Power and pollution
AES is currently drawing up plans for what the company says would be a cleaner, more efficient power plant. Those plans will be submitted for state approval later this month, but AES has already begun marketing its new plant.
In July AES sent out a fact booklet that was mailed to a select number of Redondo Beach residents. It provided renderings of the current plant contrasting to the proposed 12-acre plant, showing a new plant that would be virtually undetectable from many angles. It also said that the five current 219-foot stacks would be replaced with three stacks, each less than 140-feet tall.
On the front cover was a picture of a smiling 20-something woman riding her bike near the waterfront. Opposition group NoPowerPlant, in response to the AES mailer, created their own fact book with a picture of a young child riding her bike down the same trail wearing a gas mask.
AES mailer
AES’ recently released “Project Summary,” explained that the new plant will be permitted to run 76 percent of the time, but is expected to only run 25 to 42 percent of the time. Their numbers indicate that the new plant, although permitted to produce 11,475,600 MWh of electricity, will only produce 770,000 – 1,300,000 MWh per year.
Opponents of repowering, BBR and NoPowerPlant, said that although the new plant will be cleaner and more efficient, it will also run more frequently, adding more pollutants to the air. BBR, extrapolating numbers from another proposed new AES plant in Huntington Beach – plans for which were submitted to the state in July – projects particulate emissions for a new Redondo plant to increase from the 3.3 tons released on average annually from 2007 to 2011 to between 22 and 37 tons.
“AES is going to put out six to eleven times they have over the last five years because they are going to run a lot more often,” Brand said. “Yes, it will be a lot more efficient. But it’s going to run so much more that they are going to put out 37 tons of particulate emissions, per their own numbers.”
Councilman Matt Kilroy sees a flaw in that comparison. Although in the last five years the plant has run at 5 percent capacity, he said the assessment should take more years into account.
In the past five years… the plant produced approximately 452,255 MWh of electricity, the recent AES project summary said. In an Air Quality Management District (AQMD) facility overview from 1999 – 2003, the numbers were much higher. In 1999 the plant’s output was 1,331,158 MWh. In 2003, the output was only slightly lower at 1,035,691 MWh.
“I don’t think it’s fair to sit there and compare what a potentially new power plant would produce to a power plant that by everyone’s admission virtually never ran in the last years,” said Kilroy. “Why are we comparing it against something that was virtually shut down?”
NoPowerPlant mailer
Dennis Peters, a representative from California Independent System Operations (CAISO), which oversees the state’s power grid, explained at a recent city council meeting that the state is trying to strike a balance with fewer gas generated plants while continuing to maintain the reliability of power across California. He said that if all four gas-fired plants in the region that supply the capacity requirement of 10,589 MWh were retired, the region would be 3,207 MWh short of necessary power.
But Peters also noted that all four plants are in the process of modernizing. Brand pounced on the opportunity. He asked Peters if there was the capacity of retiring one “once-through” power plant and still maintaining grid reliability.
“We look at that 3,277 MW needed to be replaced and we’re not specifying where that needs to be,” said Peters. “We would agree…the best, most cost-effective location would be at existing sites.”
“Just to reiterate,” said Brand. “There is capacity to retire some of the once-through cooling capacity.”
“Yes,” Peters answered.
A stony silence filled the room.
Pendergraft maintains, however, that the state’s energy needs remain highly unpredictable. He pointed to the problems experienced this year in San Onofre, where a nuclear power plant serving 1.2 million people went offline due to serious technical difficulties.
“Our world changes fast,” Pendergraft said. “San Onofre may or may not be back in service – this is 2,300 MWh we thought would be there that may not be there. We need to react to our ever-changing world, and that is what we are trying to do.”
“I think there is a point that a lot of people are missing: what we are doing is creating an option to be able to create a plant if needed. But if it’s not, then you have 50 acres available for other uses. And the state will make those assessments….Certainly, our vision is a for a smaller, quieter power plant. But we are only going to build that plant if it is needed.”
Kilroy also said that because of the concerns at San Onofre, the CEC will more hesitant to shut down power generating stations. He also said that if the CEC ultimately decides that the AES plant is needed, there are options to offset the pollution the plant would produce.
“There’s no doubt that having a power plant in your backyard is not a preferable thing, and there’s no doubt if you remove the sources of pollution you’re better off,” said Kilroy. “But if they are allowed to re-power, how can we get AES to reduce other sources of pollution and come out with a zero gain?”
Kilroy suggested that because the City Council voted to be an intervener in the relicensing process, they could suggest different ways for AES to mitigate their local pollution impact.
“We could have them pay to have solar water heaters installed in people’s homes,” he said. “And electric cars are the future, so why not put aside money to pay for an electrical charging infrastructure… plus that’s a boon for them, because they sell electricity. “
“One of my things is regardless of what happens and we end up having a power plant, we have to make the best [of the] result and ask what we can do to mitigate all of its negative impacts.”
Continue to page 3: Up in the air
Addressing Matt Kilroy’s comments – comparing power plant output from the late 90′s and early 2000′s is looking at the past. The energy situation has changed drastically in the decaed since those numbers were generated. Over 10GW of new power generation has been added to the grid and the transmission systems were substantially upgraded after the power issues around 2000. The run times of AES since 2005 reflect the reports by the ISO analyzing power capacity versus needs in our area. Report after report with projections as far out as 2021 show excess capacity in our part of the grid. These reports also show AES Huntington and AES Alamitos are critical for grid reliability due to their location. When you put the facts together it paints a very clear picture of why AES Redondo runs so infrequently… it is no longer needed. Even with San Onofre out, AES has been online very litttle. In fact in the last week, which was extremely hot, it was not online at all. Kilroy claims to be a numbers guy… he should know better than to use decade old data to make current decisions.
By next summer three brand new plants will come online in our part of the grid additon 1.8GW of new power generating capacity. This is more than 3x the size of plant Redondo is proposing for Redondo. And new transmission upgrades are in process as well. This will further reduce the need for AES Redondo.
As ISO rep Peters testified, we can retire some once through power plant capacity in our part of the grid. We have just four plants… Alamitos, Huntington Beach, El Segundo and Redondo. El Segundo is already being rebuilt. Huntington and Alamitos are critical to grid reliability. AES recently submitted its plant to rebuild Huntington at its full up capacity of about 900MW without any public opposition. That leaves Redondo as the logical choice for retirement.
As the SCE rep testified to City Council if you overbuild power generating capacity rates go up to pay for the unused infrastructure.
So this is a no brainer. Our experience with signature gathering shows overwhelming resident support for retiring the power plant permanently. It is time for the Council to come onboard and time for AES to back off of their plans to rebuild.
Our Council knows residents are against this. Councilman Aspel stated this publicly. Even if Kilroy were correct in his desire to compare pollution to numbers from well over a decade ago, he should be opposed to the power plant based on the mountains of evidence and testimony that this plant is no longer needed. He seems to be desparately picking just the right numbers in an feeble attempt to justify his inaction while conveniently ignoring the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Had our Council done the right thing, residents would not have to spend tehir summer and their own money on the rezoning initiative. The existence of the initiative is testimony to the failure of our city council.
I don’t usually join the commentary on articles but I did want to clarify that from August 1st through September 5th, the Redondo Beach plant has had at least one unit in operation more than 90% of the time and for much of August there were three units in operation.
The Flex Alerts were real, the electrical system was strained during the heat wave and the Redondo Beach units served a critical role in maintaining a reliable supply of electricity to the region.
To put the concerns about the San Onofre nuclear plant in perspective, we would need five power plants the size of the new facility that we are proposing for Redondo Beach to replace the generation lost by a shutdown of SONGS. This is in addition to the 3,207 MWs that is referenced in the article.
Eric Pendergraft
AES Southland
Jim, the simple existence of the initiative is not a testimony to the failure of a city council. I could go start an initiative tomorrow that says we should ban dog ownership in the city and get plenty of cat people to sign it. However, it is probably not what the majority of people in the city believe.
I think the City Council needs to go with what the MAJORITY of Redondo wants with the power plant. What is the majority? Well, I can’t answer that. I wouldn’t know without polling or voting numbers. Do you have evidence that over 50% of the city doesn’t want the plant? If so, then maybe you have a point. But, the council acting on who yells the loudest is not the best way to go about things.
I am looking forward to this going on a ballot at some point so I can see how Redondo really feels about it one way or another (and I can let them know how I feel with my vote).
The initiative will tell us what the majority think. If the Council had opposed the power plant in the first place, we would not be circulating a petition today.
How do you define “in operation”? How many MWHrs did AES Redondo produce per day? And during what times? Were there no other plants in the area that could have picked up this load?
It appeared to me that the Redondo units were not online until 6PM or later, after peak hours according to the graphs posted on the ISO page. The data portrayed there showed a comfortable margin in online capacity from demand throughout the days.
There is currently 1.8 GW of new power generation coming online in the LA basin by next summer. We should know what will be happening with San Onofre long term over the next several months. Meanwhile, the latest 2013 ISO predictions show excess capacity in the Western LA Basin without San Onofre and without the two units at Huntington, enough excess to retire AES Redondo. Unfortunately, the same is not true for the wider LA basin, but the 2013 plan institutes fixes that will hold them over until the new 1.8 GW comes fully online.
Chelsea, when you called me for a quote on how I felt about the pollution and the impact on my family, I assumed you’d quote me accurately. Please correct the errors in the above article. 1. I said I was against another power plant in RB, not that any pollution is too much for my family. There is clearly pollution we cannot control but the unnecessary dangerous pollution from this plant should they rebuild is what I’m opposed to. 2. I referenced USC’s “Children’s Health Study” that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and stated the findings which claimed that exposure to particulates and nitrogen dioxide were shown to “stunt” lung development in children, not “stop” lung development as you printed. The more alarming discovery that came from this study was that parents would not be able to visibly identify symptoms in children that experienced any type of deficit in lung development. And as BCHD Dr. Lisa Santora stated, unfortunately, there has been no testing whatsoever in Redondo Beach nor at any of the schools that house thousands of children downwind of AES emissions. Any deficits children encounter in the critical development years can become serious contributors to poor health much later in life.
During the Thurs-Sun Flex Alert time period, I have several photos of AES not running. I’m happy to post them for everyone to see. And AES is also submitting a new application to run at dramatically higher run rates so isn’t it possible that AES would have as part of its strategy to run the current facility as much as possible even if it wasn’t profitable for AES, in order to help AES get approval to go from barely running at 5% capacity the last 5 years and now asking to be permitted to run up to 76% capacity on the new application? It seems its par for the course in helping justify an application with such a huge discrepancy between the usual and what is being asked for…
For months now, we have seen and heard Bill Brand and Jim Light’s political agenda. ASE owns the property, and it appears the proposed new plant meets or exceeds all State and Federal Clean Air and Environmental Laws. But Brand and Light’s environmental activism would have the City Council spend money (millions) fighting a lawsuit they would loose. All in an effort to fulfill an agenda. Maybe Bill and Jim should focus their political activism efforts organizing rock concerts, art fairs, and farmers markets, and raise their own money to purchase the property from ASE.
The movement to fight power plant is much bigger than Bill and I. There are over 100 residents spending their precious free time to gather thousands of signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. And City Hall meeting about the power plant have been overflowing with residents against the power plant.
Yes AES owns the property but that does not give them the right to impact all their neighbors. This article shows that it is not just steam coming out of the power plant – it emits dangerous toxins. Despite our beachside breezes, Redondo does not meet clean air standards. We should not add more pollutants for an unneeded power plant.
Even under current zoning, power generation is a “conditional use”, which means the city reserves the right to approve, disapprove, limit or place additional conditions on any new power generation upgrade or project based on impacts to the surrounding community. So AES has no “right” to build a new power plant.
And guess what… if the initiaitve passes, AES will still own their land. They will just have to do something other than power generation with it.
Our agenda is simple…. take advantage of a once in a lifetime opportunity to rid our waterfront of an unneeded, blighting, polluting power plant.
We refuse to cower to a big bully from out of state who threatens a lawsuit if they don’t get their way. They don’t have to live with the blight and pollution…we do. They take the profits to Virgina, we get the pollution and blight. Heck, even Didlo and Pendergraft don’t live in Redondo.
AES can sue, but they are likely throwing their money away. Rezoning is legal and the initiative allows them ample value for their property under its zoning. 15 to 20 acres of waterfront commercial property with a 430,000sq ft development cap is worth a lot of money. It is the same density allowed in the harbor zoning. The initiaitve zoning is very generous to AES. We invited them to provide inputs to that zoning on multiple occasions, but they chose not to.
“Justsaying” and “RB local”…when you post with your name, you have more credibility. Anyone wanting to remain anonymous but claims to understand the issue and acting like a Redondo voter, is suspect. Try putting your name and reputation on the line if you’d like to engage in a factual debate. For all the rest of us know, these anonymous posters and just AES shills trying to delude residents from the facts.
P.S. Purchasing the land from AES isn’t required. If the new zoning gets on the ballot and passes, AES is welcome to participate in the revival of Redondo’s pier and waterfront. There will be significant economic value for them and they are free to choose whether they want to do something positive for Redondo Beach as a developer or sell the property. They knew when they purchased the land, that they had a ‘conditional use permit’ to generate power on their land. There was no guarantee this community would allow that use to continue given that use was allowed as a ‘conditional use’ decades ago. It’s not 1960 in Redondo Beach anymore…clearly. And Redondo Beach needs ‘more’ citizens to step up and get involved overseeing what the city council does and does not do. They work for us tax-paying citizens (they seem to forget that) and with few holding them accountable, the selfish pursuits of individual politicians will continue to negatively influence the future of our city.
I personally, thank Bill and Jim for all that they do to benefit our community, not fatten up their pocketbooks. It’s a shame today in our culture, that the politicians with integrity and willingness to serve, are the minority.
I see that reality is hard to accept. Jim writes that AES has “no right” to build. However, Jim fails to tell you they are “within their rights” to build. If the proposed plant doesn’t violate any State or Federal environment laws, or any other zoning laws etc, the damn thing is going to be built. I know this upsets you, but that’s the reality, like it or not. Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by spending the City’s money, is not going to work. So go ahead, call me more names.
So Eric, you joined… care to answer Jim’s questions for all of RB to read?
Sheri, you do realize that just because steam/smoke is not coming out of the tall towers, does not mean the plant is not running. One of their units, which I saw running when I drove by during the flex alerts, only has a tiny pipe that lets out emissions… It is almost unnoticeable. You can actually see it in this picture here (just to the left and below the right three smoke stacks):
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1272&bih=666&tbm=isch&tbnid=1nt6afsnOl5saM:&imgrefurl=http://www.easyreadernews.com/57001/power-play-redondo-power-plant-aes/&docid=ERW3KWkYVCqaDM&imgurl=http://www.easyreadernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/c-power-1-web-600×400.jpg&w=600&h=400&ei=DjlKUN__LMSliQKEl4GoBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=182&vpy=187&dur=2103&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=96&ty=132&sig=115051064680021721791&page=3&tbnh=149&tbnw=199&start=36&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:36,i:222
Jim, that is my point… What if it turns out only 25% of Redondo supports the initiative? Then Council (If they had taken action) would have been acting on the views of a vocal minority. But then again, the initiative could have 75% support… We just don’t know yet. My point is, we don’t know until it is put up for a vote and I don’t think Council should be acting solely on the fact that more No Power Plant people show up to meetings that those that support the plant.
You are gunning for 9,000 signatures on the initiative, but that only equates to about 13% of the population of Redondo (around 67,000 people). Sure, enough to get something on a ballot, but certainly not indicative of a majority view just yet.
Venting steam does not equate to producing power. The big stacks are not just ornamentation they are there for a purpose. Which gets to the point of my questions above. If Pendergraft’s definition of “operating” includes just sitting their idle making steam, that is not providing power to the grid. How many MWHrs were produced on the those days cited by Mr. Pendergraft and during what hours?
The initiative will prove it one way or another. Residents have no other choice. Mayor Gin vetoed a Council resolution to take an up or down vote of of whether residents want a new power plant. Aspel stated publicly that he believes the majority do not want a power plant and others voiced similar assessments. But Gin refused to spend the money. He approved spending $250K on a harbor consultant and $2M for a new harbor patrol facility. But spending $100K for a vote on the power plant that will affect our community for at least another 50 years is too much. Go figure.
Your discussion about how many people vote is a quibbling. You are implying that the US system of democracy is inavlid. By your measure our own elected officials cannot be representatives because a majority of the people did not vote for them. I think you need to find a new country or form your own. That isn’t the way it works here..
This statement is totally inaccurate. You aare not withion your right to build unless all the pemrits and other required documents are approved. There is no “right” to build here. They may get “permission”, but they do not have a “right”.
Three power plants have been stopped that complied with all the regulations. They were stopped by local opposition. In our case our council refuses to act, so residents must. The only card we can plan is rezoning by initiative. I doubt the CEC will approve a plant after a public vote against it especially when there ismountains of data showing the plant is not needed and the documented negative impacts of the plant on the community. Add the non-Redondo political opposition to the new plant and we believe our chances of defeating this plant are high. AES must think so too. Otherwise, AES would not spend so much money trying to fool or frighten residents and the Council into supporting the plant. There are no glossy mailers going out in Alamitos and Huntington.
“We believe our chances of defeating this plant are high.”
And who pays If you lose?
If a new power plant is built we all pay and we pay for 50 or more years. Businesses will continue to suffer less revenue as evidenced in City reports. Surrounding property values will continue to be depressed over similar properties elsewhere in the City per City reports. City revenues will suffer as business and property value impacts affect tax revenues. Residents will suffer increased air and noise pollution plus continued view impacts. And those impacts will be with us for 50 or more years.
The cost of allowing a new power plant far outweighs the risk of a the possible loss of a possible lawsuit. And with the value allowed by the zoning in the initiative, AES is on very shaky ground, especially after the CEC denies them a power plant permit. The initiative zoning is an upzoning from a value perspective.
Doing nothing while cringing and wringing our hands in fear of a possible loss of a possible lawsuit guarantees we all pay for 50 years or more.
Still Light refuses to admit or acknowledge that the City could/would lose millions if AES prevails in a lawsuit. But Jim is willing to spend/risk your money anyway. Then there’s Light’s dire predictions of economic doom and gloom if the plant is built….Talk about intimidating residences and business.
Venting steam does not equate to producing power. The big stacks are not just ornamentation they are there for a purpose. A steam turbine producing power puts out far more exhaust than that small pipe could carry. Which gets to the point of my questions above. If Pendergraft’s definition of “operating” includes just sitting there idle making steam, that is not providing power to the grid. How many MWHrs were produced on the those days cited by Mr. Pendergraft and during what hours?
I don’t refuse to admit it or acknowledge it. I do not believe it to be true. Please cite your evidence for “millions” of dollars of damage.
A judge will look at the value of the land zoned industrial and park against zoning for waterfront commercial with a cap of 430,000 sq ft of development surrounded by a waterfront park. The judge will see that the harbor across the street has the same density. The value decision is a no brainer. The fairness is a no brainer. AES would be on very shaky ground. Will their stockholders and board members tolerate that risk, especially with two other California uncontested power plants in the pipeline?
Look if we are successful and the CEC denies the permit, AES stockholders are going to want to get value out of the property quickly. Engaging in a lawsuit with the entity that will ultimately have control over what you get to do with the land is not the brightest strategy.
Citing the impacts of a new power plant is not intimidating businesses. I am not trying to get them to do anything. I am citing evidence documented in City studies on the fiscal impacts of the power plant.
Anyone in business would evaluate the decision from a risk reward perspective on the potential outcomes of both scenarios….doing nothing or opposing the power plant. You presented the risk of a lawsuit, I presented the certainty of the fiscal impacts should the new plant be built and the benefits should we be successful in stopping a power plant, both of which you avoided to address in your question.
When you weigh it all out most would come to the conclusion that opposing power plant brings far more value than the risk of a possible loss of a possible lawsuit while avoiding the for sure impacts of the new plant.
Also, I find it difficult to put a value on health impacts to children, the elderly and those who work out outdoors. The article corroborates what we have been saying all along with independent experts who are not part of BBR or NPP. When you throw health impacts into the equation, this fight is well worth it. What value do you put on the lung development of children Just Saying?
OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS ONCE
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to significantly increase human health here in the LA basin.
DUMP THE POWER PLANT
Attorney fees @ $400.00 an hour add up pretty quick Dude. Look, AES wants to build a new, modern, natural gas fired power plant, which meets the Local, State and Federal Environmental, and zoning laws. They wouldn’t propose a plant that didn’t met these standards. Political activists, like Light, and others opposes it. Which is fine. But in an effort to persuade others, Light depicts the proposed plant as an environmental boogieman. AES says the opposite. I’m just saying…the stage is being set for an expensive court battle.
You conveniently avoided the value of a child’s lung development.
It takes a lot of $400 hours to add up to “millions”. I just point out the facts. A natural gas power plant cannot meet standards in a non-attainment zone. So they have to rely on exemptions or credits and they have to use Best Available Control Technology – which basically means just “we know you can’t be clean, just do the best you can”. We never said their emissions would be “illegal”. We just published how many tons of pollution would be put out by our biggest single fixed source of air pollution per year. We take on their statement that the plant will be cleaner. It may run cleaner per KWHr but it their proposed higher run rate will put out more tons of pollution. And then we published the impacts of those pollutants on health which was corroborated in this article. Pollution is just one reason the city could deny a conditional use permit. And it is just one justification for our rezoning action. Along with other ecological and fiscal impacts to the community.
The court battle will not be over pollution. IF there is one, it will be over zoning. I have already painted the case for the zoning and stand by it. We are on solid ground on the zoning.
It seems you would just have us stand down and accept a new power plant. We think it is worth the fight and we do not want to squander our once in a lifetime opportunity.
Here is the only clarification we need from Pendergraft…why should we believe him?
From the “Los Angeles Times”
November 16, 2002 by Nancy Rivera Brooks, Times Staff Writer
“New Evidence of Fraud in Power Crisis”
Workers at AES Corp. and Williams Cos. agreed to idle California plants to drive up electricity prices, federal regulators allege.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/16/business/fi-williams16
Ummm, has it occurred to anyone that if the power plant is denied then the power line rights of way leading away from the power plant will no longer be required as well? And if that happens, then those rights of way will almost surely be developed, meaning additional crowding, traffic, pollution, crime and so forth.
Honestly, the South Bay is already crowded enough as it is. Am I alone here in thinking that a high tech and ultra-low emission power plant would be far more preferable to additional development?
(Also, if contracted correctly, the South Bay cities could lay first claim to the plant output, something to think about given the strong possibility of future blackouts and brownouts.)
Just a thought.
VicB3
Right now the power lines have another function, but that does not mean we could not get rid of them in the future. Article XXVII of the Redondo City Charter would require any change of use to right of way to be put to a vote of the Redondo voters. So residents must approve any future zoning change to the Edison Right of Way under the power lines. The smaller power lines would still be required.
And guess what, AES wants to build a power plant AND mixed use development on the freed up land. So you will get the pollution, blight and fiscal impacts and suffer the traffic and other impacts of mixed use development.
As to the contract comment, AES does not connect directly to any Redondo distribution it connects to the grid back near the 405. The grid is managed by the CAISO and CPUC. Redondo could not contract directly even if the power were directly connected.
It could be mandated that AES develop the freed up land as a yacht harbor, thus avoiding the blight issue and providing badly needed slip space (and revenue) to King Harbor and Redondo Beach.
Regarding zoning changes being put up to a vote and or the city council, one need only look at what Catalina has become over the years to recognize that is a somewhat risky course of action.
Regarding the CPU et al, the local cities should still be able to override that. As for hookups to the local grid, that wouldn’t be a problem.
Thank you for your kind response.
Just a thought.
VicB3
What I meant by operating is producing electricity that was provided to businesses and residents in the region. The ambient conditions and the output level of the units dictate whether you see a visible plume from the stacks or not. Often times the units are producing electricity and you will see no visible plume. You cannot determine from the stacks whether the plant is operating or not. In fact, the higher the electricity output, the less likely it is that you will see a plume.
WIth respect to being on line, the units take 12 to 24 hours to start up. They do not come on and off line daily but rather are started up and left operating to meet the needs of the region. That is why we were producing electricity more than 90% of the time during the month of August.
Moses,
Soot comes from solid or liquid fuel not natural gas which is what the power plant runs on. The soot you describe would be more likely from a some sort of combustion engine found in your car vehicle.
AES reports the current plant running at just 5% of capacity puts out 3.3 tons of particulate pollutants per year. Based on pollution numbers from the new plant AES is applying for in Huntington, our new plant would put out over 22 tons at the AES advertised low end run rate.
So soot would come from the power plant.
Like we asked before, how many MWHrs per day and at what times? When there is no plume you can still see the heat coming out the tops of the stack if the turbines are online. I am aware of the start up time of the plant.
I was wondering about the little girl on the sidewalk riding her bike with the gas mask on. How much do the parents really care about her health if they aren’t even having her wear a helmet? (so much for health and safety)? “Did you know that nearly 50 percent of children 14 and under
hospitalized for bicycle, in-line skating and skateboarding-related
injuries are diagnosed with a brain injury? Is that a chance you are
willing to take?” quoted from http://www.wearahelmet.org
I love the hypocrisy (sarcasm).
It’s a parody. She didn’t ride the bike that way. And note that the AES model did not wear a helmet and is on a sidewalk where bicycles are prohibited. The picture duplicated the AES shot with the sarcastic elements added.
Aslo note the shopping bag the AES model has is from Beverly Hills. Many Redondo residents get on their strand cruisers and bike to Beverly Hills to shop.
“The Pharoah” you’re not serious are you? That’s the best pseudonym you could up with? That is just weak sauce. I’ve seen “The Ten Commandments” and Moses wins in the end. By the way, it’s spelled Pharaoh.
Good reporting Chelsea. I’m hoping the next piece will point out the hypocrisy behind the notion that the city council failing to support a meaningless resolution opposing the power plant left a small group of citizens with no choice but to circulate a petition for an initiative to re-zone the AES property. There’s no logical connection between the two events.
I agree that we would not stop circulating the initiaitve had the City Council passed a meaningless resolution. However, there are meaningful actions the Council could take but to date they have refused:
1) Phase out the power plant zoning
2) Establish noise limits for the new zoning designations around the power plant. The current noise ordiannce does not list current zoning designations and the limits associated with them.
3) Enforce noise limits for AES.
4) Establish limits on the new power plant – property setbacks, view protections, plume abatement requirements.
5) Call for a more intensive air pollution and health impact study than is currently required.
6) Appeal to state and federal politicians to oppose the power plant
7) take a vote of the people to demonstrate to the state agencies, the local oppositon
8) hire a consultant to build the case against hte power plant so the city can be an effective intervener (we pay $250K each year for a harbor consultant)
9) reintroduce the UUT on ther ballot
Those are just a few examples from other cities that have been successful or are currently fighting a new unneeded power plant in their city. Had the city started meaningful opposition. We would NOT have started the initiative. But after kicking the can down the road for over a year and ahlf, the residents had no alternative than direct action.