Hopkins, J.S. (2016, November 18). Maryland’s plea to EPA: Make out-of-state power plants run
pollution controls. The Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/11/18/20475/maryland-s-plea-epa-make-out-state-power-plants-run-pollution-controls
This article talks about the implementation of nineteen new power plants across the east coast, including three in southwest Indiana. The state of Maryland was outraged, and made a plea to the EPA, begging coal-fired power plants to run their control equipment throughout the summer. Ten of the nineteen stated power plants were reviewed and identified as “super polluters,” because they were ranked within the top 100 of U.S. industrial sites for toxic material emitted into the air. I believe Maryland has the right to do so because these power plants are of great danger to the air.
I think that they should not implement these power plants because they can cause great damage to the environment. This world already has polluted the air enough, and we already have an abundance of coal-fired power plants, so why build and install more? It’s a waste of time, money and land, and they can use that money for better purposes that actually save the environment rather than destroy it.
I agree with you Tyler, however, the energy demand doesn’t go down… and if the supply isn’t there it creates a major upset (ie- brown outs and black outs). So if not coal, what would you recommend instead to provide base line power that would be a realistic alternative?
I agree with your point that the state has the right to deny these plants. Do you think that instead of fossil fuel powered plants, they should fund power plants that rely on cleaner power? They can choose to redirect those power plants to run off of cleaner energies, such as wind, solar, or even nuclear power.
I agree that the power plants should not be built. What do you think should be used as an alternative?