New Consumer's energy coal plant unnecessary, harmful
Tweet
As the Environmental Protection Agency works to strengthen the safe disposal of coal ash, Consumers Energy is working to build another coal plant here in Michigan. This unneeded coal plant will add to the nearly 130 million tons of coal ash generated each year. In Bay City, Consumers already is having a hard time keeping their waste under control; can you imagine what another coal plant will do?
Coal ash, coal’s by-product, is full of things such as arsenic, lead and mercury that when burned can cause serious problems in humans. Cancer rates increase significantly in people who live near coal plants and coal ash sites. So, if Consumers does build their 850 megawatts coal plant in Bay City, what does this mean for the people who live there? Higher health care bills, more cancer and higher energy rates.
Amanda Hitesman,
East Lansing resident
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Matt
(01/31/10 11:03pm)Report
Amanda you are so stupid. A coal plant is being built because people don’t want to pay higher electric rates from new age “clean” energy and because of an overwhelmed system. Also because you cannot have windmill farms without a coal or nuclear power plant running full time. If someone came in and told you you would have to pay double in electric rates you would probably go with the cheaper alternative.
MaximumBob
(02/01/10 10:35am)Report
More insanity.
Anybody remember the Midland nuclear fiasco of the 1980s? Green idiots killed nuclear at Midland, not to mention the rest of the country. This forced Michigan (and the rest of the US) to continue using such a high percentage of coal-fired energy.
Now, they want to kill coal and force inefficient and extremely low capacity wind and solar. These idiots have absolutely no idea what they’re doing, and it shows.
Al Goree
(02/01/10 1:55pm)Report
Wow, Before people post articles, they should do a little bit or research to find out that this power plant in result will be supplying a plant which will be producing mass quantities of solar panels. So do not go out and shoot yourself in the foot when you produce articles that create jobs and more affordable green energy to everyone. Unless you want to scare corporations to go to other countries. I bet you drive a Toyota too?
Melissa Hendricks
(02/01/10 3:57pm)Report
When you say “coal ash” are you refering to bottom ash or fly ash? Also, what about boiler slag and flue gas desulfurization gypsum and other FGD materials? These are the byproducts of coal combustion that amount to 130 million tons/year. Visit www.acaa-usa.org for accurate information on coal ash from those who are experts.
MaximumBob
(02/02/10 8:58am)Report
Al Goree,
“more affordable green energy”?
Not from solar.
These panels are expensive to produce and remarkably inefficient, even during times when the sun is actually shining. Let’s not discuss the environmental footprint required. It all sounds good until you find some enviro that’s willing to go to court over the “West Desert Spotted Frog” or the “Mojave Desert Rat”.
Dumping money into the “green energy” pit won’t create jobs, but will eliminate them through taxation and politically motivated spending. Every dollar you take from productive enterprises will be “invested” as a fraction in the “green economy”. The rest will stay in Washington for pork and patronage.
Wow
(02/02/10 6:30pm)Report
You really are stupid. Do some research, please. Or at least address the fact that you “care” so much about the environment that you’re willing to spending 500% more in utility bills to sleep at night. I, on the other hand, am not.
I sleep just fine.
MSU Beyond Coal
(02/08/10 2:17pm)Report
Transitioning Michigan State off of coal energy is not not only viable it is realistic. Universities across the country are doing it including Ball State and Cornell.
To find out more information Check out: http://msubeyondcoal.wordpress.com/research/