digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at planetsave.com

Court Halts Construction of Coal-Fired Power Plant

planetsave.com — A Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, Georgia has ruled that construction of Dynegy ’s Longleaf plant be halted until it is assured the plant will limit the amount of carbon dioxide it releases.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • davidryal, on 07/01/2008, -29/+32georgia? I expect this is places like the people's republic of california..
    • philodygmn, on 07/01/2008, -11/+21Maybe sanity is contagious >:-P
    • DiggGeek24, on 07/01/2008, -13/+3You bigotry is nice.
    • CryRightardCry, on 07/01/2008, -9/+4What, cleanliness?
      Forethought?
      Planning for the future?
      What a dumbass.
    • GrandmasterB, on 07/01/2008, -6/+5buried for the dumbass comment.
    • cawpin, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Why are you burying davidryal? He's absolutely correct. The Court in Georgia is apparently unaware of the FEDERAL regulations that require coal plants to limit CO2 emissions.
    • schuder, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4This is far from a "socialist" idea. Conservation is hardly liberal, liberals were just smart and took it up. Pollution is a property issue more than anything else. You are damaging someone elses' property. While Ron Paul makes some interesting arguments in his "Manifesto" his position on this is dead on. By government "caps" and legislation, it's trampling your property rights as a citizen. A government has no right to say to Company X, "You can pollute, but just this much." If they ruin your land, water, or air or a common property (reservoir, air) they should be liable for damages and sued. That is not only environmental, that is constitutional and removes all that extra pork and power from the government.
      • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Well, no. Liberals have always been into protecting the environment.

        It's not about property, it's about not ***** things up.
    • YannaKaristos, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0yeah you great opinion
  • tbhurst, on 07/01/2008, -10/+13Georgia and Kansas - at the cutting edge of U.S. environmental policy.
    • socket, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8Georgia and Kansas - at the cutting edge of environmental fear mongering and over reaction.

      In the mean time the power we need to run the country isn't going to generate itself.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1So you're in favor of building coal power plants without pollution controls?
      • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Well clearly anywhere near the Mississippi isn't going to be cutting edge because they're already under water.

        Although obviously you're not affected, so you're going to carry on with your *****-in-your-own nest "beliefs" until things start ***** up for you as well... and then what? I bet you blame...ooh... let me guess? Big government?

  • aaronadms, on 07/01/2008, -2/+28I live in Fulton County, and hadn't heard anything about this. I guess Digg has replaced national AND local news now.
  • Dralha, on 07/01/2008, -25/+9They should never have authorized to construct it in the first place. Coal is the filthiest, dirtiest, most disgusting natural resource on the planet.

    http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/
    • Slovenian6474, on 07/01/2008, -6/+4EWWWWW! This filthy, black, chalky stuff I dugg out of the ground is DIRTY!!
      • notoneofus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6As much as you may like it to be, the term "dugg" is not applicable in reference to something you do out in the real world.
      • Slovenian6474, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1It's a poor habit of mine to add the extra "g" without even thinking about it. I need a new hobby.
    • CrazyZ, on 07/01/2008, -2/+20And it makes up over 70% of our energy in America. We have hundreds of years of it in reserve, we'd be fools not to use it. If anything we need to figure out ways to utilize it in a cleaner manner and use as much as we can.
      • johnomaz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8/agree. Using it isn't bad its how we use it.
      • Dauntless1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Actually, a few different leading proponents of coal energy have already come up with a system that harnesses 100% energy and dumps an almost non-existent amount of pollution. The problem is, people who want to use coal don't want to use it right.
      • Slovenian6474, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Dauntless, what is this system? You do know how extremely difficult (dare I say impossible) a 100% efficient process is, right?
      • CrazyZ, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Yes, we have already designed "clean" coal, the problem is that the process is expensive and as of yet outweighs the benefits, but that's changing real fast thanks to the price of oil.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1The cost doesn't outweigh the benefits; it outweighs the willingness of executives to give up some of their profits.
    • Renton, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3You have to admit, it smells pretty nice.
    • Buelldozer, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9It's also mostly responsible for something happening when you flip the power switch on your computer and keeping you out of the dark when the sun goes down.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Dralha probably doesn't use electricity. That computer is powered by rainbows, wishes, and dreams.
    • migshark, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I contest that greed and shortsightedness is to blame.
  • arjie, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Kansas, from Kansa - people of the wind, I've been told. How apt.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -7/+46"The original permit would have allowed the plant to emit 9 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, something the court said was unreasonable."

    I had thought the purpose of the judicial system was to interpret and apply the law to specific cases. If the legislative (they make the laws, not the court, remember?) had decided this was the limit, who is the court to overturn that decision because it is "unreasonable?" There doesn't seem to be any interpretation needed here, as a specific number had been set. What a bunch of bullcrap... If you're whining about high energy prices but aren't up in arms about this, shut your trap.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/01/2008, -3/+25I was perplexed by this exact same thing. Seems the court is entering the law making business here.
      • themonkman, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2The Supreme Court decisions have almost always held the same weight as a law, without exactly being the same as a standard legislative law.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4To a certain extent. However, this Superior Court is clearly stating that the emissions granted by this approved permit are totally unreasonable. Basically the Superior Court in this case is enacting environmental law by stating that factories must emit less than 9 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

        Now I'm not well-read on what the law states as far as annual maximums for carbon dioxide emissions, but if 9 million tons is within that range (as I would think it would have to be for the permit to be issued), this court is entirely out of line.
    • dwm1225, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15At least there is someone on here with some smarts in their head! Our laws are no longer worth anything when our courts (who are supposed uphold the law) are deciding which laws they do and do not like and then deciding which ones to uphold. We live in scary times.
    • donte, on 07/01/2008, -3/+13Separation of powers? Oh, you must have been reading that antiquated constihoodoo document again. That document has been listed as a known terrorist, so we've severed ties with it and anything contained within it completely.

      /public service announcment from the ministry of truth
    • rald84, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2"The court cited the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling recognizing that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act."

      that is the following sentence. did you read the scotus decision and the clean air act?
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7A SCOTUS decision stating that CO2 is a pollutant does not overrule state law regarding what is allowed, as all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
      • mcquitty, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8Carbon Dioxide, that life giving gas to plants, is a pollutant?

        Damn, we should eradicate all CO2 immediately. I wonder how well we will all fare.
    • stupidape, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2Permits are not issued by congress, the 'law making' body in the US government. They are issued by the executive branch's various agencies. Judges determine if the permits are consistent with the laws passed by those bodies.

      Get your facts straight.
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4And who decides that a permit is required? I'd bet somewhere, someone in the executive branch said "Gee, there should probably be a permit for these darn power plants. I think I'll make one." Right?

        Fat chance. I would be that at some time, the Georgia state Congress decided that permits must be issued in order to build a new power plant. As a result of this decision, the permits were then issued by the executive branch. Legislative making the laws, executive enforcing it. See how that works?
      • subterfuge, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3judges are not part of the executive branch, stupidape!
    • jdepp, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2To put it in perspective, they're burning the coal on behalf of the people of Georgia who are going to buy the electricity.

    • ponyboy96, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Great, another liberal judge legislating from the bench.
    • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Checks and balances.
  • sciencesays, on 07/01/2008, -16/+2I expect the courts to stand up to the legislature when they're representing the business interests of a few over the health interests of the public, and there's no question anymore that coal processing plants, especially with this level of pollution, are a health risk
    • Buelldozer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12I expect the courts to uphold the law, not pull numbers out of their ass regarding 'tolerable' limits.
  • dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -11/+29And the environmentalists continue to whine about high energy prices...
    • stupidape, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5EVERYONE is whining about gas prices, not coal which shares no competitive market with gas.
      • dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8You've named yourself fittingly. Coal is an alternative energy source to oil. The more coal we use to produce electricity the less oil we have to use to do the same job. The less oil we use to produce power for people's homes the lower their electric bills are. By blocking the opening of a coal power plant environmentalists are blocking something that would bring energy prices down....while continuing to whine about them being high. Get it?
      • jonnyboy1544, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5That's not right. We hardly use oil as a source for electricity. During the winter in places like the northeast, people use heating oil. Natural gas is used a lot, but it's hardly oil.

        Now there is a big push to use coal for a liquid fuel called coal-to-liquids (CTL) but thats different since it's not really in production...yet.
      • dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Natural gas and petroleum are two resources that are pretty tightly linked together. The same areas that are rich in petroleum are also typically rich in natural gas. As a result it suffers from the same economic fluctuations as oil. Just as the price of oil has gone up in recent months, so has the price of natural gas. So the premise remains valid.
      • dsmx, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4The environmentalists want high energy prices though, it forces people to change there habits.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Coal power plant pollution kills tens of thousands of Americans per year.
      • dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3Unicorns kill tens of thousands of Americans per year.

        See? I can make up uncited facts too.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 07/02/2008, -3/+2Right on, Dan. HonestAbe stinks.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2You can't be serious. That's like requiring me to provide a citation for "the sky is blue". Can you stick your heads any deeper into the sand?


        “For the World as a whole coal provides 40% of the total electricity i.e. 6,940 TWh/y and corresponding to 171,418 “annual coal-based electricity deaths.”
        'The US “annual coal-based electricity deaths” have been estimated at 30,000 [2002]'
        http://green-blog.org/2008/06/14/pollutants-from-c ...

        "Air pollution from the nation’s coal-fired power plants causes some 24,000 premature deaths each year ... Some 2,800 of these deaths were from lung cancer, according to the report. In addition, pollution from coal-fired power plants causes some 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year, 554,000 asthma attacks and some three million lost work days. "
        http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10 ...

        "The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year."
        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbu ...

        "emissions from coal-fired stations in the rest of the UK are causing a further 7000 deaths a year."
        http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20 ...

        "In fact, particle pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year-a shocking figure when compared to the 17,000 homicides committed each year."
        http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/powe ...

        "Some 25,100 U.S. Deaths from Coal Use Largely Preventable "
        http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
      • dan222555, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Notice how I never said it wasn't true....I just want you to know you can't just make blanket statements like that without citing them.

        All that does is make an even stronger case for nuclear as far as I'm concerned. But the environmentalists don't like that either. Their holding out for the discovery of that magic fairy dust that produces all the worlds energy while simultaneously cleansing the environment.
      • HonestAbe, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1"Notice how I never said it wasn't true....I just want you to know you can't just make blanket statements like that without citing them."

        Then why aren't you asking for a citation for the sky being blue?
    • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3Well acually, we're not whining about high prices.

      In the rest of the world we already pay double what you (whining right-wing wankers) pay, and it's ok. It's not great, but it's ok... this is kindof expected.
      • dan222555, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4It's not my problem your government taxes you at absurd rates. Had you embraced the "right wing wanker" policy of fiscal conservatism instead of liberal tax tax tax economics you wouldn't be paying double.
  • SoopaflySAM, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2God is pissed
  • GrandmasterB, on 07/01/2008, -13/+3Environment +1
  • MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -8/+11That's retarded.
  • LawSchoolBound, on 07/01/2008, -3/+25This is a serious problem. The company has spent millions designing this plant and probably years working on the permits. Either the states or the country as a whole needs to develop a policy on carbon emissions so the companies will know what they can and cannot build. They were obviously trying to follow what they believed to be the law, but with ambiguous stuff like this it's becoming impossible. If the state had wanted some sort of alternative energy or nuclear power then they should have told this company not to waste its time.
    • stupidape, on 07/01/2008, -8/+4They are not stopping them from building the plant. Only halting it until it is compliant with the laws already on the books.
      • jbmcb, on 07/01/2008, -2/+13THEY WERE COMPLIANT! They pulled a permit. The *court* decided the limits permit the permit allowed were "unreasonable".

        Think of it this way: You build a house. You pull all the permits and it's in compliance with all city/county/state codes. You go to move in only to find your neighbor has filed an injunction saying your house is too big and you have to make your house 100 square feet smaller. A court upholds this ruling. Do you think this is appropriate behavior for a court?

  • SteelChicken, on 07/01/2008, -7/+14one day the judge will wonder why his/her electricity keeps going out.
    • floorman56, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Just like in Ca when they stopped building power plants ....Until the blackouts started and Gov "Grayout" Davis got booted
  • DWalla, on 07/01/2008, -2/+23Time to move to pellet nuclear reactors. We have to have power... we just need to kill our pollution. Coal power plants make up 60% of the USA's total air pollution. Nuclear power plants, like they use in Europe, would be huge in eliminating air pollutants.
    • HoratioHellpop, on 07/01/2008, -6/+5Good point, but if you think the libtard tree hugging jackasses will let a new nuke plan go uncontested, I have a bridge to sell you ....
      • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6I'm a libtard tree-hugging jackass, and I completely agree with DWalla. What does nuclear fusion have to do with liberalism?
      • HoratioHellpop, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2@HonestAbe ... just ask the residents of Washington and Oregon how much the libtard tree-hugging jackasses support nuke plants. Oh, wait ... they're the ones that caused them to be banned in the state ... nevermind
    • bjornski, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Many of those "libtard tree hugging jackasses" support nuclear over coal.
      • Ebulating, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Not enough. Too many have a nearly religious opposition to it.
  • ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -5/+11Well, once we stop all evil production of electricity, bankrupt the evil American corporations, and end our addiction to oil, a few billion people will starve and the Earth will be back in balance.

    Long live the rare toothless bald beaver!!!!
    • warlokaz2004, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2you know I'm suprised the hippies ranting about 'carbon emissions' don't acknowledge the elephant in the room -- that birthrates in third world nations produce a large number of tree cutting, forest burning, animal killing, resource using "Carbon Emitters"
      • ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2"third world nations" - careful, you might get acused of promoting genocide against some oppressed minority. :)
      • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1That's because we're educated.

        The rain forests aren't being cut down to feed the third world, they're being cut down to feed fat ***** like you.
      • ElDiablo6870, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Who is the fat *****? And, why "*****"?
      • ASeventhSign, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Why do you think liberals support abortion?
        and nick ... heh you're a total douche :)
  • awesomeric, on 07/01/2008, -11/+2(insert typical digg comment that gets buried)
  • Barackalypse, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6Looks like someone didn't pay their bribes. Also, I believe this is the type of activist judicial decision making many of us criticize. Of course because the ruling supports a liberal cause they aren't going to whine about it.
  • AsylumAleikum, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2After all, who in this country needs electricity?
  • andy314159pi, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4I worry about global warming more than anyone, but this seems like a radical step to take this soon. There has to be a plan to deal with this, not random assertions of authority... this problem can be dealt with without destroying our way of life.
    • nick111, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1And your way of life will be destroyed by this how?
      • andy314159pi, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3maybe by the lack of readily available electricity if we stop using coal?
  • warlokaz2004, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3since its in Georgia why not pump all the Co2 to the coke-cola bottling plant?
    • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1..along with the carcinogenic radioactive soot.
      • warlokaz2004, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0sure, they can call it "Coke eXtremE" and market it to the "Red Bull" crowd.
  • salinemist, on 07/01/2008, -4/+5Idiots, CO2 is plant food.
    • bjornski, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4And water is good for you.

      But too much is a BAD thing.

      Same with CO2
      • salinemist, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Do you have any idea how much of an increase we're talking about?

        Less than 2 ppm a year.
    • HonestAbe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure dirt is "plant food".
  • Lectrik, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0In other news, Georgia court will pay increased electricity costs to any GA resident that requests it, until the new coal fired plant is online.


    You have any idea how that was to type with a straight face?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.