Virginia needs energy. We need an astonishing and growing amount of electricity to power houses and businesses and - soon - automobiles we plug into outlets. The question is how badly we need it and how cheap it should be.
There are trade-offs no matter what we choose. Nuclear energy produces toxic waste. Natural gas is expensive. Hydroelectricity means diverting rivers. Wind needs a breeze.
Despite the best efforts - technological and in public relations - coal pollutes. But it's cheap, plentiful and a reliable technology.
The trade-offs come down to these: Is our need for cheap electricity so acute that we'll sacrifice the quality of waterways already tainted with mercury and nutrients? Is it worth more smog in already polluted skies? Should we risk rising seas in a place that's surrounded by water?
This week, the Army Corps of Engineers will hold "scoping" meetings. They're designed to find the questions to answer about Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's plan to build Virginia's largest coal-fired power plant in Surry County. The $4 billion Cypress Creek facility would be upwind of both Hampton Roads and the Chesapeake Bay, which would be affected by pollutants from the plant.
Those meetings will be held at Sussex Central High School starting at 5 this evening. The meeting moves to Surry County High on Thursday.
ODEC says it needs the capacity of the new plant to satisfy growing demands from its customers. The cooperative intends to build the plant using the best technology available. The problem? The technology isn't - so far - anywhere near good enough.
There's simply no practical way to keep carbon dioxide from being emitted as coal is burned, which means coal plants contribute substantially to global warming. They also emit mercury, which causes brain damage, and dioxin, which causes cancer, as well as chemicals that make smog.
The problems don't stop at the plant. Mining, especially in the Appalachian Mountains, is often an environmentally disastrous process. Fly ash, produced as a byproduct of burning coal, contains arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and other toxins that must be contained.
Many questions about the project need to be answered. There's no doubt that America and Virginia need the energy that ODEC's plant would provide. But do we need it this badly?






Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo

It would be nice
If the Pilot is going to editorialize against a given technology, then they should assign a reporter to investigate ALL sides of that topic. How about a multi-part series on the various types of energy alternatives, the cost to establish them, the cost to maintain them, the cost for repairs, the cost for any pollution control measures, the cost for any disposal, the amount of energy each type would produce, the average amount customers would be charged for each different type of technology.
How about if the Pilot (instead of just regurgitating some liberal green talking points paper) did some real investigative reporting and public education on the facts regarding energy alternatives? Is the Pilot afraid that an educated public would realize they must choose between what is available, and what has the best cost benefit for consumers, and that this choice may not be approved by the vast green daydreamers?
Here is a refreshing thought....newspapers as presenters of facts and news and not proxies of party politics and sloganeering.
I'm astounded...
"There are trade-offs no matter what we choose. Nuclear energy produces toxic waste. Natural gas is expensive. Hydroelectricity means diverting rivers. Wind needs a breeze."
The Pilot actually gets this right. What took them so long? No choice involving energy will not be frought with issues of cost, and ANY choice will bring its own set of problems.
As far as nuke energy, we've had it for a generation now, with subsequent advances and maturity in engineering, technology, protection, handling, etc. We know we have gas and oil off our shores, and drilling and producing that now can bring its benefits to fruition in the same amount of time, if not sooner, than some of the other possible sources. I believe the practices for mining coal are hideous, and should be stopped ASAP. Hydro goes against more environmental principles than most of the other ones. Stick with the tried but true until the others prove their viability. As they say: "better the devil you know than the one you don't". That's the reality of this..
Global Warming?
How about just sticking with clean air?
The number of scientists that disagree with global warming/climate change is growing...all due to the decrease of sunspot activity.