Showing posts with label Clean Coal ?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clean Coal ?. Show all posts


Would you pay for a Negawatt in St Louis, MO?

Negawatt-Paid by Performance

I'm from Missouri and I understand and partially live by the states slogan-Show Me.  I am so confident that I can save you money on your utility bills.  I will base the money I earn from the energy upgrade improvements I install in your home or business in StLouis will be based off of the savings of your future energy bills.  Thats right you can pay me 'after-the-fact' on the proven performance for the work I do.  If what I say doesn't work or the energy upgrades fail to deliver then you pay nothing for my labor.

How do I know Scotty's suggested Energy Efficient upgrades and Clean Energy Solar Systems will work to save me $Money$ you ask?

To put my actions and energy efficient suggestions to the test I will soon be offering a Paid by Performance option based on the Negawatt reduction in your utility bills.

My Definition of a Negawatt is: the energy that was previously need but is not needed for your building now.  Wiki's definition of negawatt is:
Negawatt power is a theoretical unit of power representing an amount of energy (measured in watts) saved.
I'm calling for the naysayers and skeptics of energy efficiency and solar to accept my challenge.  I can and will save you money and will base this on the negawatts you will not be buying from Ameren UE!

  • Because I know that: Adding Insulation and Air Sealing the drafts in your home will save energy.
  • Energy Efficient appliances use less energy than older appliances.
  • Most of the HVAC systems in our homes do not have adequate air vents which causes them to operate inefficiently and create cold and hot spots in the home.
  • In regard to Solar: StLouis receives an average of 4.567 hours of useable sunlight everyday  (for my 2 family building 27 solar panels provides the clean energy needed to cut the entire buildings energy bills by 75%)
Why would I go out on a limb and possibly lose money?  For me its not completely about the $$$.  I breathe the air in St Louis and since Ameren UE burns dirty coal which causes: Cancer, Asthma, Breathing problems, reduced life expectancy, etc from the CO2 emissions.  {I am hedging my bets on my future health and the high costs of health care today.}  So any energy efficient upgrades and clean energy solar systems installed for your Building in the StLouis area that eliminate the burning of Fossil Fuels- will help my health in the end and everyone else in stlouis would also receive cleaner air to breathe as the added benefit.

While I'm working out the details feel free to schedule a time that we can discuss how you can participate in the program drop me a line.

Thank You for stopping by-Share and Comment below. If additional information in needed or you have a question let me know. Together we can make a difference. Build a Green StLouis Get Your Green Building Tips and Resources at St Louis Renewable Energy Green Blog


Ameren UEs Greed-Missouri-Nuclear Reactor-

Here is some of the latest news on Energy (Electricity) Issues affecting the St Louis Area, Ameren UEs Nuclear Reactor Agenda is just plain GREEDY and will cost us the rate payers now and in the future.

  • Amerens goal is to charge the people of the St Louis Area, the ratepayers, millions of dollars up front for an unnecessary, risky, and expensive Nuclear Power Reactor Plant rather than investing in the cheapest energy resource available, energy efficiency
  • The proposed legislation would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
    • The proposed legislation-SB 321 and SB 406- would chip away at a 1976 ballot initiative supported 2-to-1 by Missouri voters. This law protects Missourians from investor-owned utilities charging ratepayers up-front for the construction of a power plant until it is producing electricity.
  • To understand the many other reasons why SB 321 and SB 406 are bad public policy, read Senator Joan Bray's guest column in the Joplin Globe last month.                                                                                                                                                                                        
  • Ameren admits it cannot find investors to fund the Nuclear Plant because it is too risky and expensive.
    • Scotts Contracting/Facebook Page Latest Estimated Costs for Nuclear Reactor is $10 Billion. we'll have to pay an additional $4 Billion Dollars                                             
  • Therefore, Ameren must pass SB 321 or SB 406 which shifts the financial risk of investment of a new nuclear plant from shareholders to ratepayers.  But while shareholders dodge the risk, they still receive a financial windfall if/when the reactor comes online and Ameren then sells the excess electricity out of state for a premium                                                                                                                                                                          
    "If we went after the potential that we've seen in our own study,  we wouldn't have to build another power plant for 20 years, and we could retire Meramec, and we'd be OK.  But we'd lose  $30 million a year. And we just can't do that. It's that simple."

Join the Movement and Contact the Missouri Legislative Department Here

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat,
and Let Your Voice BE HEARD!     
Active Participation is Suggested
Tell My Politician

Scott's Contracting


True Figures Dirty Coals Costs in Environmental and Public Health

Study Shows the True Costs of Dirty Coal at $250 Billion Dollars - Hidden Cost Add Millions More-

Fully accounting for coal's costs in environmental and public health damage would triple the cost of coal-generated electricity and make less-polluting fuels more competitive, according to a new study by Harvard University researchers.

The study, by the Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment, is scheduled to be published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Researchers tried to take a broader look at the full cost of coal, following its life cycle from mining and processing, to transportation and burning. They estimated that coal is costing the U.S. between $174 billion and $523 billion a year.

"Coal carries a heavy burden," the researchers said in a summary of their detailed publication.

"Energy is essential to our daily lives, and for the past century and a half we have depended on fossil fuels to produce it," they said. "But, from extraction to combustion, coal, oil and natural gas have:
  • multiple health, 
  • environmental and 
  • economic impacts 
that are proving costly for society."
The researchers put their "best" estimates of costs from coal's annual air pollution at $188 billion and costs from its contributions to global warming at $62 billion ($250 Billion Dollars Combined).

Researchers also examined deaths from coal-mining accidents and $74 billion a year in early deaths that other studies by West Virginia University have said appear to be linked to pollution from coal-mining sites. They also looked at economic subsidies for coal, deaths from coal-hauling railroad accidents, and a host of other impacts.

The study was funded in part by the Rockefeller Family Foundation, and was being promoted by a news release issued by the group Greenpeace.

"The public is unfairly paying for the impacts of coal use," said Dr. Paul Epstein, associated director of the Harvard center.

"Accounting for these 'hidden costs' doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh, making wind, solar, and other renewable very economically competitive," Epstein said. "Policy-makers need to evaluate current energy options with these types of impacts in mind. Our reliance on fossil fuels is proving costly for society, negatively impacting our wallets and our quality of life."

CHARLESTON, W.Va. --Harvard study details coal's true costs by:Ken Ward Jr.
Feb. 17, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex)
Reach Ken Ward Jr. at or 304-348-1702.

Newstex ID: KRTB-0226-100781549


Economics and Politics of Clean Coal

Illinois Power Coal Fired Power Plant News
Jan 9, 2011 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Green Blog Web Post Sponsor:

The Illinois Senate's rejection of a bill to advance a next-generation coal plant just southeast of Springfield did more than potentially kill the $3.5 billion project.

It highlighted the Catch-22 facing developers of this new breed of power plants: The steep price of building so-called clean coal plants deters investment -- but the cost won't come down until companies can prove the technology works, which requires actually building and operating plants.

The legislation defeated at the Illinois capitol on Wednesday would have authorized the plant's owners to charge utilities above-market prices for electricity produced at the Taylorville Energy Center, which would generate enough electricity to power about 600,000 homes.

But the impact of the vote could ripple even farther, potentially having a chilling effect on future clean coal proposals, including the federal government's revamped FutureGen project, a planned retrofitting of Ameren Corp.'s (NYSE:AEE) 70-year-old power plant in Meredosia, Ill. If such projects fail to move forward, that could also be a missed opportunity for Illinois coal miners, who would probably supply the fuel.

"Long-term, (the effect) could be huge," said Phil Gonet, president of the Illinois Coal Association.

Unlike the state's existing coal-fired plants, the Taylorville plant would not burn coal directly; instead, it would convert the black rock into a gas to more easily remove pollutants -- including much of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.

Developers, led by Omaha, Neb.-based Tenaska Inc., had secured $3 billion in federal tax credits and loan guarantees from the administration of President Barack Obama. But they can't begin construction without assurance that they'll be able to recover their costs over the next 30 years.

Those assurances were a nonstarter for a coalition of some of the state's largest parent companies and electricity customers who argued that the bill, while protecting residential customers, would have left large employers exposed to big rate increases. Parent company information from Corporate Affiliations can give you access to nearly 700,000 company profiles.
Philip O'Connor, a former Illinois Commerce Commission chairman who led a business coalition that lobbied fiercely against Taylorville, said the group didn't oppose clean coal projects in principal.

"The problem was the economics of it," he said, over budget, under fire

The economics are spelled out in a lengthy study filed with Illinois regulators last year. Tenaska was required to pay for the report under a measure approved by the Legislature in 2008.

Among other findings, it revealed that electricity from the Taylorville plant would cost 21.3 cents a kilowatt-hour -- about three times what big electricity users currently pay, and far more expensive than new wind power (8 cents to 12 cents per kwh) or nuclear power (10 cents to 13 cents).

And that report assumed the Taylorville project would be completed on budget. The business group, which includes the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and Illinois Manufacturers' Association, worried that they would bear the brunt of any cost overruns.

The spectre of runaway costs has played out in Indiana, where Duke Energy Corp. (NYSE:DUK PRA) (NYSE:DUK) disclosed last spring that the cost of its Edwardsport clean coal plant had spiked by more than $500 million to $2.88 billion. That translated to an average 16 percent increase in electricity bills by 2013.

Mounting concern over the impact on electric rates convinced Illinois Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, to withdraw support for the Taylorville legislation. The biggest employers in his district said they faced increases of 3 percent to 7 percent. That included agricultural giant ADM, which estimated its annual electric bill would go up by $5 million.

"It was made very clear, through all the research that I did, that costs to businesses in this state were going to outweigh the benefits of new jobs created," he said.

Backers of the Taylorville project have rejected that argument as a red herring. They called the Senate's decision short-sighted and said it would only drive up electricity rates in the future, as aging, inefficient coal plants shut down.

different plans, same problem

Plans for the Taylorville and FutureGen projects, which would be about 90 miles apart, differ in key ways. They would use different technologies, and the Taylorville plant would be newly built whereas FutureGen calls for conversion of an existing coal plant.

But, like Taylorville, Ameren has said FutureGen would require state legislation to guarantee that plant owners could recover their investments.

An Ameren spokeswoman had no comment on the potential impact of the defeat of the Taylorville bill. "We are at the earliest stages of our project development and can't speculate on the impact this might have," spokeswoman Susan Gallagher said.

The Illinois coal mining industry, meanwhile, is likely to suffer (OOTC:WLVTQ) little immediate effect from the Senate vote, said Gonet, of the state's coal association. But it could mean a lost opportunity in years to come, he said.

Producers had hoped projects such as Taylorville and FutureGen would help boost Illinois coal output, which is about half of what it was 20 years ago, before restrictions on acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions led utilities to switch to cleaner-burning western coal. (OOTC:WTNCF) (TSX:WTN') (TSX:WTN)

"We have 55 million tons of coal that comes in each year from Wyoming to burn in Illinois power plants," Gonet said. "We'd like the opportunity to replace that with Illinois coal."

Walking away?

Tenaska executives -- who have spent five years and $40 million trying to get the Taylorville project off the ground -- have threatened to walk away unless the Senate reverses itself before noon Wednesday, when the lame-duck session ends.

Company officials declined to comment after Wednesday's Senate vote. But other backers of the Taylorville project say a revote by the Senate seems unlikely.

John Mead, director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, said national energy policy was needed to help developers get projects OK'd at the state level.

"I think the country as a whole expects improvement in emissions performance, and whether it's through Congress or the EPA, we're going to see that expectation turned into requirements," Mead said. "Projects like Taylorville are going to help us meet those requirements."

Hannah Hess of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Author: Jeffrey Tomich
Jan. 9, 2011 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) --
Newstex ID: KRTB-0187-50770891

Platts has valuable commodity pricing and data to share with your online community. We’ve recently updated our site to include access to more information and reports.

View Energy Prices Here and Get Your Energy Report Here

Scott's Contracting

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter Google Plus Tumblr LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

Free Seed Giveaway Prizehead Lettuce

Seems like just a few weeks ago I was watching the lettuce sprout. Prize Head Lettuce Plant Date April 9, 2017 August 2, 2017 Video...