Comments on: There is no fiscal responsibility without a new coal plant

By: John Crider

John Crider — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:55:48 +0000

Ideally I am a coal man, and if it were an option I’d agree that we should expand the use of coal.
Unfortunately, expanded coal is currently *not* an option. The Governor and the Florida PUC will not allow any new coal plants to be built. Perhaps that will change when Crist is replaced, but with the national carbon controls looming (don’t forget that the EPA has deemed CO2 an environmental hazard that can be regulated), Waxman-Markey and other bills, the outcome is that generation using coal will be penalized with carbon taxes, making it more and more expensive.
In the light of this regulatory environment, and the coming need for increased capacity, the options are extremely limited. Natural gas combined cycle plants are one possible bridge, but they too will be subject to carbon taxes. As noted by Don, solar and conservation is just not going to get us there. When you eliminate all of these options, the only viable choice that is left is biomass. It may not be perfect, but in the long run it *will* prove the cheapest way of generating power in the coming 20 years.

By: Jorge Romero-Habeych

Jorge Romero-Habeych — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:21:23 +0000

How is burning trees for energy less environmentally punishing, when considering all factors of the operation.
Just as technology has allowed for more advanced solar power gathering methods, it has allowed for better, cleaner, and more efficient ways to use coal as a source of energy. The same story applies to natural gas, nuclear power, etc.
Coal is a finite resource and in time, if the free-market is allowed to function, will be phased out accordingly as other energy sources become less costly.
Competition is good, it leads to lower prices, better products, and in this case, a cleaner and healthier environment.
Gov’t does have a role to play in our community, but that role does not include the picking of winners and losers in industry. It does not include giving one player in the energy industry a leg up over its competition through subsidization. When gov’t plays such a role the consumer looses and that particular industry player or business wins.
Why are we so afraid to allow the free-market to determine outcomes?
(Note: we do not have a free-market in this city, county, state, or country, we haven’t had one for a long time. Just ’cause we call it a free-market does not make it one).
This brings to mind an article i read on a lobbyist for HFCS and a free-market advocate. In short, the lobbyist claimed that HFCS was better than Sugar and that there were no conclusive studies to suggest that it had any negative influences on health, at least any more or less than sugar. The free-marketer responded with fair enough, then why does HFCS need to be subsidized? Why not allow individuals to decide which one is better by allowing it to compete fairly, in the market, with sugar.

Gov’t at every level plays the role of determining winners and losers, we would go a long way in changing that.

By: Chas. Peck

Chas. Peck — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:53:16 +0000

No argument. Coal pollutes. But I don’t believe it will pollute more than the
hundreds of truckloads of wood products being delivered every day to feed a biomass plant. These trucks will be coming from further and further away each year as we deplete our oxygen giving forests and destroy our highways in the process. How many will die on our highways as drivers speed to get paid for one more load each day? That simply can’t be less costly than installing gas scrubbing on a coal plant. How many of your friends and family are you willing to risk on the highways? I prefer a train
load of coal to fleets of log trucks.

By: Don Marsh

Don Marsh — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 02:07:01 +0000

And there you have it: “I don’t care if people move away, I say keep Gainesville small.” This is the prevailing attitude of the current Mayor and commissioners. And that is the reason I am running. I am NOT moving away. And I am fighting for our rights.

And coal doesn’t have to last forever. In another generation it may be less necessary, perhaps due to fewer irrational fears about nuclear power, or maybe nano-tech will produce more low-power solutions. Or something else. But coal is very appropriate for TODAY.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:08:01 +0000

Whoa! Absolutely no Coal! I don’t care if people move away, I say keep Gainesville small. Not only will coal not last forever, it pollutes. I say keep Gainesville green. Solar has matured far more than you seem to acknowledge in this article. There are currently solar panels available which receive ambient UV beyond the visible spectrum which occurs through clouds and at night. I am in full disagreement with you over the subsidies for installing solar panels on homes and businesses. Encouraging homeowners and business owners to install their own solar arrays can drastically reduce the demands on the local power grid. It promotes independence and individual responsibility for the larger problem of energy scarcity. Even painting roofs white can reduce cooling costs (a major portion of energy usage in Florida) by nearly 35%. As you observed, this has already begun at the national level and we in Gainesville have a reputation as being progressive and ahead of the curve when it comes to environmental conservation and conscience. I feel it would be a real shame to compromise that as it has always been a major appeal to those considering moving and investing here. As for your program cuts, I will say only this: there is a roll for government, you seem to have missed it.

By: Nathaniel Sperling

Nathaniel Sperling — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:05:08 +0000

Excellent points about the issue that I had not fully considered (obviously, I have been against the biomass plant from the beginning, but you have framed the issue in a slightly different way). You’ll make an excellent Mayor.