FirstEnergy spent $1.8 billion installing scrubbers at its largest coal plant, the W.H. Sammis unit on the Ohio River. "It took us five years to do that. That's just one project. Multiply that by the plants that need to have work," Durbin explained. "It could reach into billions of dollars."
The Ohio plants FirstEnergy's generation subsidiaries will close are Bay Shore plant's Units 2 and 4 near the city of Oregon, plants in Eastlake and Ashtabula, and the Lake Shore plant in Cleveland. Also on the list are the Armstrong plant in Adrian, Pa., and the R. Paul Smith plant in Williamsport, Md.
These are old, relatively small, relatively inefficient compared to newer units, and dirty, having been granted a grandfathered exemption from initial Clean Air Act requirements, say the power company's critics. One was idled in 2010 because of the recession. Others run only when demand peaks.
Living on 'grandfathered' time?
"Make no mistake, these plants were operating well-beyond their intended lifespan for a reason: it has been cheap to be dirty," said Henry Henderson, Midwest director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a recent blog post. "And utilities have taken advantage, holding off on modernizations so that the Clean Air Act's provisions would not kick in to force older plants like these to be retrofitted with modern pollution controls to protect the surrounding communities," he said.
"These are rules that have been coming down the pike for more than a decade," said NRDC's John Mogerman. "Most of the nation's utilities long ago put themselves in a position to deal with these requirements," he said -- and that includes FirstEnergy's investments in its more modern plants. "Those that are left are the smallest, most inefficient plants. The company is simply making a business decision that they don't want to invest in modern pollution controls, or in protecting the communities around them," he asserted.
If the pressures of low natural gas prices contributed to the coal plants' closing, it also has a big upside for the Ohio economy. Ohio leaders and officials from Gov. John Kasich (R) down are counting on the natural gas boom to create direct jobs from exploration and production and also to lead a revitalization of the state's manufacturing sector.
The Ohio Oil & Gas Energy Education Program, a shale gas drilling advocate, estimates that more than 200,000 new jobs could be created over the next four years from shale gas development, if developers are able to safely maximize production.
Employment in Ohio's primary metals industries plunged from 82,400 in December of 2000 to 34,900 in December 2009, continuing the jobs hemorrhage in that sector that began in the late 1970s. By the end of 2010, employment was headed upward. Ohio's unemployment rate had dropped to 8.1 percent last December from 9.5 percent in December 2010, and remarkably for Ohioans, the state jobless rate at the end of last year had dropped below the U.S. average.
Politics drones on, but so does new employment
"We talk to companies that provide equipment into the steel industry and other manufacturing industries. They are hiring people as quickly as they can find qualified people, because their demand is up tremendously," said Martin Abraham, dean of Youngstown State University's College of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
An alliance of Youngstown-area companies has formed, called the Mahoning Valley Manufacturers Coalition, he added. "They are trying to identify new opportunities to get people educated so they can take the jobs they are trying to fill."
For its part, FirstEnergy is contributing to job growth in the wind energy, as well, committing to buy power from the Blue Creek Wind Farm in northwestern Ohio, an expansion that provides more jobs for Ohio.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentAre republicans just plain stupid or do they have severe brain damage form all the coal, oil, and natural gas polluting the air, water, and land? How noble of them to place a hand full of jobs above human health and life and the structural stability of their cities that will be damaged by the earthquakes caused by the fracking of the natural gas. It seems they will do anything to carry on Bush's legacy of death, destruction, poverty, and war to everyone except the upper 1%. The Ohio republicans should remember that they have a nuclear power plant sitting on a fault line at the Ohio River and the fracking for natural gas could bring that plant down to the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burning of fossil fuel should be outlawed in the United States and all that money put into the development and research of clean energy. In ten years, we all could be fossil fuel free.
People will be very upset when they find out the internal combustion engine will be banned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames.. You can't 'ban' electriciy from fossil fuels or you'd be 'banning' 70% of the USA's electricity...of which the vast majority comes from coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal is the world's fastest growing source of energy and that trende will contoinue for decades. A dollar invested is cleaner coal plants is multiples more benefit for the environment than a dollar flushed down the toilet in 'feel good' renewables.
"Because of the regulations on toxic power plant emissions announced last month by U.S. EPA,..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRONG! These standards have been in the works since the 80s and the industry KNEW what was in them. They lobbied against this for so long, killing and sickening thousands in the interim, all to pump up their quarterly profit statements. Making these standards sound like they were a surprise to the power industry is misleading at best!
"It took us five years to do that [install pollution controls]. That's just one project. Multiply that by the plants that need to have work," Durbin explained. "It could reach into billions of dollars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat! Since you are sitting on billions of dollars in cash on hand, getting you to spend this money to hire workers and buy equipment helps the economy and lowers unemployment! Those pollution control technologies don't build themselves!
"A dollar invested is cleaner coal plants is multiples more benefit for the environment than a dollar flushed down the toilet in 'feel good' renewables."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE? How come you guys NEVER provide ANY evidence to back up your claims? How many times have I had to ask you for the common courtesy of sharing with all of us your source for this "surprising" information? What lifespan do you use for the "clean" coal plants and "feel good" renewable energy systems do you use in your model to reach your conclusions?
"geo", that comment isn't even worth commenting on, but I will try to give you some valuable information. Your comment sounds like a soundbite you got from Faux News, Rush Limpballs, or GW Bush.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal burning power plants are about 400% to 600% polluting, nuclear power plants are about 1,400% polluting - considering the dangers of the radiation and the time it takes to clean it up and it to leave the environment.
Geothermal power plants are 1% polluting, and that is because of the minerals that come up in the steam, and you can even extract those valuable minerals and resell them. One geothermal power plant in California can produce 3 tons of silver a year and about 1 to 2 tons of gold and 100 tons of lithium. You cannot see a profit in that? One geothermal power plant can produce as much energy as three nuclear power plants of equal size; even the solar field in Arizona produces more energy than one nuclear power plant and it didn't cost $50 billion dollars to build the solar ray or take ten years to start producing energy. So where does flushing the money down the toilet on clean energy come in? I think you need to get your head out of the toilet or out of the GOP's behind.
sault- You made three ranting comments in a row. Alot of exclamation points and capital letters and in the third one demand "WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE?", all without providing a single source for your own claims. Are you the pot or the kettle?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJimmy- You throw out a lot of big statements, but, to quote sault, "WHERE'S YOUR SOURCE?". Your numbers sound extremely inflated and are nice big round numbers. The kind you never get in a real study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to actually report the news, without as much of the usual slant that we've all grown to expect on this site. Bravo.
James, repubs are stupid as proven by their voting for bush and whichever of the fools they chose this time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want facts, just google. Thing is Sault's will come out fine, jellyroll, alan not so much.
Facts are these are killing and hospitalizing people and old, not eff, labor intensive units that shouldhave been close decades ago but for corporate greed and bought and paid for congress critters.
"Postman1", if you would just read the articles here on SciAm, you wouldn't have to ask, "WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE". I do not have to give you the exact percentage that coal, oil, and natural gas pollutes when I say, "just about 400%." When you start quoting Faux News, Rush Limpballs or GW Bush, then you should always give a source because they are three really stupid sources that hate science or anything to do with clean energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike "jerryd" said, (taken out of context) "get your head out of the GOP's behind and Google it."
jimmy- See your buddy, sault's comment number six, second paragraph. Then get your head out of the liberals' behinds. (To paraphrase you)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFacts are other than the US, Russia and Aussie land, the rest of the world runs out of coal in under 30 yrs.
EIA coal reserves website has the recent numbers.