Duke Energy to eat $700 million+ for 'clean coal'

Indiana ratepayers are rightly looking to saddle Duke Energy shareholders with the cost of this green fraud.

Duke announced yesterday that it was taking a $220 million charge against earnings to offset the cost overruns at its “clean coal” power plant in Edwardsport, Ind. Last year, Duke took a $44 million charge on the same plant.

Duke shareholders are potentially looking at eating another $436 million (for a total of $700 million) as the cost of the plant, originally pegged at $2 billion, is projected to cost $3 billion+. Further given economic conditions and the incompetence and corruption surrounding the Duke project, ratepayers are unlikley to be picking up any more than the $2 billion they’re already stuck with.

But what’s all this for? Is “clean coal” worth it?

If “clean coal” means no CO2 emissions, the Duke’s plant fails as it will not be capturing and sequestering CO2, and global warming alarmism is nonsense anyway.

If “clean coal” means reduced conventional pollutants (i.e., sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides), then this is a waste of money as our air is already clean and safe with current power plant emission controls.

Who should pay the price for the Edwardsport disaster? How about Duke’s Chairman and CEO, Jim Rogers? Click on the “Wanted” poster below, to enlarge.

4 thoughts on “Duke Energy to eat $700 million+ for 'clean coal'”

  1. Of course, did you see what they did to Exxon? To Lyondell? Do you really think that any of us are going to willfully make myself a target?

    Why do you think I use a moniker instead of my full name and never do more than hint at my employer’s general field? It’s not for some arbitrary desire for anonymity. There is a real and tangible fear of reprisal.

  2. Obie promised he would make it too expensive to continue utilizing coal. Wonder how everyone who voted for him is going to like their power bills this winter and next and… not to mention summer air conditioning…

  3. We need more CO2 in the atoms, not less…!
    Some studies say 1000ppm might be ideal.
    Pity Duke, but sequestration goes in the wrong direction .
    I have run plants like that, refining petroleum, but, but…?
    We’ll need them for petrochemicals in a 100 years…
    So let’s go for more carbon, get the president and Congress onboard
    to eliminate the IPCC, and get with the program…

  4. I am in attendance at the Carolina Air Pollution Control Assoc. meeting on Myrtle Beach, SC. Yesterday we had to tolerate the the EPA Region 4 overlord gloat over GHG regulations while she clubbed industry participants like baby seals. The amazing thing was that there was zero push back from industry. But out in the halls during breaks everyone is furious, but do not know what to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.