Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

If it meets DEP air quality outline, power plant is welcome

January 13, 2013

It’s an episode that’s been repeated hundreds of times over the years. A power plant bringing jobs and economic development is proposed for Clinton Township on Saeger Station Roa....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-17-13 1:00 PM

I am sure what the writer meant to say was "Moxie is going to have to pay DEP enough to get approval". Let's tell it like it is!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-15-13 11:12 AM

A modern natural gas facility is an excellent complement to intermittent wind and solar. New gas plants can quickly and easily follow load swings when wind dies down, clouds pass overhead, or the sun sets. New gas plants also have extremely high energy conversion efficiencies; almost twice that of older coal plants. Replacing old coal and oil plants with high efficiency new gas plants helps the environment by lowering overall air emission (I was at the DEP hearing where charts showed the huge difference in emissions between coal and oil plants and a new gas plant). This is not a choice between renewables and natural gas. We need both.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-14-13 4:49 PM

The problems with this plant and others like it around the country are many. The first and most obvious is that by building this we are perpetuating a fossil fuel industry that is going to kill us all, very slowly. We have options, we can use solar and wind, but the money spent by the fossil fuel industry to convince everyone that these alternatives are not viable has worked. People truly believe that we have no options so they accept this. Also, this clean burning natural gas is really a neat idea, but let's consider all the inputs into this fuel and we can very clearly see that natural gas is somewhere around 20% "dirtier" than coal. This would take into account the harvesting of the gas via "fracking". A very large percentage of the gas is lost to the environment during this process to begin with. New estimates are anywhere from 4 to 9%. Also, the amount of truck trips it takes to utilize this process is enormous. Don't believe the hype, this is a bad i

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-13-13 6:19 AM

"Sometimes the emotional and practical lines become blurred..." - andy33


...Especially when those folks...who prefer the "convenience" of the status-quo...have such a difficult time admitting (or, recognizing) that CHANGE is ALSO an "absolute".

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-13-13 4:25 AM

Well... something has to generate the power needed for our ever consuming society. Since natural gas is here under our feet,it's cleaner and cheaper than burning coal...I just can't see a logical reason to turn down the project. Usually emotional reasons aren't logical or practical....although having a power plant in anyones backyard can stir up issues. The safety of value devaluation and the quality of life certainly need to be examined. Sometimes the emotional and practical lines become's a question for them to resolve.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 5 of 5 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web