Southern Company Has Been Participating Voluntarily In The U.N. Agenda

 

21st Century Coal are plants that Capture CO2

(Agenda 21/Kyoto Protocols)

Warm Fuzzy Chart with Dire Meanings

 

The Bush Administration has not supported U.S. ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol or other mandatory carbon dioxide reduction legislation; however,
in 2002, it did announce a goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of
the U.S. economy, the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to the value of U.S.
economic output, by 18 percent by 2012. Southern Company is participating
in the voluntary electric utility sector climate change initiative, known as
Power Partners, under the Bush Administration’s Climate VISION program.
The utility sector pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions rate by
3 percent to 5 percent by 2010-2012. The Company continues to evaluate
future energy and emission profiles relative to the Power Partners program
and is participating in voluntary programs to support the industry initiative.
In addition, the Company is participating in the Bush Administration’s Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a (((public/private
partnership))) to work together to meet goals for energy security, national air
pollution reduction, and climate change in ways that promote (((sustainable
economic growth and poverty reduction))). Legislative proposals that would
impose mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions continue to be
considered in Congress. The ultimate outcome cannot be determined at this
time; however, mandatory restrictions on the Company’s carbon dioxide
emissions could result in significant additional compliance costs that could
affect future results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition if such
costs are not recovered through regulated rates.

Here

SOUTHERN COMPANY ANNUAL REPORT reveals their goal to cooperate voluntarily with the plans originating from the United Nations to control and weaken America.

 

Tom Fanning, of Southern Company, wants Agenda 21 Coal Plants “21 Century Coal.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

More American Lignite Plants CLOSE but MS Power Is On Schedual for Impact

While Mississippians continue to enjoy the lower electric rates they are unaware of the pending costly nightmare they are about to wake up to;  Mississippi Power will tear our dreams from our futures through our wallets.  It is always a shame to see businesses collapse, but collapsing as a result of following the United Nations AGENDA 21 (Kyoto protocols), to enforce unreasonable regulations dictated by the U.N.’s timeline, destroys the American freedom men and women died for.  That should inspire us to action.  The businesses that will collapse are the ones in Mississippi, in your neighborhood, belonging to your friends as a result of inflating electric bills.

Mississippi is standing on the tracks and the train  is plowing right for us, if we don’t get off the track we will face the crippling impact straight on.  We must stand up, speak out, and take action.  Kemper County Lignite Coal Plant is just a decisive battle over Mississippi’s economy but it is Agenda 21 that is the war for our nation and fulfills everyone’s worst nightmare.

For more information concerning Agenda 21’s Green Agenda click Here


Luminant files notice of suspension of operations for two Monticello units with state energy council

By Staff Reports
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 11:52 AM CDT

DALLAS — Luminant filed a Notice of Suspension of Operations with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Monday for Monticello units 1 and 2 in Titus County.

This action is consistent with the details of the company’s news release and Securities and Exchange Commission 8-K filing on September 12, 2011, according to a company statement.

The notice was filed to comply with ERCOT’s own protocol that requires a 90-day notice for changes to electric generating unit operations.

Monday’s filing describes action necessitated by the need to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule beginning January 1, 2012.

The company has indicated previously that it intends to continue to seek to identify and pursue options that might allow them to restore levels of generation at the units affected by the rule.

Luminant has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to remove Texas from a new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule due to go into effect early next year that the company says will force it to idle two power plants and end mining operations at three lignite mines across the state.

The company also plans to file a lawsuit to stop the rule, which is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and will require Texas to significantly reduce power plant emissions. Luminant has said previously that the only way it can comply is by idling its Monticello Units in Mount Pleasant and by ending use of lignite for fuel at its Big Brown Units in Freestone County, using instead only coal from the Powder River basin.

The company says it would also end mining operations in Freestone County and at its Thermo and Winfield mines in Hopkins and Upshur counties, although it would continue reclamation activities at all three.

The company says the effect of the moves would be to reduce generating capacity by 1,300 megawatts.


http://www.dailytribune.net/articles/2011/10/04/news/doc4e8b33c181832466551796.txt

Carbon Capture Plants Failures – 81% + Increase to Your BILL

What’s Killing Carbon Capture?

CCS technology promised the best of all worlds: Abundant power from coal while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Now pilot programs are pulling the plug

By and

New Haven, WVNew Haven, WV Floto + Warner

On a brittle, blustery afternoon on the outskirts of New Haven, W. Va., thefaint odor of ammonia isn’t the only sour note in the air. New Haven, an Ohio River coal mining town of 1,550, is home to American Electric Power’s (AEP) 1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant. The plant has a 1,103-foot-tall chimney and burns 12,000 tons of coal a day to generate electricity for AEP’s 11-state grid, which supplies power to 5.3 million customers. In the process, it annually belches out 8.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

Abutting the plant is an ambitious $100 million experiment: a seven-story, steel-and-fiberglass rectangle, corralled by dull metal catwalks and rattled by motors and pumps. The apparatus traps a portion of the plant’s carbon-dioxide-rich exhaust using an ammonia-based catalyst. (Hence the acrid smell.) The reclaimed CO₂ is pumped 8,000 feet underground, where, in theory, it will remain harmlessly out of the atmosphere. The goal of the experiment is to prove that carbon capture and storage technology, or CCS, works, and in so doing, provide one possible solution to global warming. 

CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING! (more on that soon)

This year catastrophic storms, drought, and relentless heat have underscored how welcome such a solution would be. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2011 continues the trend of rising temperatures that has seen nearly every year of the 2000s hotter, on average, than the 1990s, and the 1990s hotter than the ’80s.

Coal generates 40 percent of the world’s electricity—a number that could grow to 60 percent by 2030, according to a 2009 report by the Coal Industry Advisory Board of the International Energy Agency. (Developing countries are expected to account for 97 percent of that growth because they have almost no alternatives.) Coal is also “the world’s most CO₂-intensive fossil fuel,” accounting for more than 40 percent of all energy-related CO₂ emissions, the report says.

CCS, say climate scientists, has emerged as the lead technology in the race to reduce global greenhouse gases 50 percent by 2050. And when the New Haven project—hitching one of America’s largest power companies to the U.S. Energy Dept.’s carbon capture bandwagon—was launched in 2009, there was a sense of determination and common cause. “It’s time to advance this technology for commercial use,” declared AEP Chief Executive Officer Michael G. Morris. The company planned to replace its pilot with a larger $668 million CCS facility, which would bury more than 1 million metric tons of CO₂ a year, splitting construction costs evenly with the Energy Dept. Environmentalists heralded the project. Timothy O’Connor, a climate-change policy analyst for the Environmental Defense Fund, a New York-based advocacy group, says “carbon storage can help serve as a bridge until we get to those zero and ultralow carbon energy sources that wean us from fossil fuels.”

Yet only two years in, the future of CCS is in jeopardy. On July 14, AEP pulled the plug on its CCS efforts, citing a weak economy and the “uncertain status of U.S. climate policy.” CEO Morris said AEP and its partners “have advanced CCS technology more than any other power generator with our successful two-year project to validate the technology. But at this time it doesn’t make economic sense to continue.”

The dimming of CCS’s promise reflects a broader national retreat from the goal of reversing climate change. In private and, to some degree, in public, the company and its executives express frustration that they tried to do the right thing—only to end up burned. With the Obama Administration’s political capital spent on a bruising fight to adopt health care in 2010, the prospects for meaningful climate legislation dimmed. The Republican takeover of the House last November made climate policy even more remote. Outside Washington, interest in funding carbon capture technology has also withered. AEP sought to recover a portion of its CCS pilot costs by asking for a $74 million rate increase from Virginia utility regulators. The reply was a brusque no.

 

“There are currently no laws mandating carbon capture,” stated a brief from the Virginia Attorney General’s office, which advocates on behalf of consumers. “Any potential benefit is speculative and outweighed by the enormous cost of the pilot project.” The rebuffs more than stung, says AEP President Nick Akins. “This stuff is very expensive to do,” says Gary O. Spitznogle, AEP’s director of new technology development. “Without a regulatory mandate, you won’t see utilities deploy this.”

“Two years ago was the height of optimism,” says Howard J. Herzog, senior research engineer for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative who has tracked CCS technologies and research from the outset. Now, without a price on carbon, “the finances are tough. Every other week you hear of a project being canceled. It’s not a pretty picture.”

It’s easy to see why carbon capture once seemed so appealing. It could significantly reduce carbon emissions while keeping coal, still the nation’s chief source of electric power, central to the energy mix. In 2010, President Barack Obama unveiled a goal to bring five to 10 commercial-size CCS demonstration plants on line in the U.S. by 2016. Leaders of the Group of Eight, a global consortium that includes the U.S., Russia, and Japan, embraced in 2008 a goal to launch 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by 2010 with “broad deployment” of the technology by 2020. All told, governments worldwide committed $22.5 billion to support CCS from 2008 to 2010, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. An MIT website that tracks worldwide CCS projects lists 68 scattered across 15 countries, 45 of them associated with coal-fired power plants.

Yet since the beginning of the fourth quarter of 2010, at least five large-scale CCS projects have been canceled or postponed, while the fate of several others remains doubtful, according to interviews with a dozen project developers by Bloomberg Businessweek and research by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The government in Queensland, Australia, pulled the plug last December on its long-promised ZeroGen project, which would have created a 530 megawatt coal plant that captured and buried its CO₂ emissions underground. Australian taxpayers had spent $150 million funding the project.

In the U.S., Bismarck (N.D.)-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s plans to retrofit a coal plant in Beulah to capture some of its CO₂ were shelved in December amid the project’s rising costs, despite a $100 million federal grant. One month later, Omaha-based Tenaska’s plans to build a power plant in Taylorville, Ill., that would capture 50 percent of its CO₂ emissions were thrown into limbo when the state senate voted down a proposal that would have required electric utilities to buy more costly power from the proposed $3.5 billion facility.

Charlotte-based Duke Energy (DUK), meanwhile, is embroiled in a long-running controversy with consumer advocates over its planned $2.9 billion Edwardsport, Ind., coal gasification plant, which is designed to be “carbon-capture ready.” James E. Rogers, Duke’s CEO, has defended the plant—already $900 million over budget—as a forward-looking investment in so-called clean coal technology that will produce “about 10 times the electricity of an existing conventional coal-fired plant yet with significantly less environmental impact than the plant it is replacing.” Critics, however, say the plant won’t capture any carbon to start with, and rates will be four to five times more expensive than even wind energy.

For all its hype and promise, the challenges of extracting carbon dioxide from smokestacks, compressing it, transporting it, and pumping it underground, where it is supposed to stay for eons, remain daunting. Costs are a core obstacle, notably those related to what’s called the parasitic load, defined as the amount of energy consumed in the process of removing CO₂ from power plant exhaust. Estimated to be $60 to $95 per metric ton of CO₂ captured, these costs could add 81 percent or more to consumer power bills, according to a November 2010 Energy Dept. report. The DOE says its goal is to get those costs down to no more than 30 percent of the price of electricity generated by conventional coal plants and 10 percent more than the price of coal-gasification plants.

Why is CCS so expensive? Based on results so far, storage capacity isn’t the driving cost factor. A 2010 DOE report estimated that between underground saline formations, oil and gas fields, and unmineable coal areas, the U.S. and Canada alone have up to 5,700 years of carbon sequestration capacity.

But capturing carbon is another matter. The clattering, odiferous Mountaineer pilot required the company to add the equivalent of a small, energy-intensive refinery on to the side of the power plant. As AEP’s Spitznogle explains, power plant exhaust is sucked into the capture unit, cooled, and mixed with a chilled ammonia-based solvent, causing the CO₂ to precipitate out as a slurry that gets reconverted to a gas. It is compressed into a liquid state, then pumped into deep, porous underground formations by a series of injection wells. All of which increases the parasitic load.

When the AEP project went on line in 2009, the goal was modest: to capture and bury up to 1.5 percent of Mountaineer’s carbon dioxide. When the project shut down, the New Haven plant had captured about 37,000 metric tons of CO₂, a fraction of its target. Spitznogle says that separating out the carbon using “complex chemistry” proved challenging. “We were pretty sure there would be fits and starts. This is an R&D system, with zero redundancies built in. If one piece of equipment fails, the whole system comes down until that piece gets fixed. … This caused us to be up and down a lot.” He adds: “I don’t know anyone who was disappointed with the amount of CO₂ we put in the ground in that first year.”

If CCS is to work out in the end, he and others agree, the number of pilot projects must increase. “The only way to bring down the cost is to start building a lot of these projects,” says David G. Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California, San Diego. But, again, “the absence of a price on carbon puts everything in limbo.”

The fate of CCS technology is inextricably tied to the controversy over clean coal, a debate which has helped drive a wedge in the green community since many environmentalists—citing the ecological harm in coal’s extraction, including the process of mountaintop removal—simply don’t believe coal can ever be made “clean.” But perhaps the biggest blow to CCS’s reputation as a clean technology originated at a farm in southeastern Saskatchewan, about 40 miles above the North Dakota border.

Starting in 2004, landowners Cameron and Jane Kerr of Weyburn complained of strange foaming and bubblings, as well as poisoned animals and explosions “like cannons going off” on their property, which adjoins the Weyburn oil field. With crude reserves estimated at 1.4 billion barrels, Weyburn doubles as the oldest and largest carbon capture and storage site in North America. Frustrated by what the Kerrs call a lack of response from Canadian regulators and Calgary-based Cenovus Energy (CVE), which operates the field, the Kerrs had an independent petroleum engineer assess their property. They went public with the findings in January 2011 only, they say, after sending the report to Cenovus and regional regulators and getting no response. Elevated levels of CO₂ were present, the report concluded, and the carbon dioxide is “clearly the anthropogenic CO₂ injected into the Weyburn reservoir.” Serious leaks from huge carbon storage sites can be fatal to humans and livestock if not addressed.

Denying that they have been slow to respond, Cenovus—along with the Petroleum Technology Research Center, a trade group—have since challenged the Kerrs’ report and plan their own study; the Kerrs have since moved 70 miles away. But the damage had been done. The Kerrs fielded calls from media outlets across Europe, the U.S., even South Korea, fanning alarmist concern when “public confidence in this technology is not well-established,” says George Peridas of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s Climate Center in San Francisco.

Despite the halting progress made toward developing CCS, the coal industry continues to extol its promise. A video clip on the website of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal industry group that includes AEP, Basin Electric, and Tenaska as members, shows a coal company engineer with short-cropped brown hair, an earnest smile, and a blue dress shirt unbuttoned at the collar. He moves about a lab, looking through a microscope and examining a computer screen, as he talks confidently about the future of achieving “clean coal” through the capture and storage of CO₂.

“There absolutely is such a thing as clean coal technology,” he says, as the video pans across an illuminated city skyline at dusk. “I am quite confident that we will capture carbon dioxide at the kind of levels that we’re going to need to make a difference.”

The industry group, with this and other messages, nurtures the impression that CCS is around the corner, yet this can-do attitude has begun to fuel the suspicion of environmentalists, such as Bruce Nilles, deputy conservation director at the Sierra Club. He points out that the ACCCE, according to lobbyist filings, has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing climate-change legislation, including the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, known as Waxman-Markey. “CCS is being used as an excuse to delay action on regulating our existing fleet of coal-fired power plants,” says Nilles. “They’ve been talking about it for eight to 10 years, and we’re no closer now than we were then to breaking ground on these demonstration projects.”

And yet, at present, no other technology comes close to matching the potential of CCS in the fight against global warming. The International Energy Agency projects that CCS will have to account for 20 percent of all CO₂ reductions if the 2050 goal to cut worldwide greenhouse gases by half of current levels is to be met. Without a successful CCS program, the costs will be 70 percent greater, the agency says. “If we don’t implement carbon capture and storage,” says John Thompson of the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental advocacy group, “it’s probably game over on climate change.”

Wells is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek. Elgin is a reporter for Bloomberg News.

 

 

 

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/whats-killing-carbon-capture-07212011.html

Worst Scam is Good Business For Mississippi?

The article below is an example of how the media is used to publicize Kemper Coal plant propaganda. Can anyone hear them saying, “Come into the Gas Chamber for a nice warm shower?”  Lets expose the deceptions.

Kemper Lignite plant has little to do with coal, energy, or Mississippians and much to do with Cap and Tax, promoting Agenda’s of international Governments, and crippling America.  The Southern Co is following the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocols to redistribute the wealth and land.  While Tom Fanning CEO of Southern Co suggests their companies are against bigger expanding regulatory government the truth is he is fully cooperating, volunteering Mississippi to bridge the gaps for more regulations.  Who can blame them since their cooperation allows them to help write the new regulations.

Those Promoting Cap and Trade say we will have “basic availability“- We will not, because Southern co is moving forward with the Kyoto Protocols voluntarily which will lead other coal companies to be mandated to follow their new regulations they are helping to write.  Fanning says we will then lose up to 50% of coal plants but fails to say it is due to his new regulations he helped write. 

http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2011/05/20/summit-speakers-take-whacks-at-u-s-energy-policies-rules/

Reliability will be clearly lost due to the number of closed coal plants.

Affordable energy, is the biggest lie of them all because the regulations, by design are intended to cause ALL coal plants to eventually go bankrupt even Kemper County’s plant, according to Steven Chu Department of energy.

 

Development: Energy is a key

12:05 PM, Sep. 2, 2011|

The key to economic development always
is an educated, available and motivated

workforce, but it also is the basic
availability of reliable, affordable energy.

Mississippi has made strides in both of
those components, but especially the latter.

Gov. Haley Barbour has stressed and
promoted Mississippi’s energy resources.
Those resources continue not only to
expand, but more important, to diversify.

Not true, there will be no expansion of energy sources because of the closures about to take place in Mississippi and all over America if this global warming scam/kyoto Protocols is not stopped. 

Mississippi Power President and CEO Ed
Day told The Clarion-Ledger Editorial
Board last week that the company is
proceeding rapidly on its new “clean coal”
power plant in Kemper County.

There is nothing clean about Lignite coal it is a low-grade brown wet mushy coal and if one pours a bottomless amount of money at it you might be able to remove 65% of the CO2. This is the most inefficient way to utilize coal imaginable.  This is a scam!

The $2.5 billion plant will use Mississippi’s
vast stores of lignite coal in a cutting-edge
process that will not burn, but gasify the
coal and produce energy. The CO2
byproduct will be captured and sold to
state oil producers who use it reclaim old
wells.

Selling this CO2 will be a legal battle because Carbon trading has not yet passed and now we have objective science proving there is no manmade global warming because our coal plants are giving off Carbon DioxideIt is a SCAM! Selling a scam on the stock exchange is illegal!

The Kemper plant will add a new type of
energy-producing resource to the
company.

The lignite is cheap, plentiful and easy to
mine, producing a long-term consistent
fuel cost.

LIE.  The cost will be the most expensive venture America has ever seen in EnergyProve this statement Wrong, I dare you.

It is interesting new technology, with jobs
and an important addition to the state’s
energy portfolio.  How many Jobs?

You put the Meter readers out of work, close Coal plants, put families out of their homes, and businesses go under.  There is NOTHING job building about the Kemper County Coal Scam.

Kemper is just one of the important
developments: Kior’s planned five bio-fuel
facilities in Mississippi; the Gulf LNG project
in Jackson County at the Port of Pascagoula;
Entergy’s planned upgrade of the Grand
Gulf Nuclear Station; and the expansion of
the Chevron refinery facility in Pascagoula.

In addition, there are new solar
manufacturing facilities.

Advance Mississippi – a coalition of
business, education, utility and economic
development leaders – has promoted the
creation of a sound state energy policy that
is a major component necessary for the
state’s future economic growth.

Sounds like a comment straight out of the hand book of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.  I bet if you looked up Advance MS you will find the links to Agenda 21. I did and yes the connection is clearly the United Nations’ Agenda.

Former TVA chairman and former Tupelo
mayor Glenn McCullough heads the
Advance Mississippi effort. As he has
pointed out, there is more capital
investment in energy than any other

industrial sector in the U.S. Southern states.

Mississippi is reaping some of that
investment and is poised to reap more
benefits.

INVESTMENT!?  LIE!!!  They are sowing Cap and Trade regulations and ALL of America will reap that destruction. 

The Obama administration has stressed
the growth of green energy and companies
like Mississippi Power are experimenting
beyond its traditional operations.

This is at no risk to Southern Co investors, because ratepayer are paying for the experiment.  If Mississippi Power or Southern Co had to pay for it, the Kemper County Scam would not have proceeded without international or George Soros  funding.  The new books of regulations must be written before they can be enacted.

Most important, the nation needs a sound
energy policy that balances interests by
protecting the environment while providing
efficient, affordable energy.

Sounds nice but is straight out of the United Nations handbooks, again.  It is All about the ENVIRONMENT not the people. Gaia is the reason in the fine print if you read it.  

Mississippi is on the right track in that
department.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20110904/OPINION01/109040314/Development-Energy-key?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|s

Liberal Democrats Have This Right!

Not Heeding the Warnings From Other Energy Companies

Why is Mississippi ignoring the warnings from other energy companies?  Others have determined that CCS fails to make economic sense at this point in time.  Is this the deal Haley Barbour made to gain  support for his now scrapped presidential run?  The residents of Mississippi will pay for this error forever because they have now paved the way for Cap and Trade to embark. There is no going back because there is
NO RISK TO MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING FOR IT, NOT THEM!!!
————————————————————————————————————————————–
AEP Places Carbon Capture Commercialization On Hold, Citing Uncertain Status Of Climate Policy, Weak Economy

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 14, 2011 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) is terminating its cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and placing its plans to advance carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology to commercial scale on hold, citing the current uncertain status of U.S. climate policy and the continued weak economy as contributors to the decision.

“We are placing the project on hold until economic and policy conditions create a viable path forward,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer. “With the help of Alstom, the Department of Energy and other partners, we have advanced CCS technology more than any other power generator with our successful two-year project to validate the technology. But at this time it doesn’t make economic sense to continue work on the commercial-scale CCS project beyond the current engineering phase.

“We are clearly in a classic ‘which comes first?’ situation,” Morris said. “The commercialization of this technology is vital if owners of coal-fueled generation are to comply with potential future climate regulations without prematurely retiring efficient, cost-effective generating capacity. But as a regulated utility, it is impossible to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for validating and deploying the technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already in place. The uncertainty also makes it difficult to attract partners to help fund the industry’s share.”

In 2009, AEP was selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive funding of up to $334 million through the Clean Coal Power Initiative to pay part of the costs for installation of a commercial-scale CCS system at AEP’s Mountaineer coal-fueled power plant in New Haven, W.Va. The system would capture at least 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from 235 megawatts of the plant’s 1,300 megawatts of capacity. The captured CO2, approximately 1.5 million metric tons per year, would be treated and compressed, then injected into suitable geologic formations for permanent storage approximately 1.5 miles below the surface.

Plans were for the project to be completed in four phases, with the system to begin commercial operation in 2015. AEP has informed the DOE that it will complete the first phase of the project (front-end engineering and design, development of an environmental impact statement and development of a detailed Phase II and Phase III schedule) but will not move to the second phase.

DOE’s share of the cost for completion of the first phase is expected to be approximately $16 million, half the expenses that qualify under the DOE agreement.

AEP and partner Alstom began operating a smaller-scale validation of the technology in October 2009 at the Mountaineer Plant, the first fully-integrated capture and storage facility in the world. That system captured up to 90 percent of the CO2 from a slipstream of flue gas equivalent to 20 megawatts of generating capacity and injected it into suitable geologic formations for permanent storage approximately 1.5 miles below the surface. The validation project, which received no federal funds, was closed as planned in May after meeting project goals. Between October 2009 and May 2011, the life of the validation project, the CCS system operated more than 6,500 hours, captured more than 50,000 metric tons of CO2 and permanently stored more than 37,000 metric tons of CO2.

“The lessons we learned from the validation project were incorporated into the Phase I engineering for the commercial-scale project,” Morris said.

American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP ranks among the nation’s largest generators of electricity, owning nearly 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. AEP also owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 39,000-mile network that includes more 765-kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10 percent of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central U.S. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11 percent of the electricity demand in ERCOT, the transmission system that covers much of Texas. AEP’s utility units operate as AEP Ohio, AEP Texas, Appalachian Power (in Virginia and West Virginia), AEP Appalachian Power (in Tennessee), Indiana Michigan Power, Kentucky Power, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company (in Arkansas, Louisiana and east Texas). AEP’s headquarters are in Columbus, Ohio.

This report made by American Electric Power and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although AEP and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries believe that their expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, any such statements may be influenced by factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to be materially different from those projected. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are: the economic climate and growth in, or contraction within, AEP’s service territory and changes in market demand and demographic patterns; inflationary or deflationary interest rate trends; volatility in the financial markets, particularly developments affecting the availability of capital on reasonable terms and developments impairing AEP’s ability to finance new capital projects and refinance existing debt at attractive rates; the availability and cost of funds to finance working capital and capital needs, particularly during periods when the time lag between incurring costs and recovery is long and the costs are material; electric load and customer growth; weather conditions, including storms, and AEP’s ability to recover significant storm restoration costs through applicable rate mechanisms; available sources and costs of, and transportation for, fuels and the creditworthiness and performance of fuel suppliers and transporters; availability of necessary generating capacity and the performance of AEP’s generating plants; AEP’s ability to recover Indiana Michigan Power’s Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 restoration costs through warranty, insurance and the regulatory process; AEP’s ability to recover regulatory assets and stranded costs in connection with deregulation; AEP’s ability to recover increases in fuel and other energy costs through regulated or competitive electric rates; AEP’s ability to build or acquire generating capacity, including the Turk Plant, and transmission line facilities (including the ability to obtain any necessary regulatory approvals and permits) when needed at acceptable prices and terms and to recover those costs (including the costs of projects that are cancelled) through applicable rate cases or competitive rates; new legislation, litigation and government regulation, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot or particulate matter and other substances or additional regulation of fly ash and similar combustion products that could impact the continued operation and cost recovery of AEP’s plants; timing and resolution of pending and future rate cases, negotiations and other regulatory decisions (including rate or other recovery of new investments in generation, distribution and transmission service and environmental compliance); resolution of litigation (including AEP’s dispute with Bank of America); AEP’s ability to constrain operation and maintenance costs; AEP’s ability to develop and execute a strategy based on a view regarding prices of electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; changes in the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom AEP has contractual arrangements, including participants in the energy trading market; actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt; volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel and other energy-related commodities; changes in utility regulation, including the implementation of electric security plans and related regulation in Ohio and the allocation of costs within regional transmission organizations, including PJM and SPP; accounting pronouncements periodically issued by accounting standard-setting bodies; the impact of volatility in the capital markets on the value of the investments held by AEP’s pension, other postretirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust and the impact on future funding requirements; prices and demand for power that AEP generates and sells at wholesale; changes in technology, particularly with respect to new, developing or alternative sources of generation; and other risks and unforeseen events, including wars, the effects of terrorism (including increased security costs), embargoes and other catastrophic events.

http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704

Carbon Capture and Storage‬‏ is Very Inefficient

 

@ 3:15 he talks about how we have a process to “economically” capture co2.  This process, is very inefficient as you can see, cooling the exhaust gasses, reabsorb the co2, then reheating the ammonia solution, then re-cooling it again…

 

 

Lignite Coal TAR – Additional 47% in Possible Tariffs Taxes and Regulation Fees Undisclosed

coal tar – China Customs duty & Tax coal tar Import tariff, page 1.

Want to tell you about an issue about the Kemper County Lignite Coal NO ONE is talking about, the TAR.  Whatever we do the TAR will be costly and has not been disclosed.  Lignite coal tar may have expensive tariffs, taxes, duty, and regulation according to this article.  No mater what we do with it, TAR will be regulated and MISSISSIPPI ratepayers and taxpayers will be responsible for these additional confidential – undisclosed costs.  Perhaps that is part of the Southern Electric’s/Obama’s phase 2, hit them with more money expenditures.  Some states openly expressed wishing they had not begun their Lignit Coal Ventures just for the unforeseen undisclosed costs that keep mounting.

The first example I found was if we want to ship the Lignite TAR to China there is 47% for various importing fees involved.  Even if we keep it local, it will still cost to store transport process regulate and monitor…

To see issues not addressed discussed and planned for exposes Kemper Coal Plant as a money mining project to bankruptcy or just complete federal government dependency.

Van Jones, Obama, DOE Dr Chu, PSC Leonard Bentz, PSC Lynn Posey, Gov Hayley Barbour, Mississippi Power, Southern Company,  and the most criminally involved manufacturing company KBR should be so very proud of their smooth operation past the blind people of Mississippi.

 

HS : 270600**

Description : Tar distilled from coal, from lignite or from peat, and other mineral tars, whether or not dehydrated or partially distilled, including reconstituted tar<<

 

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

crude tar ,ethylene tar ,high temperature coal tar <<

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT
2011
2010 1% 30% 17%

 

(End of sample for better viewing see original site)

http://tariff.e-to-china.com/tariff-coal-tar-d_3-t_1.html

 

HS : 6807

Description : Articles of asphalt or of similar material (for example, petroleum bitumen or coal tar pitch):

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

articles of coal tar pitch ,articles of asphalt ,articles of petroleum bitumen >>

HS : 270600**

Description : Tar distilled from coal, from lignite or from peat, and other mineral tars, whether or not dehydrated or partially disti… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

crude tar ,ethylene tar ,high temperature coal tar <<

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 1% 30% 17%

HS : 380700**

Description : Wood tar; wood tar oils; wood creosote; wood naphtha; vegetable pitch; brewers, pitch and similar preparations base… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

bamboo tar ,carbon tar ,coaltar pitch >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 6.5% 35% 17%

HS : 270799**

Description : Oils and other products of the distillation of high temperature coal tar; similar products in which the weight of the ar… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

coal coke ,anthracene oil ,carbolic oil >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 7% 30% 17%

HS : 3208

Description : Paints and varnishes (including enam els and lacquers) based on synthetic polymers or chemically modified natu ral polym… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

epoxy coal tar pitch anticorrosive coating ,tar polyurethane waterproof coating ,epoxy coating >>

HS : 270810**

Description : Pitch

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

coal asphalt ,coal pitch ,coaltar pitch >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 7% 35% 17%

HS : 2706

Description : Tar distilled from coal, from lignite or from peat, and other mineral tars, whether or not dehydrated or partially disti… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

reconstituted tars ,tar

HS : 340220**

Description : Organic surfaceactive preparations, washing preparations (including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning prepara… >>

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

cleaning agent for coal tar ,coal tar cleanser ,cleaner for precise electric appliances >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 10% 80% 17%

HS : 270400**

Description : Coke and semicoke

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

coal ,coal coke ,coal coke carbon >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 0% 11% 17%

HS : 841459**

Description : Other

Goods ever classified under this HS code :

coal mine anti-explosion host-blade fan ,coal tar fan ,coal-fired hot blast fan >>

2011-2010 China custom duty of coal tar Search

Year MFN Gen VAT Consumption Tax
2011
2010 8% 30% 17%

Browse Alphabetically:      A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report.

From Better Mississippi Report:

JACKSON (Tuesday, July 6, 2010) – Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley says consumers lost in Mississippi Power Co.’s planned Kemper County coal plant because the utility doesn’t have to guarantee the technology behind the project will ever work.

Mississippi Power’s plant, the first of its kind in the world, will use a new technology that converts a soft coal called lignite into a gas to fuel turbines and create electricity. The concept is high risk because no one can guarantee that the technology to be used in the plant will work.

Presley said Gov. Haley Barbour and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent letters asking for support of the Mississippi Power plant. But Presley voted in April and May against forcing Mississippi Power ratepayers to finance the plant.

“I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration,” said Presley, who represents the Northern District on the three-member PSC.

“If they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?” Presley told the Better Mississippi Report.

The PSC voted 2-1 in April to allow Mississippi Power Co. to build the Kemper County plant at a cost of no more than $2.4 billion. Commissioners said they would decide at a later date whether to grant Mississippi Power’s request for ratepayers to finance the plant before it begins operating.

Less than a month later in May, the PSC voted 2-1 to increase the cost cap of the Mississippi Power plant to $2.88 billion and also allowed the company to charge ratepayers for financing costs before the plant is completed.

Presley cast the sole no votes at the April and May meetings.

Presley, 32, a lifelong resident of Nettleton, is in his first term on the PSC – winning the position in 2007 after serving as mayor of Nettleton from 2001 to 2007. He talked about the Mississippi Power plant and other issues in an interview with the Better Mississippi Report.

Better Mississippi Group: You were the only member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission to oppose the Mississippi Power Co. plan to build a coal-burning plant in Kemper County. Can you explain your concerns about this proposal and why you voted against it?
Brandon Presley:
Very simple. Mississippi Power wanted the ratepayers to pay in advance hundreds of millions of dollars in financing costs and then $2.4 billion (now up to $2.88 billion) for the plant itself, and after hours and hours of sworn testimony and days of hearings they would not, and to this day, still will not, guarantee their new technology to be used in this plant will work.
If I had voted yes for this plant, I would have been a part of forcing ratepayers in one of the poorest states in the nation to pay, in advance, for something the company can’t even guarantee will work and that was, obviously, a big concern to me. I strongly support innovative technology, and I have a deep admiration for the scientists and engineers who bring about groundbreaking ideas that could make our lives better. But I believe the companies themselves and private sector investors should be willing to take some of the risks and not force all the risk on ratepayers who don’t have a choice in their providers. Remember, customers of Mississippi Power can’t choose who provides their electricity. They must use Mississippi Power or be in the dark, literally. So they are now being forced, via their electric bill, to invest in this plant.
I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration. I wondered if they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?
Also, I felt strongly that since there are so many unknowns out there, especially about the technology itself, that nothing would have been harmed by waiting. As I have said, Henry Ford built a better car five years after he started on his first one.
In a few years, we should have a better idea about other discoveries going on now, such as the impact of shale natural gas and also about the technology in the plant. Maybe then Mississippi Power will be able to guarantee that it will work. In a few years, we should also have a better understanding of the current energy legislation and environmental regulation that is being debated in Washington.
If Mississippi Power is going to ask consumers to pay up to $2.88 billion, plus hundreds of millions in banking fees (before the plant puts out any electricity), they need to have their ducks in a row with technology that they can guarantee works and share some of the risk. They didn’t. So I voted “no” twice.

Better Mississippi: The vote was a total change from a stand the PSC took days earlier. Can you tell us what led to the about-face on the PSC?
Presley:
I’ve been consistent – I voted no both times. You would have to ask the other two commissioners that question. Even though I could not support the project after hearing and studying the facts presented to us for months, I felt the first order on April 29th was strong and at least had some good protections in it for the ratepayers. I do not know why the majority voted to ease up on that order and grant the company another $480 million in spending authority under certain circumstances.

Better Mississippi: Mississippi Power Co. won’t release the possible increase in electric rates that customers may have to pay to finance construction of the Kemper County plant. Is this something that should be released to the public? Why?
Presley:
Absolutely. They should have been disclosed before the plant was approved. It was one of the reasons I voted against the project. Two times before the final votes, I asked if the rate impacts were going to be made public before the project was approved, and both times the answer was “no.”
The customers of Mississippi Power have a right to know how this plant is going to impact their bills. They shouldn’t have to wait until they get the bill out of their mailbox to understand how much it is going to cost them. I had proposed changing the rule that allowed Mississippi Power to deem these rate impacts “confidential” prior to the final vote on Kemper. I raised the issue of changing this rule in May but was out-voted. The issue was taken up in our June meeting, at which time it passed unanimously.

Better Mississippi: With the Sierra Club taking the Mississippi Power Co. Kemper County issue to court, how do you see things working now? Will this be a long, protracted case?
Presley:
All I know is that I will keep fighting for taxpayers and ratepayers no matter what happens.

Better Mississippi: You are one of three commissioners on the PSC. Can you tell us about your relationship with the other commissioners? Do you all tend to get along? How do you handle disagreements on major issues, such as the one with Mississippi Power Co.?
Presley:
I like my fellow commissioners and think they’re good men. As with any three-member commission, we are going to disagree from time to time.
With that said, I tend to be very passionate about the job the people elected me to do. I’m passionate about what I believe a regulator is supposed to do. I won’t back down when I believe consumers are getting a raw deal or when I see something unfair about the process. I think that’s what the ratepayers expect and it’s certainly how an elected official who is protecting the public’s interest should act, in my opinion.
When you have the courage of your convictions, you don’t mind going against the grain or standing alone. I recently heard a pretty good saying that fits this situation, “Even a dead fish can go with the flow.” I don’t plan to be a “go with the flow” commissioner.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the biggest challenge of the PSC these days?
Presley:
The single biggest challenge is making sure that consumers aren’t left out of the picture at the PSC. It seems that almost every rate plan, service plan, rule and regulation was written for and by the utilities for their benefit. Too many times the people who actually have to pay the utility bills have just been left out of the process and forgotten. The simple fact is that if the PSC doesn’t stand up for the consumer, nobody else is going to.
We desperately need balance at the PSC. And by that, I mean that we need to remember that there are real people, families, small businesses and industries that have to pay for these rate hikes and proposals. The utilities have a vast reservoir of attorneys, lobbyists, experts and cheerleaders. All the general public has is the PSC.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the most important regulatory issues facing the PSC and consumers in the state?
Presley:
So many Mississippians are facing very tough economic situations in their homes and at their businesses. My mission is to do everything possible to keep money in the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers and not help the big utilities make undeserved profits. That is our single biggest challenge. I believe we can craft policies that are pro-consumer and pro-business. Letting utilities increase rates whenever they want hurts so many small businesses that are the backbone of our state’s economy. I am proud to say that I have voted against more spending and rate increases than any other commissioner in the history of the PSC.

Better Mississippi: How do you see your role on the PSC?
Presley:
I see my role as a watchdog for the public interest – period.
A commissioner I’ve gotten to know from another state says it best. One time, when the hearing room was full of attorneys and high-paid lobbyists for the utility companies, he called the meeting to order by asking everyone who was there on behalf of the utilities to please stand up. Almost the whole room, of course, stood to their feet. Then he told them to sit down. He then asked, “Who is here on behalf of the ratepayers?” Nobody responded and he stood up and said “You see, folks? That’s why I’m here. That’s my job.” I couldn’t agree more.

Better Mississippi: Statewide and district elections will take place in 2011. Do you plan to run for re-election? Why or why not?
Presley:
I honestly haven’t given it much thought. I’m consumed daily with issues at the PSC and getting my job done. I will make a decision about the election in the coming months.

 

More on Obama’s US Secretary of Energy who Targeted PSC’s for Kemper County

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy

As United States Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is charged with helping implement President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs.

Dr. Chu is a distinguished scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics (1997). He has devoted his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change – a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Chu was the Director of the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he led the lab in pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technologies. He also taught at the University of California as a Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology. Previously, he held positions at Stanford University and AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Dr. Chu’s research in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics includes tests of fundamental theories in physics, the development of methods to laser cool and trap atoms, atom interferometry, the development of the first atomic fountain, and the manipulation and study of polymers and biological systems at the single molecule level. While at Stanford, he helped start Bio-X, a multi-disciplinary initiative that brings together the physical and biological sciences with engineering and medicine.

The holder of 10 patents, Dr. Chu has published nearly 250 scientific and technical papers. He remains active with his research group and has recently published work on general relativity and single molecule biology and biophysics that includes sub-nanometer molecular imaging with optical microscopy, cadherin adhesion, neural vesicle fusion, and nerve growth factor transport. About 30 alumni of his research group have gone on to become professors in their own right and have been recognized by dozens of prizes and awards.

Dr. Chu is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academia Sinica, the Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology and numerous other civic and professional organizations. He received an A.B. degree in mathematics, a B.S. degree in physics from the University of Rochester, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley as well as honorary degrees from 15 universities.

Dr. Chu was born in Saint Louis, Missouri in 1948. He is married to Dr. Jean Chu, who holds a D.Phil. in Physics from Oxford and has served as chief of staff to two Stanford University presidents as well as Dean of Admissions. Secretary Chu has two grown sons, Geoffrey and Michael, by a previous marriage.

In announcing Dr. Chu’s selection, President Obama said, “The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy. Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator, and has recently led the Berkeley National Laboratory in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies. He is uniquely suited to be our next Secretary of Energy as we make this pursuit a guiding purpose of the Department of Energy, as well as a national mission.” Dr. Chu was sworn into office as the 12th Secretary of Energy on January 21, 2009.

http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_chu.htm

%d bloggers like this: