Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: I don’t buy it
Next Post: Egomania
Posted in:
I received this e-mail (slightly edited to conceal the source’s identity) from a very good source last night:
The Gov is announcing Thursday the strongest state limits in the country on mercury pollution from coal plants. A very big deal for the environmental vote.
Blagojevich for some time has been on record as opposing the Bush Administration’s proposals for regulating coal plant pollution, but until Thursday has not come out with his own alternative. What he will announce Thursday, based on what we are hearing, is stronger than any state in the country, which is particularly impressive for a big coal state.
I wonder how this will go down in southern Illinois?
Supposedly, the Tribune will have the full story. Link it in the comments section when it appears, please.
UPDATE: From comments:
IL coal is only being used about 15% of the time in Illinois power plants because of its high sulfur content. Wyoming coal, which is much higher in mercury, is being used everywhere else. This plan should incent the use of Illinois coal and be good for the environment, kids, women of child bearing age etc.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 3:04 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: I don’t buy it
Next Post: Egomania
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s too bad that the Governor isn’t doing the right thing for Illinois, which is to tax pollution rather than regulate it. It can reduce pollution just as much, but it is much easier to enforce and it would raise money for the state. This would be one of the best ways to raise money for the state as it would be taxing (and therefore reducing) something that is bad (similarly to cigarette taxes) rather than something that is good (like corporate profits or personal income).
Comment by Larry Horse Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 6:02 am
Hey he doesn’t have to worry about to many coal miners because he appointed a bunch to jobs in his administration.Check the records.I wonder how many will quit thier jobs in protest.Or is this one of those deals of throwing his friends under the bus for political gain if you remember he had a huge support in the mine fields down here.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 7:49 am
I might add also if he is trying to play up to the environmentalist that he has been the worst governor our state park system has ever had.Under funded,under staffed and people in control who only thought a pay check.
Comment by DOWNSTATE Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 8:01 am
This is actually good for Illinois coal. Due to chemical differences, it is easier to remove the mercury from Illinois coal than from the western coal that most of the power plants are burning.
This allows him to position the announcement as pro-environment and pro-coal.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 8:27 am
Tribune story is at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601050073jan05,1,7561645.story?coll=chi-news-hed
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 8:30 am
Rich it seems like a double fisted approach, because the Gov. wants there to be an expansion of Southern IL mines. (or thats at least what we have been lead to believe). This flies in the face of that. IL coal already produces higher levels of CO2 (not sure about mercury). Thats why many of the coal fired plants have been importing their coal from other states. Also there in the recent energy bill passed by Congress was a huge expansion for coal mines. Will this mean that if we don’t use home grown coal, could we possible loose federal funding. What about the higher costs for coal transportation? Ameren is already asking for a rate hike…For instance one Southern coal fired plant had a scrubber system in place to burn IL coal but that soon was dismantled because of the extreme cost.
Comment by SouthernILRepub Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 8:33 am
I was wrong its sulfur content….
Comment by SouthernILRepub Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 8:39 am
Anon 8:27 is right. IL coal is only being used about 15% of the time in Illinois power plants because of its high sulfur content. Wyoming coal, which is much higher in mercury, is being used everywhere else. This plan should incent the use of Illinois coal and be good for the environment, kids, women of child bearing age etc.
I think a key question is - will it cause electric rates to go up? It will increase the cost of generation at some coal plants but the utility-proposed auction is supposed to drive prices to their lowest possible level and given the fact that this has no impact on the very cheap nuke power flowing into the grid, rates should remain very close to where they are.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 9:01 am
Well since the Galatia mine just laid off more than 150 people, I don’t think this is going to fly under the radar of southern Illinois residents. You can fool the people only so long by speaking with your forked tongue.
Comment by LittleEgypt Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 9:12 am
Voters don’t care about what this guys says anymore. He can claim a cancer cure right now, and the majority of voters won’t believe him.
Blagojevich is in a hole he dug himself. This is a spoonful of dirt to help, but only a spoonful.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 10:19 am
The sooner the electric utilities and big power producers tackle all of the problems caused by burning coal, the better. Illinois has an aging fleet of power plants that need to be cleaned up and eventually replaced with inherently cleaner combustion technologies, such as coal gasification. Mercury, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental contaminants released during the combustion of coal will have to be addressed systematically if the Illinois coal industry is to survive.
Comment by enviro-zealot Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 11:57 am
Indiana burns 85% Indiana coal in their power plants. They mine coal from the same seam underground that Illinois used to mine. Why don’t our brilliant leaders pick up the phone and ask Indiana how they do it under the same federal clean air laws that we all must live under? Kentucky is burning about 70% Kentucky coal. What about nuclear waste? Who wants that in their back yard? Not me down here. Illinois coal can be burned cleanly and safely just like Indiana/Kentucky coal is done. All we need is someone in Springfield with testical whatever it is to get the job done.
Comment by Paul Powell Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 12:47 pm
I just heard on the news that Bloggo claimed he became aware of mercury in fish when his wife was pregnant. And that’s why he’s on this bandwagon now. So does that mean he will no longer eat lobster, caviar, or shrimp prawns? Perhaps he needs to stay away from the fish frys in southern Illinois when he goes there to campaign and try to suck up 2 or 3 votes. Nothin’ like that deep fat fried blue gill or walleye. Ummm, mmmm good. Note to “the campaign kids”: Don’t even try going close to an American Legion fish fry. It will get real ugly.
Comment by LittleEgypt Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 1:36 pm
This is the same governor who, in the guise of “loophole closing,” repealed the pollution control devices exemption from the sales tax. In other words, since that time the scrubbing equipment used to bring sulfur emissions etc. within acceptable environmental regulatory limits has been subject to sales tax.
Some type of overall consistency of philosophy and approach by this administration would certainly make it easier to accept that their actions are motivated by anything other than their estimation of what may give them favorable press on a particular day.
Of course, the General Assembly, is equally at fault for slavishly voting for this type of stuff because of a fear that some future primary or general election opponent will use their vote as a campaign issue.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 5:50 pm
Illinois’ own State Water Survey Chief seems to disagree with the Governors assesment that mercury levels are caused by coal fired plants:
http://westernroundtable.com/news/article.asp?id=1074
and
http://www.sws.uiuc.edu/iswsdocs/journals/CMADIUSAS_HESS_8-1-10_98-102.pdf
Comment by anon Thursday, Jan 5, 06 @ 10:12 pm