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. 

Christian, P. (2021, August 17). Power plant closure financially ‘devastating’ for community, school district. WCPO. https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/i-team/power-plant-closure-financially-devastating-for-community-school-district. 

The two power plants that used to sit on the Ohio River were flush with tax revenue that paid for roads, schools, and more for Clermont county in Ohio. After the recent closing of these power plants(most recently the Zimmer plant), due to new air pollution regulations and the popularity of natural gas, the village could lose up to 90 percent of its revenue. Trash and wastewater fees have already been added for residents, and council members’ pay has been cut in half. The property taxes on the plant(Zimmer Plant) decreased from 11 million in 2015 to 4.7 million in 2019, causing the county to lose about 700,000 dollars of their budget. The residents are trying to find solutions, but it is undeniable that the entire county will take a big hit. 

This article informs readers on the downsides of getting rid of coal-fueled power plants. There are many downsides to these plants, most notably its carbon emissions that have caused a great deal of the climate changes we are facing today, but the economic hits places will face as these plants shut down may be more catastrophic than anticipated. This information may be useful to other areas planning on shutting down their power plants, and could delay the process of related actions. Although Clermont county is small and their economic success or downfall does not mean much for many, it is a representation of what may happen on a larger scale. The question of environmental problems vs. economic problems has begun to come to light, and while it would be foolish not to let environmental issues take priority, it is now clear that we need financial plans for these new climate change measures. 

Stemphelet, A. (2021, August 22). Government advances plans to build two new nuclear power plants. Buenos Aires Times. https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-advances-with-plans-to-build-two-new-nuclear-power-plants.phtml. 

After joining the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016, Argentina is in need of reducing its carbon emissions to comply with this accord. In response, the country is advancing with two new nuclear power plants, which is estimated to translate into thousands of jobs while doubling energy output for the next decade. It will take approximately eight years for the first nuclear plant to be constructed, as negotiations between China and Canada have not been completed. China is helping to fund the first of Argentina’s nuclear power plants, while Canada is aiding with the second. The construction is estimated to begin in 2022, and if all goes well should be functional in the next 7 years. 

Reading this article helped me to understand a few different aspects of our global efforts to fight climate change that I did not realize before. First off, this is the first story I have heard that talks about what smaller and less funded countries are doing to fight climate change. It is easy to look up stories about the U.S., China, and European countries that have been thriving for centuries and find out what they are doing to stop climate change. Places such as South America, Africa, and the Middle East have had seemingly less popularity when it comes to environmental issues, and it is interesting and comforting to know everyone is doing their part. Also, this article gave an in depth look on the process of building these power plants, and why they will take so long to build. Everyone talks about how we need to combat climate change now, when the reality is that some of the bigger steps we are trying to take will take some time. Building power plants is a long and intricate process, and although it will aid us greatly when they start working, it takes time to get to the point where we need to be. 

Timmer , J. (2021, August 11). Most of the power sector’s emissions come from a small minority of plants. Ars Technica.  https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/most-of-the-power-sectors-emissions-come-from-a-small-minority-of-plants/. 

After the latest expert report that indicates we’re running out of time to prevent extreme climate change, people are looking for ways to cut carbon emissions any way they can. A study has now shown that cutting out the worst 5 percent of power plants around the world would cut back our electricity generation carbon emissions by about 75 percent. Researchers found the worst ten power plants in the world, and are now looking at solutions to reduce the waste they produce. The most effective way to do this would be to shut them down completely and replace them with emission free plants, but this may not be the most plausible solution. Other options include switching the plants to natural gas and cutting global emissions by 30 percent, or using the carbon capture and storage method, cutting half of global emissions. These solutions show a great deal of promise, and could be accomplished in the next decade. 

This article sheds light on some of the solutions we are creating to try and resolve climate change. There are many articles that will tell you all about environmental issues and ways we are making it worse, while this one gives some hope of reducing one of our biggest contributors to climate change, carbon emissions. We have struggled for some time with finding a way to cut back on our carbon emissions while still having enough accessible power for our everyday lives and businesses, but these solutions outline some changes we could make that will cut these emissions while still not losing much power. This article gives me some hope for our fossil fuel problem, and shows that we do have the problem solving skills and technology to make a real difference in climate change if we choose to do so. 

Gunia, A. (2021, August 20). Climate change: China PLANS 43 new coal-fired power plants. Time. https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/. 

Although China is already the world’s largest polluter, and pledging to make their country carbon-neutral by 2060, they are going forward with building 43 new coal-fired power plants. Just days after the IPCC released their report calling climate change an “unequivocal reality”, China decided to push the new power plants, along with 18 blast furnaces. They already produced three times more new coal power capacity in 2020 than every other country combined, even with climate change looming. Although some analysts still believe China can reach its climate targets for the year, these plants will add 1.5% to its current annual emissions, and it may continue to increase.

This article worries me, as we’re expected to pass the 1.5 C threshold soon, meaning we may be on the path toward irreversible damage if we don’t act soon. There are still possible solutions regarding climate change and our fossil fuel emissions, but if China’s political and economic systems continue to feed their industrial desires, we will be out of options. Even if they are still on track to meet their climate change targets this year, that could easily change at the requests of important people in their government and market. An increase in carbon emissions could mean an even quicker melting of the polar ice caps, extreme weather events, and the disturbance of natural habitats. These will all affect humanity, whether it be direct or indirect, and makes an even bigger case to cease carbon emissions. I believe that if we do not start making serious changes to our industrial life now, it may never happen.