Since 2000, 280 Apps. For Power Plants Within 62 Miles Of National Parks

[hatrack]

In the last four years, power companies have deluged regulators with applications to build power plants in locations that could affect air quality and visibility in national parks or wilderness areas, according to federal statistics compiled by the Natural Resources News Service, a nonpartisan organization.

Since 2000, the number of permits sought for plants within 62 miles of park boundaries has quadrupled, compared with the previous five years, and 33 of the 280 proposed plants would be coal-fired. Both trends have prompted concern among federal and state officials that the energy boom could harm already reduced visibility.

EDIT

The trend is particularly pronounced near some popular tourist sites in the West, where National Park Service and state officials say visibility-obscuring haze is increasing. Several recent studies indicate that while visibility is improving in many parks on the East and West coasts, the overall number of low-visibility days is on the rise. A federal report found that as of 1999, on the 20 percent of days when skies are haziest, "most parks show at least some degradation or worsening of conditions, especially in the Southwestern U.S.," compared with 1990. A Park Service report last year concluded that "poor air quality currently impairs visibility in every national park and most, if not all, wilderness areas."

"The interior West is witnessing the biggest resurgence in coal-fired power plants in a generation," said Vickie Patton, a senior attorney for the advocacy group Environmental Defense, "and these power plants will release air pollution that threatens human health, mars scenic vistas in premier national parks and adds staggering amounts of climate-disturbing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7523-2004Oct28.html

[tompea]

1. Not to mention the fact that..

his admin dropped lawsuits, some of them 8 years old, against something like 56 coal fired power plants. coal plants being the major sources for acid rain and mercury..

god bless american enterprise..
tom pea

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Plants of a different color.... smell.... and future....

Ya see.... overseas... in Europe.. Japan and other places... they are concerned with Kyoto... and they have started putting in Fuel Cell based power plants... funny thing is... these plants are using fuel cell components manufactured in Danbury Connecticut.... anyone see something wrong with the fact that we aren't ahead of them in this game??

Seeing as how they are American products in the first place.... and seeing how we have a crumbling electrical infrasctructure... distrubuted generation, (creating power close to where it will be used) is the smart thing to do... Connecticut has begun this proces... it is time for the rest of the country to wake up and follow suit... and I don't mean with coal fired plants, (unless) they use coal gassification to release the coal gas for fuel cell plants.... but then that's just me.



www.FuelCellEnergy.com
10/11/04—FuelCell Energy, Marubeni, and Kawasaki Finalize Agreement to Build and Market Direct FuelCell Power Plants in Japan

10/20/04—FuelCell Energy to Combine Its Canadian Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Operations into Versa Power Systems

10/25/04—FuelCell Energy Teams with Chevron Energy Solutions to Sell Its First One Megawatt DFC1500 Unit in California to Alameda County

[NNadir]

4. Fuel Cells are NOT a form of energy. They are energy conversion devices.

Thus building a fuel cell has no bearing on energy.

There are four forms of energy available on earth: Solar, nuclear, fossil and geothermal.

We need to keep this clear in our heads. I don't know why this seems so difficult, but fuel cells fueled by either coal or natural gas generated hydrogen will have no effect whatsoever on global warming: In fact their wide use will make things much worse.

[Massacure]

3. Isn't it better to put power plants by a large CO2 sink and not a city?