900 MW Coal Plant Scrapped In Utah - 100th Coal Power Plant Canceled Since 2002

[hatrack]

OS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its plant in Utah.

The Sierra Club said the once-proposed Unit 3 at the Intermountain power station 120 miles southwest of Salt Lake City is the 100th coal-fired power plant to be scuttled since 2002.

IPA spokesman John Ward said allowing an application for an air permit to expire was a formality as plans for the plant have not been viable since 2007 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pulled out of the project.

There are no plans to stop production of the existing two units at Intermountain, which produce 1,800 MW of power.

EDIT

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5684UN20090709

[kristopher]

1. This is good statistic...

Let's hope it continues.

K&R

[NNadir]

2. On the other hand, LADWP has no plans whatsoever to close Intermountain.

At least until they can secure lots of dangerous natural gas based power.

Like every bit of horseshit on climate change, the "we won't buy coal power" in California is, well, horseshit, a vague promise for the future generations to fill, in LADWP's bizarre calculus "by 2020."

Bullshit. It's more talk trying to substitute for action.

There is not one person in LADWP who would have the guts or good sense to close Intermountain this year, next year or the year after that.

This is rather like California's vague promise to have 10% "emmission free" cars by 2003 made in 1990.

What LADWP is going to do is sell that plant to investors and then claim that they sort electrons at the Nevada/California border to see which ones come from the coal plant.

They won't sort electrons, any more than Arnie's brazillion solar roofs will close a single dangerous natural gas plant in California.

[kristopher]

3. 100 coal plants not built...

Squirm and contort as much as you will there are still 100 fewer coal burning plants than planned.

[NNadir]

6. Not to trouble you with something called, um, numbers, since

the number of anti-nukes who can compare numbers is essentially ZERO - and the number of them who understand that dangerous natural gas releases dangerous fossil fuel waste is ALSO zero - the release of dangerous fossil fuel waste is STILL enormous.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

What you don't give a rat's ass about what's happening NOW?

Why am I not surprised?

The fact is kiddie, every scientifically illiterate anti-nuke in the world is satsified with the status quo.

The measurement of Mauna Loa says something about that, kiddie:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Heckuva job, Kiddie, Heckuva job.

[The Croquist]

9. Natural Gas Power

You call them dangerous. Why?

I know about the CO2 but is there something else?

[hunter]

4. When do we start scrapping existing coal plants?

"Scrapping" a coal plant that doesn't exist is nice, but scrapping existing coal plants is the only way to back out of the deep hole we are digging.

[amandabeech]

5. "Scrapping" coal plants can mean that they are disassembled and shipped to other countries.

I assume that you are writing about cutting them into such little pieces that it would not be worthwhile to assemble them.

[hunter]

7. Yes. Little pieces.

Melt them down and make railroad tracks.

[amandabeech]

8. That would be an excellent use for chopped up coal plants.

n/t

[vincna]

11. How would you compensate the owner of those plants

Someone is carrying that plant on their books for hundreds of millions, maybe more. Who eats the cost of retiring it?

[kristopher]

12. Who eats the cost of any obsolete industry?

[vincna]

13. It depends on a number of considerations...

and, as I'm sure you know, it's a complicated question. Define "obsolete". Suppose that with the stoke of a government pen, cap and trade adds 50% to the cost of independently owned coal fired generation - is that obsolete? To me, it's the government intervening in a free market and arguably constitutes a "taking". What if the plant is in the rate base? Under that scenario, it's (aain arguably) a stranded asset and the PSC should allow the utility to recover whatever cost is being carried on the books.

Without government intervention, it would likely be many years before alternative technologies would outcompete coal fired generation. When that day comes, I agree with you that coal fired plants truly are obsolete and should be retired (absent system reliability concerns). Even then, the question of rate based plants remains and the recovery of stranded costs is still an issue. I know from other discussions, you are tuned into this sort of thing. I was interested in hunter's and amandabeech's opinion - it's easy to just wish something away, but making it happen is usually a complex affair.

[kristopher]

14. Free market???

I love it when that chestnut is trotted out. What is free market about our energy system? A market works only as well as it captures the actual costs of producing and distributing the goods involved and recompensing those who bear the burden of those costs. Are you seriously saying that our energy system is doing that well?

If the market were working properly the oil companies would be funding the costs of a large percentage of our military and political escapades around the world. If the market were working properly the costs of illness and death due to fossil fuel pollution would be billed to coal mining companies that went out of business 50 years ago.

The fact is that the current system is PURELY a product designed and sustained by "government intervention" - the mythical "free market" had *nothing* to do with its creation or maintenance. The cap and trade system is a good way of using market forces determine both the technologies that will accomplish desired change, and who the winners and losers will be as the change occurs. It is the JOB if government to wrench a society around when it is headed off a cliff. To my mind that isn't a taking; it is leadership and governance.

[Nihil]

15. Thank you!

> If the market were working properly the oil companies would be funding the
> costs of a large percentage of our military and political escapades around
> the world. If the market were working properly the costs of illness and
> death due to fossil fuel pollution would be billed to coal mining companies
> that went out of business 50 years ago.
>
> The fact is that the current system is PURELY a product designed and
> sustained by "government intervention" - the mythical "free market" had
> *nothing* to do with its creation or maintenance.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[hunter]

16. Just as I'm about to put kristopher on my ignore list he hits a triple...

:evilgrin:

It would have been a home run in my book without the cap and trade nonsense. I believe there is far too much opportunity for fraud in a cap and trade system; the Dick Cheney kleptocrats would swarm like flies to such a system and it would soon be dead and crawling with maggots.

As a socialist rather than a libertarian, I'd simply nationalize the plants. It would work like this -- our government would agree to swap shares in the plant for government bonds, but only after the plant was cut up into little pieces and recycled. There would be some negotiating of the price but any negotiations that failed would still result in the nationalization and destruction of the plant.

If plant workers and coal miners were unable to find jobs then a program similar to the Depression era WPA would hire them and they might be put to work building clean energy projects and transportation systems or retrofitting existing U.S. infrastructure to use less energy.

[kristopher]

17. The idea of fraud as a basis for ruling out this tool is absurd...

There is no basis for such a claim in the record of using this policy tool. In fact the record clearly shows that it is extremely effective at moving technological innovation and change.

Not being snarky but you are regurgitating false Republican talking points. May I suggest that you visit the library and pick up a recent book on environmental economics. You'll find out how the ideas behind cap and trade evolved out of failures in both the type of policies you are suggesting and policies that are oriented toward a "let the market decide" approach. Cap and trade deals effectively with the weaknesses of both approaches and achieves results when, as in this case, it is properly applied to problems of the type associated with moving away from fossil fuels.

[hunter]

19. Maybe that's where Abraham Lincoln went wrong...

He should have implemented a "cap and trade" policy on slavery.

:sarcasm:

There are industries too vile for cap and trade. The coal industry is one of those.

[kristopher]

20. When facts fail...

you resort to nonsense?

Why not just take the time to actually learn what you are talking about. Are you so wedded to your political leanings that you have no use for truthfulness?

[hunter]

21. The atmospheric carbon dioxide numbers are very big.

The cap and trade numbers are very small.

[kristopher]

22. Why do you think ignorance adds validity to your perspective?

You clearly have no idea what you are criticizing. If we were using a "command and control" approach then your two cryptic sentences might have some relevance to an argument if you were to expand it. However since C&T has a different way of effecting change the target emission numbers are much less of an indicator of eventual success than other factors. One of the most important "other factors" is the question of how allocation of carbon plays out. There are criticisms to be made on that score, but in light of political realities the Waxman/Markley Bill is a very good proposal.

[hunter]

23. Oh bother and rot.

Baby steps are good, but these kinds of babies never seem to grow up and run.

All I'm doing is expressing my pessimism. It seems to me that big $$$ channeled through programs that won't have any measurable effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is recipe for corruption. It's exactly equivalent to spending money on huge military projects of no measurable value. There is always going to be someone figuring out how to game the system without producing the promised results. Carbon mitigations efforts such as reforestation are possible without elaborate carbon trading schemes.

Want to reduce carbon emissions? It's simple. Shut coal plants. Leave coal in the ground untouched.

Keeping coal power plants open in exchange for untested (and often untestable...) mitigation projects that may or may not be sequestering atmospheric carbon opens the door to corruption. Our own U.S. government reeks quite enough of that sort of corruption already.

[kristopher]

24. More argumentation based on lack of knowledge...

Baby steps? You really do prefer reveling in ignorance to making the least effort to learn something, don't you. Your remarks have absolutely no relationship at all to the reality of what cap and trade is, how it works and what its goals are. You're also making a blatantly false statement when you say it "won't have any measurable effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels". Since you obviously don't know how the system works you aren't able to form a real opinion much less evaluate whether it will work or not. All you seem to actually have is a desire to denigrate something.

You remind me of the old saying - better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[hunter]

25. They are building plenty of new coal plants in Europe.

Yet Europe has a very active carbon trading scheme.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/index_en.htm

I think it's sort of an embarrassment at this point; the European Commission's focus seems to be shifting to dealing directly with climate change that is now considered irreversible and inevitable.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/adaptation/index_en.htm

We're pretty much screwed.

[kristopher]

26. Those ten paragraphs are the sum total of your research aren't they?

Tell you what; why don't you find some specific legitimate criticisms of the cap and trade system either in the EU or the Waxman Markley bill and bring that criticism here for discussion? Mitigation, prevention, and adaption are not mutually exclusive avenues to pursue in planning for climate change; in fact prudence dictates that all are necessary. To point to that fact only demonstrates that Europe is actually DOING SOMETHING.

Stop the trash talk and actually field a real point that, at the very least, would demonstrate you have a minimum grasp of where problems exist with this policy approach.

Europe has had some specific failures in the system they designed; have we identified those issues in H2454 and addressed them adequately?

Is there something about the bill that is special to the US which opens us up to a weakness not evident by studying the EU?

I mentioned that one specific area of concern is the way the credits are allocated. How do you think we've done in setting that up? What should we do differently?

These are substantial items of discussion, and I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. For example, you're interested in the potential for corruption in carbon trading, right? What occurred in this area in the EU during the 2005-2007 trading period? What problems areas were identified? Did they do anything different during this trading period? Is there anything in H2454 that addresses the main weakness found in the EU? Will it work?

[hunter]

27. Send me a retainer. I'll write up a consulting contract.

The European numbers are transparent and have been analyzed every which way and inside out. It's not pretty. The sunshine-up-your-ass numbers are "a hundred million tonnes" saved, but overall European carbon emissions have actually increased. Next round they are going to deal with that embarrassing problem by "importing" carbon credits.

But honestly it's like "saving" money at Wal-Mart. You are not saving money at all. You are spending it.

Going back to the original post, why should 100 coal power plants that were never built ever enter into the equation? If we want to reduce carbon emissions we have to quit doing stuff we are doing now, today. The only way to quit doing harmful stuff is to quit doing harmful stuff. Your doctor doesn't want to hear about how many cigarettes you might have smoked.

"Well, um, yeah, it looked like I was heading to be a two pack a day smoker, but I've cut that down to one pack a day, and I even had a couple of cigarettes left over from yesterday! I'm gonna switch to light cigarettes too!"

:eyes: Your doctor is telling you to quit smoking now.

If we are serious about quitting coal we must set a serious goal -- such as a the complete phase out of coal fired power plants in twenty years, beginning with a ban on the construction of new coal power plants TODAY. Given that specific goal the economics takes care of itself without resort to any complicated and ultimately inscrutable carbon trading scheme.

It's a perfectly legitimate and specific criticism to say thus far cap and trade hasn't reduced Europe's carbon emissions at all. European emissions have in fact increased. It is my informed opinion that the current world economic troubles will have a much greater impact on cabon emissions than carbon trading. It is my informed opinion that cap and trade systems are unlikely to work.

Take it or leave it.

[kristopher]

28. Actually that would be an "uninformed opinion",

Your evasion is transparent and the reason for it is that obviously you don't know anything about the policy tool except that your political gurus have told you it isn't good for them and you should try whatever you can do derail it. That isn't being informed it is being a sheep.

If you understood that the benefit of cap and trade is the way it directs, funds and encourages the growth of alternative techologies, you'd likewise understand that measuring immediate reductions in targeted emissions in the early stages of implementation isn't a valid measure of the efficacy of the programs in a cap and trade system. In fact, using that as a metric is a dead giveaway that you haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about.

There is zero chance that we are going to deal with fossil fuel emissions with your method of having the government shut down the coal plants immediately by mandate. In fact, the proposal is so preposterous that anyone making it is either an absolute idiot or they are actually intent on creating the impression that people who are serious about climate change action are idiots.

[hunter]

29. Bullshit anyone is "serious" about climate change.

If the political machine in Washington was serious we'd stop burning coal. Easy.

What they are serious about is LOOKING like they are serious about climate change.

It's all about appearances.

This is greenwashing and political pandering of the worst sort:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1560&Itemid=1

I don't have any political "gurus" I simply don't like the smell of crap.

You never seem to look at the numbers, Kristopher, it is always about the words.

People can say anything, people can promise anything, but the physical realities of a situation are immutable. The sky doesn't care what we think.

Unless we address the problems of atmospheric carbon dioxide directly we are pissing in the wind, and the bad news is we are not going to re-sequester any significant fraction of the carbon we've already dumped. We've got to live with what we've done, but we can make it worse, and we are making it worse with every passing day.

Things will probably have to become very uncomfortable before our politicians craft any serious response to the problem. I imagine you'll be able to paddle a kayak through the Jefferson Memorial when they finally get the job done.

[kristopher]

30. We ARE addressing the problem.

Finally after 30 years of Republican stonewalling we ARE addressing the problem. I'd wager that's why you're agitated. The fact that you can't be bothered to learn what you are talking about is evidence that points to you, not the programs you are spreading misinformation about.

Cap and trade predicts a certain sequence of events on the way to a desired outcome. Regarding EU's program, you might as well point to a beginning college sophmore and bitch that they've failed because they didn't graduate their freshman summer.

Your failure to exhibit any interest in meaningful discussion is ample evidence for me that you really donn't give a shit about climate change. You are here doing nothing but trashing the policies that Dems are working to get implemented. Your repeated patently false claims demonstrate that you have no interest in furthering your own understanding but are instead working actively to promate false beliefs regarding the climate change and energy policies of the Democrats.

You claim to be motivated by real desire for action on climate change but everything you argue for gives lie to that statement and proves you a fraud.

[hunter]

31. I've been watching the damned thing.

From the draft summary, no "misinformation" at all:

"Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The draft promotes development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to ensure a continuing place for coal in our nation’s energy future. CCS is a method of reducing global warming pollution by capturing and injecting underground the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants that use fossil fuels. The draft includes a CCS early demonstration program, incentives for the wide-scale commercial deployment of CCS, and performance standards for new coal-fired power plants."

Bullshit Legislation -- More Coal

"Clean Fuels and Vehicles. The draft establishes a new low-carbon transportation fuel standard to promote advanced biofuels and other clean transportation fuels. It authorizes financial support in the form of grants or loan guarantees to cities, states, or private companies for large-scale demonstrations of electric vehicles. A related provision authorizes financial support to car companies to retool their plants to build electric vehicles."

Bullshit Legislation -- electric vehicles, More Coal

"Transportation Efficiency. The draft directs the President to work with the relevant agencies and California to harmonize, to the maximum extent possible, the federal fuel economy standards, any emission standards promulgated by EPA, and the California standards for light-duty vehicles. The goal of this provision is to preserve the environmental benefits that could be achieved by the three standards, but do so in a way that simplifies compliance by the auto companies. The draft also directs EPA to set emissions standards for other mobile sources of pollution such as locomotives, marine vessels, and nonroad sources. The draft requires states to establish goals for reducing global warming pollution from the transportation sector and requires large metropolitan planning organizations to submit transportation plans to meet those goals. The draft authorizes EPA to carry out the SmartWay Transportation Efficiency Program to increase the efficiency of highway trucking."

Bullshit Legislation -- "simplifies compliance"

"Banking and Borrowing. To provide additional flexibility without compromising environmental goals, the draft permits unlimited banking of allowances for use during future compliance years. The draft also establishes a rolling two-year compliance period, effectively allowing covered entities to borrow from one year ahead without penalty. Allowances from two to five years in the future can be borrowed under limited circumstances."

Bull... no wait, I'm sorry, this is just WTF? "flexibility without compromising environmental goals...???" That and "strategic reserves." They must really want badly to create a market ripe for playing.

"Clean Air Act Exemptions. The draft provides that CO2 and other greenhouse gases may not be regulated as criteria pollutants or hazardous air pollutants on the basis of their effect on global warming. The draft also provides that new source review does not apply to these global warming pollutants."

Bullshit Legislation and downright evil.

"Ensuring Domestic Competitiveness. To ensure that U.S. manufacturers are not put at a disadvantage relative to overseas competitors, the draft authorizes companies in certain industrial sectors to receive “rebates” to compensate for additional costs incurred under the program. Sectors that use large amounts of energy, and produce commodities that are traded globally, would be eligible for the rebates. If the President finds that the rebate provisions do not sufficiently correct competitive imbalances, the President is directed to establish a “border adjustment” program. Under that program, foreign manufacturers and importers would be required to pay for and hold special allowances to “cover” the carbon contained in
U.S.-bound products."

Bullshit Legislation -- “border adjustment” program. OMG.

Etc., etc., etc.

We are so screwed.

I guess that's why we need this:

Adapting to Global Warming. The draft establishes an interagency council to ensure an integrated federal response to the effects of global warming. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is directed to conduct vulnerability assessments and establish a National Climate Service. Each federal agency is directed to prepare an adaptation plan, review climate impacts on matters within its jurisdiction, and develop plans for addressing those impacts. The draft establishes a climate change adaptation fund to provide federal support for state, local, and tribal adaptation projects and a natural
resources climate change adaptation panel to coordinate interagency actions on natural resources adaptation. The draft also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate a national strategy for adapting to the public health effects of climate change. To address international adaptation issues, the draft creates an International Climate Change Adaptation Program within USAID to provide U.S. assistance to the most vulnerable developing countries for
adaptation to climate change.



Honestly, why do you expect me to have "meaningful conversation" about this plate of garbage? Yeah nice, they throw a few bones to low carbon energy sources. But you might as well call the thing "The Coal Industry Security Act of 2009"

[kristopher]

32. No that isn't what I expect...

You've repeatedly shown you are trying to obstruct meaningful conversation, so I've abandoned the expectation. What do I expect? Just what you've provided. The full text of your "analysis" and "insight" follows:
From the draft summary, no "misinformation" at all:
"..."
Bullshit Legislation -- More Coal
"..."
Bullshit Legislation -- electric vehicles, More Coal
"..."
Bullshit Legislation -- "simplifies compliance"
"..."
Bull... no wait, I'm sorry, this is just WTF? "flexibility without compromising environmental goals...???" That and "strategic reserves." They must really want badly to create a market ripe for playing.
"..."
Bullshit Legislation and downright evil.
"..."
Bullshit Legislation -- “border adjustment” program. OMG.
Etc., etc., etc.
We are so screwed.
I guess that's why we need this:
"..."
Honestly, why do you expect me to have "meaningful conversation" about this plate of garbage? Yeah nice, they throw a few bones to low carbon energy sources. But you might as well call the thing "The Coal Industry Security Act of 2009"


I'm in awe that ignorance can rise to such heights...


For comparison, let's give your first three selections a moment of consideration. I don't think we need more than that to make the point clear:

Carbon Capture and Sequestration. The draft promotes development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies to ensure a continuing place for coal in our nation’s energy future. CCS is a method of reducing global warming pollution by capturing and injecting underground the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants that use fossil fuels. The draft includes a CCS early demonstration program, incentives for the wide-scale commercial deployment of CCS, and performance standards for new coal-fired power plants."

Bullshit Legislation -- More Coal

On this one you are accurate in your conclusion of bullshit, but wrong in the outcome. This is bullshit legislation just as money for ethanol is bullshit; in both cases special interests are being bought off to allow the meat of the bill to go through. The evidence for this is that the only money spent is for a demonstration project with the incentives coming into play only IF the technology proves economically viable. Since the *primary* objection to coal is CO2 emissions this is a low risk gamble. IF the technology were to conquer what appear to be impossible obstacles, then they would deserve incentives for deploying the technology.
I haven't looked at the performance standards, but if there is a weakness it would be to allow the building of plants designed in such a way as to allow them to be retrofitted with CCS technology if and when it becomes viable (a stale tactic of coal). Is that, in fact, allowed? If it isn't then either coal will actually BE clean (at least in regards to our target emission of CO2) or it wont get funding.
How is that "bullshit legislation"?


"Clean Fuels and Vehicles. The draft establishes a new low-carbon transportation fuel standard to promote advanced biofuels and other clean transportation fuels. It authorizes financial support in the form of grants or loan guarantees to cities, states, or private companies for large-scale demonstrations of electric vehicles. A related provision authorizes financial support to car companies to retool their plants to build electric vehicles."

Bullshit Legislation -- electric vehicles, More Coal

"Transportation Efficiency. The draft directs the President to work with the relevant agencies and California to harmonize, to the maximum extent possible, the federal fuel economy standards, any emission standards promulgated by EPA, and the California standards for light-duty vehicles. The goal of this provision is to preserve the environmental benefits that could be achieved by the three standards, but do so in a way that simplifies compliance by the auto companies. The draft also directs EPA to set emissions standards for other mobile sources of pollution such as locomotives, marine vessels, and nonroad sources. The draft requires states to establish goals for reducing global warming pollution from the transportation sector and requires large metropolitan planning organizations to submit transportation plans to meet those goals. The draft authorizes EPA to carry out the SmartWay Transportation Efficiency Program to increase the efficiency of highway trucking."

We'll just lump these two together and give you the conclusion of the Electric Power Research Institute (the organization charged with insuring the reliability of our electric supply).

"PHEV Impact on Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Overview of Study and Results
This report describes the first detailed, nationwide analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The “well-to-wheels” analysis accounted for emissions from the generation of electricity to charge PHEV batteries and from the production, distribution and consumption of gasoline and diesel motor fuels.

Researchers used detailed models of the U.S. electric and transportation sectors and created a series of scenarios to examine assumed changes in both sectors over the 2010 to 2050 timeframe of the study.

Three scenarios represent high, medium, and low levels of both CO 2 and total GHG2 emissions intensity for the electric sector as determined by the mix of generating technologies and other factors.

Three scenarios represent high, medium, and low penetration of PHEVs in the 2010 to 2050 timeframe.

From these two sets of scenarios emerge nine different outcomes spanning the potential longterm GHG emissions impacts of PHEVs, as shown in the following table.

<sorry can't post table here but description follows>

Researchers drew the following conclusions from the modeling exercises:
Annual and cumulative GHG emissions are reduced significantly across each of the nine scenario combinations.

Annual GHG emissions reductions were significant in every scenario combination of the study, reaching a maximum reduction of 612 million metric tons in 2050 (High PHEV fleet penetration, Low electric sector CO2 intensity case).

Cumulative GHG emissions reductions from 2010 to 2050 can range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion metric tons.
Each region of the country will yield reductions in GHG emissions.

Environmental Assessment of Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Executive Summary
Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Interested persons are also encouraged to read:
Smart Grid: Enabler of the New Energy Economy
available from the DOE
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of the Report is to address barriers and opportunities to deploying Smart Grid technologies to enhance the Nation’s electric power delivery system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Report focuses on specific actions the U.S. Department of Energy can take to implement Smart Grid technologies.

[hunter]

33. Oh my. You are citing The Electric Power Research Institute

You are serious?

[phantom power]

18. +1

[GliderGuider]

34. Well said. nt

[NickB79]

10. Cheering about non-existant coal plants not being built

Is like cheering about the bullet your Kevlar vest just stopped, while lying next to a smoking crater with your arms and legs blown off.