Comments

concerned resident wrote on Feb 5, 2008 1:11 AM:

" To Mr. Pubius,

FYI it is plagiarism (Webster prefers), and not plagerism (sic). Further, whether you spell it correctly or not, it was not the case since the company website was referred to in the comments.

How preposterous of you to presume to call anyone "sophomoric" when you can't even spell or make a correct or well-informed comment.

Furthermore, you appear to have arrived at your outlandish opinions about "clean coal" from slanted and questionable sources, and there is nothing sophisticated about that. "




concerned resident wrote on Feb 5, 2008 12:59 AM:

" "To Publius"

Mercury is highly toxic to the brains of developing fetuses and small babies, also to children who breathe more often and play outside in the water or close to the ground where coal contamination settles.

Elderly people and all sportspeople are also at great risk of ingesting and inhaling coal emissions. The toxins enter the blood stream through the lungs, this leads to heart disease, lung disease, brain damage, asthma, birth defects, cancers. This also leads to increase in lost time from school, work, hospital costs, loss of business success and increasing poverty. "




concerned resident wrote on Feb 5, 2008 12:43 AM:

" Dear Mr. Pubius, Coal is only "relevant" as it was a huge contributor to political elections in the past, as was oil, gas, and pharmaceuticals. "Pay back time" is the promotion of coal and the free lunch given to coal companies today, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what is best for the American people, the world, and future generations. Clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal may be plentiful, but that is no comfort since the sludge it produces, the toxins and diseases it produces, and the greenhouse gasses it produces are all serious and intractable problems. "




Wasilla27 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Publius is an MEA lackey who is content to spew baseless propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. Kind of like what the pathetic board of directors does.

Time for change folks. Don't forget to vote Burchell and Kincaid for the board. And encourage others to do the same. "




To Publius wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:21 AM:

" And again you result to insulting those that disagree with you rather than actually engaging in a debate with them. And does anyone even know that all of those comments came from the same person? Or are you just assuming again? So tell me, why exactly would anyone want to continue dignifying you with responses? For that matter, why am I bothering? It's not like you've ever said anything in any one of your posts to indicate that anyone could ever actually say anything that could get you to re-examine anything you think. "




Publius wrote on Jan 28, 2008 11:27 PM:

" Why no answer to the plagerism charge?
Highly intelligent people give proper citation to the words of others.
How completely sophomoric...shame on you. "




Think about this wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Taking MEA from a 527-like distribution cooperative to a full blown G&T on an electrical system the already has 4 G&Ts and doesn't serve the load any bigger than a good sized neighborhood in Seattle will not make the rates go down. No kidding and no matter if the members vote for a nuke. MEA is run by spin doctors and politicians and they're not gonna let little things like economics and physics get in the way their message. I certainly hope the members vote for change this election before we're under contract to build the current board's dream "




Here's a thought wrote on Jan 24, 2008 8:11 AM:

" How about MEA just settling the whole coal issue once and for all. Some people say the members don't want it, some people say they do. Why doesn't MEA just hold an advisory vote on whether COAL should be the fuel used for local generation of power. A straight up-or-down vote. No one-sided spin from MEA, no $160,000 media campaigns, just the simple question and the people all having a chance to vote and make their opinion heard. After all, it is our co-op. So Lorali, I know you read these comments...please take that idea to the Board. Thanks. "




I love Publius wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:09 AM:

" No reason a standard coal generator won't work in the Valley, eh? Well there is the toxins spewed into the air and water. Poisoned fish like in Pennsylvania with its coal fired plants and unfishable streams. There's the CO2 load into an already warming atmosphere (yeah publius, debate me on global warming, please. I read the matsuvalleynews too). But most importantly, how about this one...the people who actually OWN MEA don't want a coal fired plant. The Co-op belongs to all of us, not just you and a few people in power. It's time to vote for change folks. "




TO PUBLIUS wrote on Jan 24, 2008 7:03 AM:

" "The Religious Doctrine of Global Warming"? Oh get real. Here are just a few of the problems with "clean coal" generation: lead, arsenic and other heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, tiny soot particles which collect in human lungs and cause respiratory diseases, mercury that accumulates in our fish and then us when we eat them. And of course, CO2, but since you deny global warming you don't care about that one. For the not insane people out there reading this, these should all be concerns...a lot worse than glacier silt (which also makes most people sick, btw). "




Wasilla27 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:52 PM:

" Question for Publius: Does Carmony know you're posting here? "




Publius wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:15 PM:

" Is plagerism popular among the highly-intelligent? Three word-for-word paragraphs from the Wikipedia website on FutureGen and no citation.
Why limit the choice of coal energy to just FutureGen? Other options are available, but educating the public on all the options does not meet the goal for the Kabal. There is no reason a standard coal generator will not work in the Valley. Why don't we clean the air-pollutant called glacier dust?
Coal is rejected because it does not fit into the religious doctrine of "Global-Warming".
Where were the coal plants the last time the earth warmed? "




More on FutureGen wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Because of these constraints, FutureGen-based-designs cannot help us take full advantage of America's large coal reserves in any meaningful way while embracing the carbon-sequestration technologies it implements. Further, the risks include the possibility of underground leaks or massive blowouts, especially in fault-zones, that could slowly-or-rapidly release the very atmospheric pollutants that FutureGen is hoped to reduce. Finally, costs are estimated at 5-cents/kWh minimum for carbon sequestration (where possible), plus the extremely high capital costs (as high as $3,593/kW). The long and short of it is, in geologically unstable Alaska, FutureGen technology is not our best generation choice. "




Publius is referring to FutureGen wrote on Jan 23, 2008 3:12 PM:

" ...a project of the US government to build a near-zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant to produce hydrogen and electricity while using carbon capture and storage. Unfortunately, there are only a small number of potential geological locations for sequestering large volumes of atmospheric pollutants underground, as called for by FutureGen. This severely limits its maximum potential deployment. IF FutureGen is 100% successful, the majority of growing urban locations where it can be used is highly-constrained. The best that can be hoped for is that FutureGen will provide new electrical capacity in only-a-few places. "




I'm a thinking person. wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:57 PM:

" High IQ. PhD in Environmental Science. Consulted with the biggest power generators in the world for most of my career. When I think of a coal plant going in NOW, I don't laugh. Zero-emission plants and carbon-sequestration technologies are decades, not years, from being realities-not that we know the technologies are even feasible in a large-scale-production model. A plant going in now, under current regulations, would not have to implement these newer techs until a significant-enough redesign is required, probably at 40+ years into life cycle. Until then, no truly "clean" operation should be expected. "




Thanks for the Web Reference Publius wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:37 PM:

" The website he sites as a good source of information on Clean Coal is from The Coalition for Affordable and reliable Energy (CARE), a coalition of organizations including ultra-conservative groups such as the 60 Plus Association, Americans for Tax Reform and Frontiers of Freedom Institute, as well as powerful lobbying groups such as Edison Electric Institute and the National Mining Association. Its publicity firm is Dittus Communications - which played critical roles in campaigns concerning electricity deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and licensing the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Consider the source before swallowing the claims. "




Economies of Scale wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:16 PM:

" ...have to dictate that our Co-op's current "go it alone" approach to power generation will wind up costing us more as members than we would pay through cooperation with other utilities. Whether that means we buy from others, partner with others on key projects and research/R&D, or wind up generating power for half the state ourselves, consolidation of generating into a few large, well regulated and well designed large-scale cites seems to make the most economic sense. I just want to see the actual numbers and see our Co-op really consider what is best for its members long-term. "




The Real Debate wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:11 PM:

" This isn't a debate about Coal or No Coal. This is a debate about "How do MEA members get the cheapest, safest, cleanest, and most secure power source"? That HAS to be the first question we deal with. Answering this with more than a knee-jerk from either side requires examining all the options, including coal, in a thorough and complete way with real numbers and best/worse case scenarios that has not yet been done by MEA. Costs are underestimated at construction and generation levels, based on a best case scenario that almost certainly won't come to pass. "




No Coal Fired Power Plant. wrote on Jan 23, 2008 12:24 PM:

" MEA management needs to quit litigating everything it proposes. If it's a good fair idea, that benefits the Co-Op members. It won't require litigating. We need to regain control of the board then move to remove the GM. Most of all of our problems started when the current GM was hired. If MEA truely wants clean cheap power why not build a monster mega-watt natural gas plant on the North Slope? Where most of States gas is stranded. Then MEA can sell cheap power to the entire state. "




Publius wrote on Jan 23, 2008 10:04 AM:

" The image of tall smoke-stacks belching black soot over the landscape is 19th century. Its use today in this debate is a non-sequitur and clearly a marketing tactic of the Ratepayers Kabal. It might scare children, puppies, and kittys, but when thinking people see those signs they just roll their eyes and laugh.
Coal equals:
1.Mining jobs and subsidiary employment in the Valley
2.Safe, clean, and plentiful energy now
3.Technological R&D, today and future, keeps plants running at a continually efficient level for the life of the plant
4. Does not exclude other energy alternatives
Coal Now...ASAP. "




Publius wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:48 AM:

" Opponents to coal have a knee-jerk reaction to things they do not understand. The US currently uses coal for more than 53% of all power generation and will increase the position of coal as demand for power keeps growing. Coal continues to be modern,relavent, job-producing,and American.
One billion dollars was allocated in 2002 for the research, development, and implementation of clean burning coal technology by the Federal Government. The research is closing in on 0% emissions by 2012. Visit this site to read some information.
http://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_environment/clean-coal-technology.asp
If that is 19th century, then hitch up the buggy. "




Up with Coal... wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:05 AM:

" The power of the 19th Century! Let's turn back the hands of time to a simpler, sootier time. "




Who do we Sue? wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:55 AM:

" So, when the petition gatherer is committing fraud to get signatures, and several petition firms around the country have been shut down and their managers sent to prison for exactly the same thing, who do we sue or who do we call to get this stopped? It isn't legal, it isn't moral, and it isn't something we should allow in this Valley. If people honestly want coal, fine. If they honestly want natural gas, fine. But MEA and its hired help don't have the right to defraud the voters to get their way. "




Coal is Now??? wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:51 AM:

" Yes, there is a lot of coal right now. Is that what we want to be stuck with 40 years from now after our investment of 100s of millions of dollars in an energy system that is perhaps "now" but certainly not the future? Personally, I want to see a true accounting of costs for generation plans, as well as the costs for sticking with Chugach, so people can at least make an informed choice. But MEA won't give us that, just their hyped and debunked studies bought and paid for to generate exactly the results they want. "




Democritus wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:49 AM:

" Oh My Lord, I actually agree with Publius on something. My head may explode wit the sheer cognitive dissonance. I too agree that a new petition should be started to overturn the ordinance. But that is where our agreement ends. A new petition should be started and the old petition and its signatures thrown out, since many were gathered through fraud and Lorali even admitted to having to give the signature gatherer a new script to keep the problem from happening again. Time to start over MEA. "




TO PUBLIUS wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:32 AM:

" Ok, that really is just nuts Publius. The overgeneralizations about your political enemies are really quite funny, moreso if you actually believe them. They oppose all progress? They're a Kabal who want you to have no electricity. Please tell me you don't actually believe this. Its like when Dennis started talking about "Greenies" hating all of humanity...you people really can't believe all this rhetoric, can you? "




Wasilla27 wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:28 AM:

" To Publius: "Ratepayers-Kabal"? What a drama queen.

To end this madness for good, people need to vote in the upcoming board election and mark their ballots for Peter Burchell and Janet Kincaid. A vote for Burchell-Kincaid is a vote for an open and honest board that conducts business the way its members want -- not the way management wants.

Time to send these self-serving MEA managers packing. "




Publius wrote on Jan 22, 2008 9:05 PM:

" Where is the nearest place to sign the petition? Another petition to over-turn the entire borough ordinance needs to get started as well. Coal is a great and plentiful fuel that sits about 20 miles away. Waiting 5 years just to satisfy the Ratepayers-Kabal deprives the majority/public from the greater benefit of coal-fired energy. The next thing the Kabal will advocate is burning candles instead of lightbulbs. They oppose all progress just to have some power. How miniscle and petty.
Coal is now, natural gas is years away.
Scrap the ordinance and tweak the Ratepayers-Kabal. "




Working with MEA wrote on Jan 22, 2008 4:47 PM:

" Actually, several members of the Assembly and Borough staff met with MEA to discuss power generation in the Valley. At the same time, MEA goes forward with a ballot initiative to remove the power plant ordinance. And they go forward with lawsuits against the Borough Clerk. And they go forward with lawsuits against our electricity producer Chugach. The list goes on and on. At this point, why should anyone want to come to the table in good faith to work with MEA...it just doesn't go well. "




No Coal Fired Power Plant. wrote on Jan 22, 2008 11:01 AM:

" Give it a rest MEA. You might be able to push around your members but the Borough and the City of Palmer don't play by your set of rules. QUIT SPENDING OUR MONEY ON SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT. "




How can this be legal? wrote on Jan 22, 2008 9:04 AM:

" MEA is paying a petition signature gatherer to collect. He's telling people that it is necessary to gather signatures so MEA can build a gas power plant (which isn't true). When MEA gets this on the ballot, they are going to use our own co-op money to fight the campaign. Considering how much they spent on the "advisory vote" last summer, how much of our money do you think they are going to waste telling us how to vote? "