But don’t let the facts get in the way of an emotional argument.

If BS2 is approved the two plants together will produce LESS pollution than the BS1 plant operating on its own. Today BS1 emits about 200 pounds of mercury annually in its stack emissions. If approved the two plants together, while producing twice as much power, will generate only 70-90 pounds of mercury.

So in blocking BS2, environmentalists are condemning the residents downwind of BS1 to more pollution than is necessary.

This is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. Environmentalists reject a cleaner coal plant so the operators are forced to keep a dirtier plant running longer.

Big Stone 1 was built in the mid 1970s and has a heat rate of 10,600 BTU/kWh, for a thermal efficiency of about 32%.

Big Stone 2 will have a heat rate of 8,900 for an efficiency of 38%. So Big Stone 2 will produce 16% more power using the same amount of coal.

But actually it is better than than. If Big Stone 2 is approved the operator will install a new wet gas scrubber big enough to handle the emissions from both plants combined, further reducing emissions of both SO2 and particulates. (This partly explains why Big Stone 2’s heat rate isn’t even higher – it uses some of its power to clean up Big Stone 1.) Big Stone 2 emits 7 times less mercury than Big Stone 1.

Both plants are slated to burn Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming, so no mountain tops will be harmed. When the operator has to idle back one of the plants, he is likely to cut rates at BS1, which has the higher fuel costs, thus producing less greenhouse gases than otherwise would have been made. If at some point in the future alternatives displace coal, the operator is more likely to shut down the older, less efficient BS1 plant.

Now thanks to the Sierra Club and other progressives, BS2 is delayed even further meaning more pollution and more greenhouse gas.

Rejecting new, cleaner coal plants does nothing to shut down the old inefficient ones, in fact it does the opposite. It forces utilities to run the dirty plants past their economic lives in order to avoid rolling blackouts.

Again.

However, I wonder if the recent spill from a coal ash holding pond has produced a new angle for these efforts? People are far more likely to respond to immediate threats of toxic chemicals in their water supply, which is exactly what’s brewing in TN. Even the most deluded global warming denier is going to think twice about millions of gallons of toxic sludge flowing down their local river.

As noted you dictate it…why don’t you post the audio along with the transcripts.

That means I get to listen to your post while doing dinner.

(Apple people can of course use the text-to-speech service on their Mac, but its much better hearing it from the horses mouth.)

[JR: It is almost impossible for me to keep up with what is coming out.

Note: I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking. I don't dictate wholesale, but rather large chunks of text.]