The Observer, February 22, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 18
Global Scorning: Power plant a bad choice for Ohio
The reality of coal as a dirty and grimy energy source cannot really be argued, and the coal power plant advocates who have argued for it have pretty much given up by now. Currently, clean renewable energy is gaining attention from the energy industries. Flipping through an issue of a financial newspaper displays advertisements for renewable energy initiatives and just how much effort energy companies put toward promoting clean and safe energy sources such as wind and solar power. Why, for the first time in 20 years, is Ohio preparing itself for a new coal power plant based on 19th-century technology?
According to Care2's The Petition Site, Cleveland City Council is preparing to accept a proposal from American Municipal Power-Ohio for a 50-year contract for a 960-megawatt pulverized coal-fire power plant that would be built in Meigs County. Technological advances concerning energy sources and production are just around the corner and are being pursued by many energy companies, including General Electric and BP. For Cleveland to commit to a coal-powered energy plant for the next 50 years appears a bit backward and regressive.
Most analysts agree that new federal CO2 regulations are serious and will result in a negative effect on the price of energy generated by coal. The repercussions of this type of energy production will be harsh for our nation as well as the city of Cleveland. In fact, investment banks such as Citigroup, J.P. Morgan, and Morgan Stanley have announced that they are imposing their own environmental standards that will make it difficult for companies to get financing to build traditional pulverized coal power plants like the one that Cleveland is planning on investing in. Federal caps will make the coal power plant economically impractical.
However, the economic and global warming issues are not the only ones on the table. The coal power plant will require mining at least two million tons of coal each year. Accordingly, thousands of miners would be involved in this project that will risk their lives and their health. Water pollution, air pollution, and habitat destruction are risks to our society and environment. Meigs County, where the power plant will be constructed, already has some of the highest lung cancer rates in the state.
The Cleveland community has other options aside from this coal power plant. Investments into alternative energy sources are a possibility for the city. However, the jobs that the power plant would produce are crucial for Meigs County. The low energy rates would also be helpful and necessary for citizens who cannot afford the high cost of alternative energy use. According to The Plain Dealer, the absence of the project could also force Cleveland to buy power off the national transmission grid without the benefit of a stable price.
The alternatives to the coal power plant project may not seem viable or plentiful, but the municipal system should consider all of our options, including natural gas-fired or biomass systems. A combination of projects could help to put Cleveland on a promising path and not the regressive path to which a coal power plant may lead us.
