Slogans, T-shirts, campaign buttons, snacks, pleas for donations and speeches galore dominated a rally in St. George on Super Tuesday ”” but the topic had nothing to do with political candidates.
“The topics we address tonight are very urgent,” the Rt. Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish, Episcopal bishop of Utah, said during remarks she made at the “Love Your Air ”” Stop Toquop” rally held at the St. George Episcopal Church.
“The Episcopal Church has taken a forward effort on sustainability. It is time for us to take a great deal more wisdom and thought into what we do,” she said. “We are the only creatures on Earth that can contemplate the ramifications of our actions.”
The rally, which attracted more than 250 residents, was billed as a way for individuals to voice their opposition to the Toquop Energy Project, a $1.2 billion coal-fired power plant to be constructed on 650 acres about 12 miles northwest of Mesquite. The plant would generate 750-megawatts of electricity for Nevada and Arizona customers, according to Toquop officials.
Why, let us generate electricity using oil imported from Saudi Arabia, of course.
It is obvious that TEC must be supporting a nuclear facility in its place. The lack of a carbon footprint and the proximity to Yucca mountain make it a no-brainer. I think it demonstrates excellent environmental stewardship and is in keeping with KJS’s suggested lenten goals.
Bishops qua Bishops vote on coal fired energy plants and laity qua laity vote on moral doctrine. Who’s on first!
The power plant is being built in Nevada to generate power for Nevada and Arizona customers. Why is the Bishop of Utah crossing into the Bishop of Nevada’s Diocese and intruding into another Diocese internal affairs? I thought TEC bishops opposed cross border incursions?
“The Episcopal Church has taken a forward effort on sustainability”
—C.T. Irish
Ironic, since neither ECUSA’s theology nor its demographics are sustainable.
The sad thing in this situation- and all environmental conversations of late- is that both sides talk past each other and don’t see the real issue at hand: our over-dependence and over-consumption of energy- whatever the source.
A simplier solution would be to do everything we could to reduce the amount of energy (electic, carbon burnings, etc) we demand. Better insulation of homes, higher effeincency appliances and automobiles, less airconditioning, etc. If the demand for energy went down- the need to build the addition plants, etc, would fall away.
But it is easier to yell at each other and make insults- then to look at how much energy we all use.
jamesk has it exactly. We can expect these people at the rally to support the new nuclear power plant in the place of this coal-fired one. worldpeas, conservation is a fine thing, but it’s not going to be enough. Who’s going to be the first volunteer to go without heat or air conditioning, or better yet, to give up the computer?
Worldpeas [#6]: Finally I get to (largely) agree with you about something. Conservation will, over time, take us a long, long way. Indeed, if energy prices stay high, they will create irresistible incentives to conserve (as well as to develop additional energy sources). We’ll still need more power plants and the question then becomes whether their emissions and other environmental effects are within proper bounds.
First Law of Thermodynamics: we neither create nor destroy energy.
Conservation? What is really being proposed is changing the [i]rate[/i] at which we convert energy to a “usable” form and what constitutes “usable” energy. Personally, I am in favor of geo-thermal energy. I don’t know why this technology has not been coupled with Stirling Engines on a wide scale. Kockums (http://www.kockums.se/) of Sweden has already developed a 25- kW Stirling engine for commercial use. When used for combined heat and power generation, they are between 50% and 90% efficient. Stirling engines work on differences in temperature. If one simply goes below the frost line, the constant temperature of the earth is about 54 degrees. Thermal energy is readily useable and universally available.
If we used it only for heating and cooling, and not for generating electricity, we could reduce the use of other forms of energy by about 40%. God willing, when I build my retirement home, it will be made of concrete [30-40% less energy to heat and cool] and will have a geothermal heat exchanger [for about another 40% reduction in the use of other forms of energy]. Petroleum is too useful a commodity to waste on just heating our homes, especially when a more efficient and potentially cost effective way is available. As far as coal use goes, I am all in favor of using our natural resource. We are the “Saudi Arabia” of the world when it comes to coal. With the scrubber technology we have today, we should be using coal for electrical generation. We should also be looking at the effective French use of nuclear power. If they can do it safely [and they have been for many decades], we can do it safely.
#6 & 8: who defines “over-consumption?” +Irish? Hillary Clinton?
thanks, no.
Very good comment, #9, though not likely to be popular. In particular, you are onto something regarding development of geothermal energy use, which is still not widely recognized for the potential it offers. See for example: http://www2.brgm.fr/ANGLAIS/geothermy.htm
and especially the last entry ‘Soultz-sous-Forets’. The French have forged ahead in geothermal as well as nuclear.
Over their eastern border, the Rhinegraben in Germany is already full of leases for geothermal energy production – from hot water, rather than hydrocarbons, that can be accessed by drilling.
I’ve often wondered how long such protests would last if we were to establish household quotas for electricity, and then freeze the quotas for all protesters at their current levels with no hope of increase for them.
Just askin’ ^_^.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas <*))><
#9, #11, these are the kind of things which make a lot of sense. New technologies are likely to make a big difference. I’ve also seen articles about improved solar cells, although solar requires power-plant back-up, since the sun doesn’t always shine, so it’s less helpful.
[blockquote]”We are the only creatures on Earth that can contemplate the ramifications of our actions.”[/blockquote]
Back when Ms. Tanner-Irish’s hard-left eco-forebears were “contemplat[ing] the ramifications of our actions,” they were protesting the application of the very technology that would make coal-fired generation plants unnecessary: nuclear. The upshot was that decades passed without a single new nuke being commissioned while all sorts of carbon-belching facilities came online.
And we’re supposed to listen to these ninnies now?
Jeffersonian,
That’s one thing you learn early on:
Listen to those doing the protesting. Do they offer a viable solution or alternative. If no, stop listening to them.
We have a similar policy in the Library: when a book is challenged, we ask several questions of the patron, among which are:
1) Have you read the book/watched the movie?
2) What do you find objectionable in the work?
3) What can you offer as an alternative that presents the same information but to your satisfaction?
If question 1 is answered “no”, and questions 2 and 3 are not answered at all, the challenge is ignored and the item kept in circulation.