Clean energy's cost
Clean energy's cost
I sympathize with families to be affected by the Mitchell and Hatfield's Ferry power-plant closings (“Mitchell Power Station slated to close,” July 10 and TribLIVE.com). But consider the big picture of FirstEnergy's decision to not spend $275 million to bring the plants in line with new federal air-quality rules.
As reported, FirstEnergy still plans to invest $650 million to update the rest of its system. After deactivation at Mitchell and Hatfield's Ferry, a little more than half of its system will be coal-fired plants, with a mix of nuclear, hydroelectric, gas and oil making up the rest.
I greatly value clean air and water, our most basic needs. I'm concerned that unregulated, high-carbon, greenhouse-gas-producing emissions are changing our climate and will cause the loss of more jobs and many lives in the future.
So if FirstEnergy closes dirty plants and invests in clean ones, and I pay what National Economic Research Associates estimated as $400 more annually for electricity because of federal regulations, then that's what it costs me to keep my air and water clean and save our future.
Are we going to progress and support clean energy only when someone else suffers to make it a reality?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Corbett is the honest choice
- Inconsistent Wolf
- Corbett over Wolf I
- Gross in 45th
- Corbett over Wolf II
- Watson in 33rd
- Wolf is the right choice
- Embrace domestic energy production
- An Obama clone
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Farewell, my Springdale