subscribe

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

No More Dirty Coal

The Alternatives to Coal

When a company called TXU announced in 2006 that it was planning on building 11 coal-fired power plants in Texas, it argued that the plants were needed to meet growing demand for power. It didn't take long for a report entitled to demonstrate that none of those coal plants were needed at all.

This study finds that a comprehensive effort to promote efficiency and other cost-saving demand reduction measures can meet Texas’ electricity needs more reliably, at a lower cost and at a tremendous net economic benefit compared to building a new fleet of expensive and heavily polluting power plants.
This approach also offers substantial economic and environmental benefits for Texas. The efficiency potential described in this report would provide $49 billion in economic benefits over the next 15 years, resulting in lower electricity bills for customers and reduced spending on
electricity generation and transmission capacity by utilities.

The approach of business as usual is to keep doing what we've been doing. Just a bit of head-scratching, and you find out there's a better way to do things moving forward -- a basket of different energy efficiency measures that add up to what 11 coal plants can do, and more. By the way, if you haven't heard, TXU cut a deal and abandoned plans for eight of the eleven coal plants it wanted to build in Texas. Didn't really need 'em after all, and the other three are still being contested.
The best way to meet our expanding need for electricity? It's something America successfully did during the energy crisis that began with the Arab oil embargo of 1973.

Over an 11-year period (1973–1983), the United States built approx. 30 billion square feet of new buildings, added approx. 35 million new vehicles and increased real GDP by over one trillion dollars (in year 2000 dollars) while decreasing its energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

The Myth of Clean Coal


The phrase "clean coal" defies common sense, but hear it often enough, and it starts to sound real. It isn't. When you hear "clean coal" think of a unicorn, and you'll be closest to the truth.
Clean coal, at the moment, is merely wishful thinking. We wish we could make coal clean, because we have more of it than Saudi Arabia has oil! It sure looks like the broad and easy boulevard to energy independence. No more Middle Eastern oil, just home dug coal. But. There's that inconvenient truth: global warming. Oh. No problem, then, we'll make coal clean. This is America, we can do anything. And there you have the birth of the clean coal myth.
In all fairness, big industry is making sincere efforts to develop technology that would clean up coal. They have made some progress, but not enough for us to be banking on.
The best thing going is a thing called IGCC -- -- which is a power plant that produces less emissions that a traditional plant that burns pulverized coal. It has yet to be proven reliable -- there are only 2 of them in operation in the US as of 2007. They also cost much more to build, so the electricity they would generate would cost 30% more. So there's not much point in building these things because the same investment in energy efficiency measures and renewable energy alternatives would produce the electricity needed at similar cost without a wisp of CO2.
IGCC plants are also touted as "capture ready." Translation: IGCC can capture the CO2 that's still produced in massive quantities. Problem is, we still don't know what to do with captured carbon dioxide. Yes, some oil companies inject it into old wells to squeeze out remaining deposits of crude, but otherwise, piping and storing CO2 produced by hundreds of power plants all across the nation is part of the grand mythology of clean coal. It may be something we could one day figure out how to do. And pay for. But why pursue a path that is expensive, risky (explosions from CO2 escaping from underground) and would take way too long to develop?

The Danger of Coal to Liquid Fuel Technology

There's that is enjoying a sudden revival of interest. It takes coal and turns it into liquid fuel that can be used in cars and airplanes. Nazi Germany derived half the fuel its military needed during World War II from this coal-to-liquid process; South Africa used it to meet its energy needs when isolated for its apartheid policies. It doesn't exactly have a proud history, but that hasn't prevented They've got the Air Force interested.
It's a boondoggle that costs too much and pollutes both the air and water. () A new coal-to-liquid plant would cost $7 to $9 billion -- a traditional oil refinery costs only $2 billion. The coal to liquid alternative also produces twice as much greenhouse gas than fuel from crude oil, and requires 5 to 7 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of fuel, according to the US Department of Energy.

Tar Sands

Tar sands aren't coal deposits, but they still deserve mention here, because they are another fuel alternative -- like coal-to-liquid fuel -- that make things worse. The tar sands are found in Canada under pristine boreal forests and occupy an area the size of Florida. The sticky substance is 85% sand and 10% bitumen, a tar like substance that can be turned into fuel. It was never worth extracting the stuff, but now that the price of oil has shot up, tar sands development is booming. There's supposedly 1.7 trillion barrels of oil locked up in all that sand. For the purely business-minded, it's hard to walk away from all that potential, so similar in size to America's coal reserves.
Same story as coal to liquid. It produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases -- much greater than oil production -- and uses up precious water resources. Canada's tar sands are America's problem.

Where the Action Is

The failure in 2007 of TXU to proceed with its plans to build 11 power plants in Texas was a watershed moment. It was a signal defeat for the coal industry. The banks financing the deal brought environmental groups to the table to cut a buyout deal, which at $45 billion was the biggest in American history. The implications of this outcome are still reverberating through the business community.
Here's one result: the big banks -- like CitiGroup and HSBC -- are downgrading investments in coal-based utilities. Here's how Citigroup put it: "Our sense is that Coal has missed a critical time window, which potentially throws any recovery out-of-phase." Business lingo for "coal is a bad bet."
There's more. , shows eight more coal projects canceled due to concern over global warming and rising construction costs. The list also now describes 76 projects as "uncertain."
That hasn't stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from granting approval to a coal plant under its jurisdiction, despite a Supreme Court Ruling that has made EPA responsible for regulating CO2 as a pollutant. Rep Henry Waxman is investigating whether EPA broke the law it is charged with upholding.
The Rainforest Action Network has started to shift multi-billion dollar investments away from dirty energy and toward clean energy solutions.
The battle over coal plants are also being waged fiercely in the localities where they are going to be built. Groundbreaking example: The Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency in the US to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant. and

Leaders

Senator Harry Reid
Rep Henry Waxman



Spoilers




 

U.S. Push for Subsidy Reform Faces Seen and Unseen Obstacles
One of the most important steps in transitioning the world away from a fossil fuel-based energy...
Apr 26, 2010 | Read More
Sunflower Saga Revolves Around Health, Environment Dangers Posed by CO2
Sunflower Electric Corp. today submitted a revised permit application to build a new coal plant in...
Jan 13, 2010 | Read More
My grandchildren began to influence me when I realized that policy makers were ignoring the...
Nov 24, 2009 | Read More
An isolated, 100-acre lake on the Canadian Arctic's Baffin Island is showing signs of warming that...
Oct 22, 2009 | Read More
The EPA put its promise to protect mountain streams into action today, taking a rare first step...
Oct 16, 2009 | Read More
After a dam burst at its Kingston, Tenn., power plant last December and dumped more than a billion...
Oct 15, 2009 | Read More
President Obama’s nominee to oversee the coal industry passed another hurdle in the confirmation...
Oct 8, 2009 | Read More
An in-depth review of monitoring data from coal ash ponds located next to 13 coal-burning power...
Oct 7, 2009 | Read More
The world's first coal plant to pipe its global-warming emissions underground will soon grind into...
Sep 29, 2009 | Read More
The heads of 18 major physician groups from around the world are calling on doctors today to take...
Sep 16, 2009 | Read More