Guzman, Joseph. “Georgia Power Plans to Retire All Coal-Fired Power Plants by 2035.” TheHill, 1 Feb. 2022, https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/energy/592308-georgia-power-plans-to-retire-all-coal-fired-power. 

Georgia’s largest electric utility company has now decided to shift away from coal, and start transitioning to alternative, clean energy. Georgia Power plans to retire all coal-fired power plants by 2035, with its last two plants getting closed during that year. This company owns fourteen coal units, with twelve of them planned to close from now until 2028. The remaining two will be up and running until 2035, to ensure its customers will have a reliable source of power throughout all of this. Now there is lots of power being lost by these shut-downs, which is why Georgia Power is partnering up with its parent company(Southern Company) to secure over 2,300 MW of natural gas for 2022-2028, and up to 6,000 MW of renewables by 2035. Natural gas still emits carbon dioxide, but it is far less harmful than coal, making it a good substitute while plans for renewable energy fall into place. People say it is a step in the right direction, but think that a more immediate plan for clean energy would save money and provide jobs. 

I think that it is really good to see Georgia transitioning to cleaner energy, and it is even better that it was started by the power companies themselves. This, along with some of the other articles I looked at, have given me a lot of hope for the future, as even those who have to do the most work for clean energy, and have an established system around coal, are realizing that change needs to happen.This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and again it is good that they are setting up realistic timelines. Some people argue that it could be done sooner, or that they should switch completely to clean energy immediately, but I’d rather have them get it done on their own time rather than not at all. Pushing companies and political representatives into promises they either can’t or don’t want to keep almost always ends in unfinished business, so I think it is best they manage their company how they see best. Plus, if more states begin the transition as well, states can ‘work together’ to decrease emissions, without putting too much pressure on certain companies and states. 

Shwisberg, Lauren, and Mark Dyson . “The Hidden Costs of Keeping Gas Plants Online in Texas and Beyond.” RMI, 3 Feb. 2022, https://rmi.org/the-hidden-costs-of-keeping-gas-plants-online-in-texas-and-beyond/. 

Texas is about to undergo another cold snap, and with this comes the worry of power. Last year, the lack of power during this time led to death and economic destruction, and people are now trying to figure out how to avoid this. Texas power relies heavily on gas fired plants, and these are where the problems lie. Weatherization improvements have been made, but vulnerabilities in supply could prove all of this to be ineffective. These issues go against the arguments that have been made for fossil fuels over the years, how they’re so reliable and inexpensive compared to alternative fuel options. When examined by a recent RMI study, it was concluded that if gas plants had to pay operators to guarantee a reliable fuel supply, almost all proposed plants would be more expensive than clean energy. Now of course new energy sources cannot be constructed in time for the storms, leaving Texans in an extremely risky and uncertain situation. In Texas, individual plants can choose whether or not they want to take on the extra price for reliable fuel or not, and those who don’t may run out, causing chaos for many.

In my opinion, this is probably going to be a turning point for Texas. No matter the outcome these next few weeks, Texas will most likely start looking deeper into alternative energy, to prevent anything like 2021 happening again. I wouldn’t expect to hear an article from Texas seriously considering and vouching for clean energy, but I think it brings a problem to the table that many more of us will have to face in the future. Fossil fuels are not a renewable source of energy, meaning that eventually we are going to experience scarcity. When this happens, alternative energy fuels will be our only options. I think it is best that we start now, especially when also considering the amount of greenhouse gasses already in our atmosphere. It was also good to hear someone discrediting the reliability of fossil fuels, as many have used that as an argument to keep using them. Power plants are now having to choose whether or not to pay extra for this reliability, and if I know anything about big businesses it’s that they will do anything to save their money. For this reason, many Texans are probably worried for the near future, and hopefully that fear can reinstate change. 

WRITER, Charles Young SENIOR STAFF. “West Virginia Legislature Passes Bill to Repeal Nuclear Power Plant Ban.” WV News, 7 Feb. 2022, https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/news/west-virginia-legislature-passes-bill-to-repeal-nuclear-power-plant-ban/article_ef65debe-844a-11ec-94c5-238f3d002621.html. 

Recently in West Virginia, a bill was passed to repeal its nuclear power plant ban. The bill was passed by a vote of 76-16, with eight people absent. It was passed by the Senate on January 25th, by a vote of 27-7 with three members absent. The bill was extremely short, simply stating that two sections of the ban need to be repealed. With 88 percent of West Virginia’s electricity coming from coal-fired power plants in 2020, this change will please a lot of people. Almost everyone is excited and pushing for this, just some in different ways. Some of those who voted no did so because they think there is a better way to introduce nuclear energy. Del. Evan Hansen says he voted against the bill because he thinks there should be more guidelines, and he is the co-sponsor of a separate bill that does just that. According to him, “it does it in the context of providing protections for ratepayers and trying to steer new nuclear plants to the sites that currently have coal-fired plants, where they are needed most.”

I am shocked to hear that West Virginia has a ban on nuclear power plants, and I cannot really imagine why that is. It could be because nuclear is dangerous in the wrong hands, but factually it is far better for our atmosphere than coal-fired ones. If this is the case, I think the stigma against nuclear power needs to be eradicated more, as we will probably have to turn to it in the coming years. What I found interesting and pleasing to me was the fact that most of the people who opposed the bill didn’t necessarily dislike nuclear power, they either wanted to learn more about it or go about it in a different fashion. This makes sense to me, and I think Hansen makes a lot of good points. West Virginia’s first plan of action with nuclear power should be replacing the coal ones, but without some sort of mandate for it these plants probably won’t want to go through making that change. In my opinion, although obviously better having nuclear rather than not at all, this bill should have been thought through a little more, to ensure it can be the most effective as possible. 

Mansouri, Kavahn. “Midwest Coal-Fired Power Plants Are among the Country’s Worst Polluters, but They Don’t Break EPA Rules.” Nebraska Public Media, 11 Jan. 2022, https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/midwest-coal-fired-power-plants-are-among-the-countrys-worst-polluters-but-they-dont-break-epa-rules/. 

Missouri’s largest coal-fired power plant(called Labadie), located west of St. Louis, emits more pollutants than any other in the region, and in 2020 it was the second largest coal-fired pollutant. Those living near and around the power plant have now begun expressing concern over the area’s air quality. “Dirty clouds” can be seen from 3 miles away, filled with carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and more. Surprisingly enough though, this plant isn’t violating any rules. Jason Heitman, the EPA’s Emissions Inventory Lead for the region, says “We do have facilities that have very high emissions, but that has no bearing on if they are violating or doing anything. That could just mean they’re large facilities.” While this is true, a problem does lie here. The four states that make up region 7 are home to four of the 10 highest emitting power plants in the Country; Missouri has two of them. To combat this, coal scrubbers are being added to the plant to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, and new changes will allegedly be rolling in in the near future. 

This was a very interesting article to me, because I did not know that the midwest was home to more emissions than any other region in the United States. The midwest is also pretty republican, which leads me to believe many would not be keen on new regulations that may hurt their businesses for the sake of the climate. As for the Labadie plant itself, its sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions are allegedly 78 and 76 percent lower than Missouri’s and the EPA’s standards, respectively. These do, however, only apply to the full fleet and not individual facilities. This could be an issue, as some facilities may be producing far more emissions than others, and that would be a good place to start making changes. I do think it is good, however, that they have a goal for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 for their plants. In my opinion, 2050 is a realistic goal where small changes can be made for a large end product. Sometimes leaders of these types of organizations make promises they can’t live up to, but 30 years should be enough time to execute any and all plans. I think it is good that they are already beginning to make changes, and I hope that they continue to do so. 

Grandoni, Dino. “Biden Begins Crackdown on Power Plant Pollution.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Feb. 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/31/mercury-power-plants-epa-climate/. 

Recently, the Biden Administration has been cracking down on the pollution emitted from power plants, as the country continues to try to switch to cleaner energy. Essentially, Biden has dismissed Trump’s past determination that mercury limits on power plants are unnecessary, and has set new limits on pollution. The EPA has, as well, begun to push for tighter restrictions on power plants, and are currently pressuring the nation’s most harmful power plants into shutting down. None of this comes as much of a surprise, as Biden has pledged to make the electricity sector carbon-neutral by 2035. Now there is definitely more that must be done to achieve his goal, but this is a good start. 

In my opinion, I think it is very good that Biden reversed Trump’s policies. He has never shown much regard for climate change, but mercury is also a very toxic chemical that can have direct effects on people close to the emissions. But aside from the direct consequences, limiting pollutants on power plants is a really good start towards a carbon-neutral future. According to a president of electric institutes, he and the electric power industry have invested over 18 billion dollars to enforce pollution control that meets Biden’s new standards. Oftentimes, when climate change issues are trying to be solved, the funds and the attitude of the people is what gets in the way. It is very promising to me that people inside of the electric power industry want to push for a greener future, as they are the ones who can really make these changes. As well as this, actually having sufficient funds to execute environmental funds can be tricky, but billions of dollars sounds like it could do the job. To me, what is good about having Biden in office is that he cooperates and works with the EPA far more than Trump ever did, so I think finally some real changes can be made.