the political ecology of coal
Source Eubulides
Date 04/02/29/15:08

America's new coal rush

Utilities' dramatic push to build new plants would boost energy security
but hurt the environment.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
February 26, 2004 edition

After 25 years on the blacklist of America's energy sources, coal is
poised to make a comeback, stoked by the demand for affordable electricity
and the rising price of other fuels.

At least 94 coal-fired electric power plants - with the capacity to power
62 million American homes - are now planned across 36 states.

The plants, slated to start coming on line as early as next year, would
add significantly to the United States' generating power, help keep
electricity prices low, and boost energy security by offering an
alternative to foreign oil and gas. But they would also pump more airborne
mercury and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and
sulfur dioxide into the air.

Apparently, economic concerns are trumping environmental ones in
utilities' plans.

Surprisingly, few state officials or even environmentalists are aware of
the magnitude of the new coal rush.

One major reason is the sudden nature of the turnaround for the plentiful
fuel. "The situation has changed 180 degrees in the last year, so that
we're almost back to point where we were in the 1970s with a slew of
coal-fired plants on the drawing board," says Robert McIlvaine, president
of a Northfield, Ill., company that tracks energy industry development.
After a decades-long drought, when few large coal plants were added to the
power grid, "it's become a flood. We've been getting a new one announced
almost every week since December."

The jump in proposed coal-fired plants over the past three years - which
would add 62 gigawatts or another 20 percent to the US's current
coal-generating capacity - was documented in a report last month by the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), an arm of the US Department
of Energy. But experts caution that perhaps no more than half of all
proposed plants will ever be built. It can take seven to 10 years for a
coal power plant to go from planning to construction - and legal action
and public protests often halt them.

Aside from the report, buried on the agency's website, the push to coal
power and its estimated $72 billion investment has been largely untouted
by industry and overlooked by the public. Even state officials and
environmentalists who knew more coal power was coming are amazed.

"I certainly wasn't aware it was 62 gigawatts. That's an awful lot more
coal to burn," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and energy
program at the Sierra Club. "I think most Americans would be shocked that
utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st century."

Illinois leads the nation with 10 proposed coal-fired plants that would
create 8 gigawatts of new power capacity, the NETL report says. Yet state
officials were surprised to be the national leader. "It's definitely
something we're keeping track of, but I personally wasn't aware it was
nine or 10 plants," says Rishi Garg, an energy policy adviser to Lt. Gov.
Pat Quinn.

From the point of view of energy security, such moves make sense,
proponents say. The US is considered the Saudi Arabia of coal. It sits on
250 years' worth of reserves. Coal already generates about half the
nation's electricity.

The economics have also swung in the fuel's favor. Low-cost, low-emission,
natural-gas turbines sprouted like mushrooms in the '90s and their
contribution to the nation's generating capacity reached 19 percent. But
in the past four years, the cost of natural gas has roughly tripled: from
$2 per 1 million British thermal units of heat generated to over $6 per
million BTUs. By contrast, coal costs less than $1 per million BTUs. That
has put utilities in the position of paying more for the gas they burn to
make power than they can get for the electricity it produces.

But the move back to coal raises environmental concerns. Mr. McIlvaine
estimates that if 50 of the 94 planned projects are built, they would add
roughly 30 gigawatts or 10 percent of base load generating capacity
nationwide. Using industry rules of thumb, he estimates coal consumption
would rise about 10 million tons, or 1 percent, from today's 1 billion
tons annually. That, in turn, would add 120 million cubic feet of exhaust
gases from the stacks every minute of every day for decades to what is
currently vented.

The burning of coal already produces more airborne mercury and greenhouse
gases than any other single source. Robert Dickinson, an atmospheric
scientist and climate modeler at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
calculates the new US coal plants would add roughly one-tenth of 1 percent
to the world's annual carbon-dioxide emissions.

"It doesn't sound as bad as SUVs, but we really should be going the other
direction," he says. "All these little things add up. How much is east
Asia going to add? The rest of the world?"

Utility-industry spokesmen don't confirm or deny the trend. "It kind of
runs counter to the information we have, but that said, it doesn't mean
it's untrue," says Jason Cuevas, a spokesman for Edison Electric
Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities. "Fuel diversity is a
good thing. Clean-coal technologies have improved.... Certainly some
utilities may believe coal presents a better option."

Some critics say coal's comeback is stealthy because most new plants are
still in private planning, and the public permitting process hasn't
started for most.

Gerald Heinrich first heard about the new coal-fired power plant proposed
for Elwood, Ill., when Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich unveiled plans for
the plant last April. The 495-foot smokestacks would be just eight miles
from his home and immediately next to the first federally designated
tall-grass prairie preserve.

"It was a total shock to everyone," he says. "It was done in a way to keep
it secret, to make sure it was a done deal when it became public."

Illinois officials deny the process has been anything but open. "We've got
vast coal resources, so we've been openly very supportive of coal and
we've promoted it," says Laura Hunter, a spokeswoman for the Illinois
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

Elwood is one of the few places in the nation where private planning has
reached the public stage. Residents of this quiet, semirural community of
about 1,000 people knew a plant was planned - but were told repeatedly it
was for a gas-fired turbine generator, not a coal-burning power plant, Mr.
Heinrich says.

Then last spring, construction permits were filed for a coal plant. A
petition drive last fall showed overwhelming opposition to the plant. The
Sierra Club has filed two legal challenges, stalling the project.

Indeck Energy Services, based in Buffalo Grove, Ill., expects its new
660-megawatt plant in Elwood to start up in 2007, employ 80 workers, and
create 200 state coal-mining jobs. Calls seeking comment were not

"We're all done making public comments," says a secretary who answered the
phone for an Indeck official.

[View the list]

InternetBoard v1.0
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho