coal, coal, coal…. everywhere i look there’s coal
I live in a coal producing state. I even live in a dirty coal-burning city (Chicago boasts two 1950s-era coal-fired power plants). But in the face of a climate crisis and international opposition to disproportionate American consumption of world resources, it shouldn’t be this way. Which is why I was disappointed this morning to read some of the headlines about the Senate energy votes yesterday…..
I…Why coal, as so-called “clean coal”, or coal-to-liquids, is even remotely on the table is completely beyond me. U.S. Senator Obama (D-IL) released this vague statement yesterday regarding coal to liquids in the Senate energy debate <http://obama.senate.gov/press/070619-obama_statement_69/> (my own emphasis added):
“Achieving energy independence and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions are two of the greatest challenges America faces. With the right technological innovations, coal has the potential to be a cleaner burning, domestic alternative to imported oil. However we are not there yet. The Bunning amendment would have been premature in requiring the production of billions of gallons of coal-to-liquids without providing strong environmental safeguards to ensure that this new fuel alleviates, not worsens, our climate crisis. The Tester amendment, on the other hand, gives us the tools to determine whether we can make coal into a clean fuel source. We cannot solve the climate crisis without addressing coal – which generates half of America’s electricity.”
“Moving forward, I believe we should only invest in coal-to-liquid fuels that burn at least 20 percent less lifecycle carbon emissions than conventional fuels. I also introduced a low-carbon fuel standard to mandate a 10 percent reduction in emissions for all vehicle fuels by 2020, with incentives for producers to make their fuels more efficient and to exceed that level, without prejudging which fuel will turn out to be the best for our environment and our economy.”
How could coal fit anywhere in our energy future, much less how would coal possibly fit in our energy portfolio in the context of the climate crisis, as Obama puts it? The only way to stop increasing atmospheric carbon is to stop putting carbon into the atmoshere — coal must stay underground if we are to seriously address global climate destabilization.
Obama’s recent statements on coal-to-liquids are like a wink and a nudge to both the coal industry and his somewhat environmentally-leaning supporters, and raise serious questions about his commitment to fighting climate change.
Meanwhile in Illinois, new coal-fired power plants and coal proposals are popping up like hives all over the place. Today’s news carries a story about Peabody Energy’s plans to begin construction with Bechtel Power Corp. of a new coal-fired power plant in Illinois’ Washington County, southeast of St. Louis. <http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/102399.html>
Last week, Illinois EPA granted a permit for a new $2 billion 630-megawatt coal facility, to be partially financed by $500 million in low-cost bonds from the state, called the Taylorville Energy Center. That plant was hailed as a so-called “clean coal” plant by many in the state, even though the technology to sequester the carbon it will produce is not yet available. <http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0531883820070605> Chicago’s WBEZ aired a segment on the TEC <http://www.wbez.org/Program_848.aspx?episode=11228>. Why do they keep calling it “clean coal”? What’s clean about mining, transporting, or burning coal?
In all, there are currently 23 coal-fired power plants in Illinois, with 17 new, additional plants proposed…
To see a list of over 150 new coal plants being proposed across the US, see: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
(This DOE publication includes the exclamation that these new plants will generate equivalent power for 90 million homes. Out of curiosity, I checked the census bureau’s population projection for, say, 2040 in the US — the Census Bureau thinks there will be about 391,946,000 people in the US in 2040. Today there are about 302,148,016. So, taking these numbers and the DOE numbers, the proposed new coal fired power plants alone (not taking into account any conservation measures or other energy sources, either conventional or “alternative”), will generate more than enough energy for every single NEW person (babies, family members, everyone…) in the US to consume an entire household worth of energy between now and 2040. Obviously I just did this calculation for fun and there are details to be worked out, but hopefully you can see my point that we clearly don’t need all this new coal power to come on line. Aside from the fact that this would just lead to a ridiculous amount of new energy and environmental degradation, and is really just a way to line the pockets of the coal and utility industries, many have shown that we can meet our energy needs with cleaner technologies and some conservation. All I wanted to do by including the population projection numbers was to put the number in context, since it’s hard for me to imagine really what 90GW amounts to… I’ll try to add more on some of the alternative plans that I’ve read in a future post.)
Sierra Club also links to info on some 117 new coal plants: <http://www.sierraclub.org/maps/coal.asp>.
