanks Johneeeeee......I needed a big laugh............LOL.....
By johnevegas

11/19/08 at 8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Thanks for proving my point nance. I knew you would oblige me.
By ksand99

11/19/08 at 8:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

I have alot of free time, johnevegas, and the more jfnance32 posts, the more he exhibits how childish and factually incorrect he is.

He is still unable to admit that he's repeated a lie over and over and over and over.

Here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct...

Here: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct...

Here: http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/0...

Here: http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/2...

Here: http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/1...

When asked to provide proof of his "2.45x" claim, he linked to a story (a story that I had already linked to) which proves he is dishonest.

It's too bad he cannot just be an adult and admit he was wrong.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question