Member Login

Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

M.C. Solid Waste Citizen’s Advisory Committee Passes Resolution Supporting Renewable Energy

September 22, 2011
By

09/23/11 On Wednesday, September 21st the Marshall County Solid Waste Management District’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee passed a resolution supporting local renewable energy projects.  Members said that these projects will help to offset the tremendous amounts of pollution and wastes that are generated through traditional coal-fired power plants.  Using wind power and the local coal-fired power plant as an example the annual totals for waste generated stack up as follows:

Waste Generation:                                     Coal                             Wind

Carbon Dioxide:                        21,555,724,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Sulfur Dioxide:                                    64,874,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Nitrogen Oxides:                                 21,110,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Hydrochloric Acid:                                  279,817 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Sulfuric Acid:                                              897,853 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Mercury Emissions:                                          505 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Small Particles:                                     1,000,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Hydrocarbons:                                          440,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Carbon Monoxide:                               1,440,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Arsenic:                                                                  225 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Lead:                                                                         114 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Cadmium:                                                                    4 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Coal Ash:                                            250,000,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Sludge:                                                 386,000,000 lbs.                 0 lbs.

Water consumption:                  11,160,500,000 gallons          negligible

 

These figures do not include wastes or emissions attributed to the mining, transportation, or delivery of coal to the local power plant.  Conversely, wind and solar are delivered naturally.

 

The resolution notes that the police of the Solid Waste Management District is to reduce waste and lessen hazardous waste as set forth in the District’s 20 year waste management plan.  It also stated that replacing waste generating fossil fuels with clean, non-polluting renewable energy sources that will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Marshall County.

As the Citizen’s Advisory Committee they advocate diversifying the local electric energy mix including the establishment and implementation of non-waste generating renewable energy projects.

The Solid Waste Board is also considering a similar resolution or position statement.

WordPress Plugin Share Bookmark Email

4 Responses to “ M.C. Solid Waste Citizen’s Advisory Committee Passes Resolution Supporting Renewable Energy ”

  1. anon on September 24, 2011 at 7:13 am

    This comes from a Wall Street Journal article found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html

    Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new “Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

    Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

    An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

    The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

    By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other “alternatives.”

    The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

    All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of “green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.

  2. anon on September 23, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Thanks realist. Good to know. Those turbines must cost a bundle to make and put up. Any idea how long the payback period is?

  3. realist on September 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Anon, Neither of your statments are true.Wind energy is federally subsidized at nearly the same rate as other sources, nuke,clean coal etc.
    Landowner compensation is close to your figure but on an anual basis.

  4. anon on September 23, 2011 at 8:02 am

    I read where the cost of this will require a subsidy of about a third more than other fuels. That means spending more of our tax dollars that this country doesn’t have right now. I also read that the land owner where the wind mill is located will get $5000 per month. Sounds like greed will play a part in this also.