When it comes to the science of global warming and what needs to be done about it, who do you believe? Two choices.
1. NASA Goddard Insitute's Dr. James Hansen, "[o]ne of the world's leading climate scientists," who is warning that "the world must urgently make huge CO2 reductions" and that current climate targets are not nearly aggressive enough?
or
2. Dominion Power executive Thomas P. Farrell II, who says that "Those who seek to demonize coal or eliminate its use are, quite honestly, disconnected from reality." (Farrell adds, "They are placing 'pie in the sky' above practicality.")
In short, the scientific evidence is clear and overwhelming that we must slash world CO2 emissions ASAP if -- as Dr. Hansen says -- "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed." Or, we can ignore that evidence and continue on our merry (and highly profitable to companies like Dominion) way, as "Virginia Fossil Fool of the Year" Tom Farrell would prefer.
You decide.
P.S. In other global warming related news, former Clinton Administration DOE official Joseph Romm says that technology alone can't stop global warming. Romm also writes that "Marylands keeps getting greener". No mention of Virginia, sadly. :(
But sadly it's people like Farrell who are disconnected from reality. Global Warming is THE threat of our times and we can not continue with the BAU model no matter how much people want to. When we look at it from this perspective, Farrell couldn't be more wrong.
If the argument is framed as one where we need to fit our fight against Global Warming into the current lifestyle model, we will never make progress. So it doesn't matter whether it's Farrell or someone we meet on the street - we must start re-framing the argument so that it focuses on modifying our way of living so it fits into the parameters defined by the fight against Global Warming, not the other way around.
You can't reach a sound conclusion without realizing our society's need for electricity, in real terms.
Al Gore says all coal generation should go, v. Hansen all new coal.
Guys like Farrell are saying new dirty coal until real clean coal comes. But if he is to be believed, other much serious attempts in alternatives has to be put forth. While Dominion has put out some pilot conservation and efficiency projects out there, they are doing so begrudgingly. They have also lobbied for friendly generation in this state, i.e. low RPS, for the sake of our neighbor's to the north. So one has to wonder how sincere Farrell is, towards his belief that GW is truly being forced by man.
Then there are the anti-coal or anti-new coal movements which are plagued with supporters against nuclear. This is about a non-starter as views that are pro-AGW but agree with new dirty coal. The goal is to reduce C02 to ease global temperatures or at the very least increase the quality of life. Coal is currently 50% of our generation source and moving forward to meet demand and replace coal, can not be accomplished with major increases in nuclear capacity. Dominion has stated its desire for a total of 8 reactors filed by 2030. Of course Virginia will need some of this power, but most will be exported to New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware.
If new dirty coal comes to Wise, there certainly should be trade off's, such as waste-to-fuel in Richmond, in the greater Roanoke area, in the C-ville and H-burg area, increased RPS and EEC from 10% each to 20% by 2022, as well as the conversion of the oldest coal-plants to gas or their modification with the latest technology to reduce other GHG.
Of course none of this woudl be happening if
1.) Dominion didn't suddenly plan to export ~5,000 MW to DC, MD, DE and NJ, none of this would be happening.
2.) DC and NJ replaced its old retiring generators with new generators
3.) VA raised its RPS & generation standards
4.) DC-MD-DE-NJ lowered their RPS & generation standards
If higher energy prices are upon us, we shouldn't try to fight it. Let's accept it, but accept it with less C02 output.
If you want Dominion to build generation other than coal, then you simply need to provide them with a business proposal that clearly shows a better rate of return on an alternative. Though since we are back to the regulatory framework, nothing can be better than this coal plant because the re-regulation law makes this the best choice. And floodguy makes an excellent point, they can export this power anywhere in PJM and make a good deal of money off it that I think now all goes to their investors (no revenue sharing). I guess ultimately you can't change Dominion's mind because they are already acting in their best interest. And unless you change the law, there is no alternative that has a higher return than what they are currently doing.
The public route seems the most difficult option to me. There are more pressing issues that are facing Virginians right now than Global Warming. There is not an immediacy to this issue like finding employment or keeping your house. And it is just like the occupation of Iraq. People may be generally opposed to it, but this feeling is superficial at best. There is no action associated with the general feeling of opposition.
I see this entire event as a Cassandra-esque moment. For myths, I like to use her a lot. Well, Cassandra warned her fellow Trojans not to bring the Trojan Horse inside the city gates. But no one listened. And you see here we go, it will be too late before the majority of people realize the folly of their actions. My advice: don't buy real estate in Florida.