Loading...
 

Letters to the Editor - August 09 2006

Cover story: 'In the hot seat'

Online responses to the "In the hot seat" cover story by Russell McLendon and Ken Edelstein, published Aug. 3, 2006.

??
IN THE HOT SEAT: This was a very excellent and much needed article. It explored the facts and presented them fairly. I especially agree with Patty Durand's comment that the Southern Co. should not be allowed to call the shots on this issue. They are hardly unbiased in the matter. The laws should protect the health of our citizens and our planet, not the business interests of amoral corporations.

??
-- Maria Wilson

??
GLOBAL WARMING: It is very upsetting. I will have a solution to part of this problem and will be Happy to discuss it with you more, at this event on Wednesday, regarding corp responsibility. Irvine Dave www.S-W-E-E-E-T.com

??
-- Irvine Dave

??
ALTERNATE FUELS TO CO-FIRE COAL POWER PLANTS: In the early 1990s Southern Company commissioned a study to assess the availability of bio-mass (waste wood, municipal waste, discarded boxes, leftover wood from silviculture and logging operations) to determine if there was enough fuel to warrant conversion of existing coal-fire power plants to enable them to burn these excess biomass materials for energy. Southern Company's objective at the time was to obtain CO2 credits that could be applied to their inefficient plants that could delay required capitol cost for their upgrade. But a side benefit from this is that biomass is considered a 'closed loop' CO2. Because as much CO2 is absorbed in growing biomass products as released upon burning the net gain in CO2 is theoretically zero. The 1990s study determined there is sufficient excess biomass material available to co-fire Southern Company power plants. But it came down to an economic decision. Southern Company should look past its quarterly rate of return for stockholders toward the future of humanity.

??
-- ryudo

??
.com-ments are edited for space, not content, punctuation or grammar.