Skip to main content

http://nation.foxnews.com/...

Fox News only linked the story from the Washington Times:

Environmental Protection Agency regulations are snuffing out another power plant, Chase Power announced Wednesday, killing its $3 billion Corpus Christi, Texas, coal project and 3,900 prospective jobs.

"Chase Power ... has opted to suspend efforts to further permit the facility and is seeking alternative investors as part of a plan of dissolution for the parent company," Chase CEO Dave Freysinger said in a statement to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Mr. Freysinger said that although financial conditions played a role in the decision, the project was the victim of an insurmountable regulatory framework erected by the EPA.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

The truth from the local Corpus Christi newspaper:

CORPUS CHRISTI — The promoters of the failed Las Brisas power plant project can blame the Environmental Protection Agency all they want, and they may be partly or mostly correct. But once South Texas discovered it had more cheap, retrievable, relatively clean-burning natural gas in the ground than it will need for the foreseeable future, the economic justification for squeezing electricity from inherently dirty, underwhelmingly energetic petroleum coke became unconvincing.

Much has changed since Las Brisas began pursuing an air permit in 2008. At the time, the economy was in the tank, people needed jobs and the news of Las Brisas' proposed $3 billion investment in the local economy was downright thrilling. The outlook for the environment, less so.

The Caller-Times Editorial Board took the position that Las Brisas would be a welcome addition to the community and the economy if it met the regulatory requirements. We maintained that stance. Las Brisas, meanwhile, apparently ran out of money trying.

http://www.caller.com/...

No one would fund an expensive coal-fired plant in the era of $2 natural gas prices (in 2005 prices were over $10).

Furthermore - about those 3,900 jobs?

The generously best-case permanent employment outlook for Las Brisas was maybe 100 jobs.
(same source)

About 1/39th that amount.

So the truth is that President Obama's EPA did not kill the plant - his energy policy friendly to natural gas extraction did!

This diary is simple representation of the blatant lying that goes in the the GOP echo chamber.  It is not an endorsement of fracking.

But this is the crazy we deal with today.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:07:18 PM PST

  •  It's the free market at work (5+ / 0-)

    The cheaper fuel won out - for now.

    Unfortunately, that cheap natural gas is also making it tough on wind & solar. But building gas plants isn't exactly free either, and Texas has plenty of wind and solar resources - if only there was a renewable energy requirement there.

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:19:27 PM PST

    •  True, but as dangerous as fracking is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      walkshills, skohayes

      gas burns much much cleaner than coal.

      And there is no Mountain Top Removal in fracking.

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:24:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No mountain top removal for Texas coal (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walkshills

        We are a little light on mountains, and the coal we do have is in a pretty flat part of the state.

        Disclaimer: If the above comment can possibly be construed as snark, it probably is.

        by grubber on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:50:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Live In Southern IL. We Got A Ton Of Coal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          walkshills

          and you hit on the problem. We don't have any moutains here in Southern IL like you in Texas. This is overstating it just a little, but pretty much you don't even know the mining of coal is happening here.

          When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

          by webranding on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:56:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with fracking is that (0+ / 0-)

        about 7% of NG is estimaged to escape into the atmosphere - and what with methane being a 20x more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it's actually worse for global climate change.

        NG probably has somewhat less mercury and radioisotopes, however . . ..  

    •  Yes It Is. My Parents Live Right Near (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David54, walkshills

      the Gibson Generating Station. I beg you to read this link. It is the third largest coal fired power plant in the world and the largest in the US.

      They have their own railroad to bring coal to it. 24/7. Non-stop. If there was a lot of natural gas they'd run off that. But alas we mine coal where in southern IL/IN so that is what it runs off of.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:51:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Got To Add This (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        walkshills
        Also on the grounds of the facility is a 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) large man-made lake called Gibson Lake which is used as a cooling pond for the plant.
        It is right there to see.

        When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

        by webranding on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:54:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Texas wind > any other state's wind + solar (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      walkshills, skohayes, bear83, Sparhawk

      Texas has 11 GW of installed wind. California is #2 with 4.5 GW wind and 1.5 GW solar.

      There is a state renewable energy requirement, but market forces have driven Texas to blow past the 2025 levels already (though they are short on the solar carveout.)

      Disclaimer: If the above comment can possibly be construed as snark, it probably is.

      by grubber on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:10:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Texas generates 25% (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83

        of it's power from wind turbines, more than any other state.
        Between that and the lower price of natural gas, there is no need for dirty coal.
        Let's hope Kansas does the same thing, as there is a company wanting to build two coal plants here, and then sell the power to other states. They were going to sell to Texas, but now Texas doesn't need it, so they're trying to work something out with Nebraska and Colorado.
        At the same time, thanks to Obama and the EPA, it's becoming less and less economically viable to build a coal plant, and this thing might just die out by itself:

        If a plant is not in construction by April 2013, federal regulations require technology that captures and stores carbon emissions. Only one plant is using that technology and it’s still experimental, said Christine Tezak, managing director of Clear View Energy Partners LLC, a research and consulting firm for industry and its money managers.

        Sunflower and a handful of other utilities have sued the federal government over those rules. A decision is expected early next year.

        But even if Sunflower wins both its state and federal cases, it still must find financing. The cost of complying with mercury and carbon regulations could add significantly to the cost. In 2009 the estimated cost to build the Sunflower plant was $2.2 billion to $3 billion.

        Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/...

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:47:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Umm, according to Wikipedia (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes

          Texas generates about 7% of it's ELECTRICITY (or probably about 2 or 3% of it's "power") from wind.

          link

          so if you think it's 25%, you ought to go fix that.

          •  That could be right (0+ / 0-)

            I read several articles about Texas wind farms a couple of months ago when I was doing some research on Kansas wind farms. No doubt I got some numbers crossed up.
            I live near the Texas Panhandle and they've put thousands of wind turbines up in the last ten years. It's truly amazing.
            Thanks for the correction.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:34:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Congress is making it hard on wind and solar. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bear83

      Nat gas, (if it can be extracted and distributed safely) actually facilitates the other, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and you need a supplement.
      Coal plants have to be enormous and running 24/7 in order to meet the bottom line, nat gas is much more flexible.
      It's great unless you can't solve the extraction and distribution problems.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:20:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fine with me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkshills

    We have lived with the coal mercury residue for too long here in San Antonio.

  •  This is likely true, the EPA came out with rules (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walkshills

    that would make it impossible to build new coal fired power plants(like a year and a half ago), and i'm fine with that.

    •  Nope, its the market (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      walkshills
      Gas produced nearly 30% of the nation's electricity during the 12 months ended Sept. 30, with coal comprising 37%, according to the Energy Information Administration. By contrast 10 years ago, natural gas made up just 18% of U.S. electricity production, compared with 50% for coal.

      So what's the problem? Utility company executives and regulators are wary of fully embracing natural gas, mindful that they have been burned by wild swings in the price of the fuel in the not-too-distant past. Power companies had to push through unpopular electricity price increases as gas costs nearly tripled between 2002 and 2008, jumping to $9.15 a million British Thermal Units from $3.68.

      http://online.wsj.com/...

      "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

      by shrike on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 07:53:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also, the "3900 jobs" is bogus. Personally, I'm (0+ / 0-)

    a wind and solar guy, and I like natgas only to help make those work.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:12:46 PM PST

  •  The local folks in/near Corpus (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, grubber, shrike

    organized multitudes to demonstrate against Las Brisas, had mass attendance at the public hearings, formed a coalition and appealed the air permit, and persuaded the ALJs, and then two Texas judges to reject the permit.

    I was pleasantly surprised to see such militant opposition in Texas.

    The angry neighbors of the proposed plant made it politically dangerous to support the plant.   Some cities waded in and opposed Las Brisas.

    The Las Brisas plant also needed a City-built and financed $140 million, 40-mile water supply pipeline that would draw billions of gallons annually from the lower Colorado River, to quench the plant's thirst.

    But God inflicted a continuing drought onto Texas soon after Las Brisas applied  for permits.  That made many people pause, wondering if they'd have to choose between drinking water and keeping the lights on.

    Fox/Wash Times erred, Las Brisas proposed burning petroleum coke, a refinery byproduct, not coal.  However coal is similar, and would have substituted for coke in a pinch, with no plant changes.

    Coke is essentially free for the price of transportation, so the falling price of gas would have played only a minor role in the plant's demise.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:54:53 PM PST

  •  The 3900 jobs (0+ / 0-)

    refers to the rough peak number of construction workers over a 4-year construction job to build the plant.

    3900 may be a little high, and would be the peak work force,  but a big plant like Las Brisas could easily employ an average of about 2000 workers for 4 years for construction.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 09:57:35 PM PST

  •  Can I suggest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    taking a look at the Debunking Handbook.

    Although there is a great deal of psychological research on misinformation, there’s no summary of the literature that offers practical guidelines on the most effective ways of reducing the influence of myths. The Debunking Handbook boils the research down into a short, simple summary, intended as a guide for communicators in all areas (not just climate) who encounter misinformation.
    A key point:  Don't bold / put in headlines / open with the thing that you are seeking to refute/debunk. This provides (unintended) support to the falsehood -- even among people sympathetic sympathetic to the debunking.

    In this context:

    - Headline (title) calls out falsehood (even though saying 'wingnut') -- Why not "Another lunatic attack on EPA protecting Americans' health" or such as title?

    - Opening, above fold, is the falsehood.  Why not open with material from the 'debunking' article?

    To avoid “backfire effects”, an effective debunking requires three major elements. First, the refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the original misinformation.

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:18:36 AM PST

    •  That would make a great diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel

      you should expand on that more!

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 04:49:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read the link ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        been diaried ...

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 05:20:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow, I missed that this morning (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          Excellent article!
          This part really hit home for me, after spending time over Christmas with a Fox watching RW relative I hadn't seen in 20 years. I wish I had read this before I went to Florida!

          outreaches should be directed towards the undecided majority rather than the unswayable minority
          It would have saved me a lot of arguing.

          “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

          by skohayes on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:41:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site