The debate over the proposed Wise County coal-fired power plant has, in many ways, missed the broader context: the days of coal-fired power are coming rapidly to an end. Check this out:
Nationalwide Ban on New Power Plants Without CO2 Controls ProposedWASHINGTON, DC, March 12, 2008 (ENS) - Two powerful House Democrats Tuesday introduced legislation that would require new coal-fired electric generating plants to use state-of-the-art control technology to capture and sequester emissions of carbon dioxide, CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.
Congressman Henry Waxman of California, who chairs the House Government Oversight Committee and Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who chairs the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, introduced the bill known as the Moratorium on Uncontrolled Power Plants Act of 2008.
The lawmakers said in a joint statement that "comprehensive economy-wide regulation to address global warming" will soon be introduced, but new coal-fired power plants are being built today, without controls on CO2 emissions.
The moratorium proposed in the bill would extend until a comprehensive federal regulatory program for global warming pollution is in place.
In short, Congress is now looking at banning new coal-fired power plants unless they have carbon capture and sequestration technology. Only one problem: there is no such technology that is available now, nor is there likely to be any such technology for decades to come. Translation? No new coal-fired power plants if this legislation passes.
OK, you say, but this legislation is probably not going to pass and certainly George W. Bush wouldn't sign it even if it did. That's true, but there's a great deal of additional movement in addition to the Waxman/Markey proposal. For instance, see here:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., has agreed to bring up global warming legislation after the Memorial Day recess, setting the stage for a floor battle that could influence the November elections.Barbara Boxer , D-Calif., who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, said Wednesday that Reid will take up the bill after the Senate returns June 2.
[...]
The bill would impose a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and set up a market-based trading program for businesses to meet the cap. It was approved by Boxer's committee in December on a largely party-line vote. The lone Republican to support it was John W. Warner of Virginia, who sponsored the legislation with Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn...
And then there's this:
The Agriculture Department has suspended a low-interest lending program for rural electric cooperatives seeking federal assistance to build new coal-fired power plant...The RUS said it does not expect to make any loans during fiscal 2008 or 2009, by which time a new administration and Congress might revise guidelines for rural energy lending and climate change.
Finally, private banks, insurers and others are already taking into account the strong possibility of caps on greenhouse gas emissions when considering whether to back new coal-fired power plants. Which is partly why so many coal-fired power plants are being scrapped.
In other words, the future of coal-fired power is not looking promising. So why are we talking about moving forward with Dominion's proposed Wise County plant when everyone else is moving in the opposite direction? And how can Dominion keep claiming, with a straight face, that it cares about the environment when it obviously doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about anything except its profits? Finally, how can we possibly have "leaders" who believe the hot air (both literal and figurative) spewing from Dominion? Really, this isn't that complicated.
"It's important for ratepayers and regulators to understand the financial risks if their power company wants to build a new uncontrolled coal-fired power plant," said Waxman. "Those plants will be a lot more expensive to operate when global warming pollution is regulated. Ratepayers need to make sure they won't be stuck with the bill."
We've discussed how the chairman of FERC declared to a national industry audience, the true reality of coal as no longer a cheap fuel source.
We now know about other state governors signing off on energy efficiency and conservation legislation, going well beyond Virginia's reduction limits, in a shorter period of time.
We also have read about and discussed in detail the numerous state's utilities and governors ending new dirty coal plants because of environmental reasons as well as escalating costs.
If other capacity resources combined are grid reliable and comparibly priced to new dirty coal, all while having a significantly lighter physical impact on the land and the atmosphere, why hasn't the democratic governor of Virginia taken a stand against Dominion Power yet?
If he desires a political future beyond his governorship and allowing Wise County is that complicated, then Governor Kaine needs to explain his position to Virginians.
Especially East Coast prices. Note that these are the spot prices - an existing coal plant will have long term contracts to provide coal at a specific price. A new plant would be facing a much different reality in trying to line up a long-term contract.
You may remember that Basin owns an operating coal gasification plant in Beulah, Montana that successfully removes CO2 in the production of coal gas. They use the CO2 to enhance oil field recovery. I think we are close to cracking this nut.
Do you know how many permits have been approved, submitted, and proposed b/n now and say 2020?
Long-term demand for electricity will accelerate nationally for the next 30 years, well outpacing the average demand growth seen in the previous 30 years.
At the rate new dirty coal is being shelved, and given current technology, only nuclear can substitute coal's decrease in generation.
While people keep looking for The Perfect Energy Solution, dozens of options present themselves. All you have to do is have an open mind, and a loose attachment to conventional wisdom. I call it American Ingenuity.
With regard to carbon capture and sequestration, however, there's pretty much nobody who believes the technology's even close
Except of course one of the nation's largest electric cooperatives - Basin Electric, with members stretching from Canada to Mexico. Happily they don't know that sequestration is impossible - otherwise they wouldn't be implementing sequestration technology.
And while Basin Electric has big investments in wind energy, I'm sure they looked at the largest coal reserves in the world (sitting right under them) and said, "hey, can't we do something with this". And then they got to work.
CO2 is also known to displace coal methane, so it could be used to enhance the recovery of natural gas.
Deep saline aquifers in the midwest have the potential to absorb lots of CO2.
Will they be constructed in carbon emission-free shops? Do you know how many kilowatts of energy it takes to produce, and install a photovoltaic panel? A windmill?
Coal CO2 carbon sequestration is a nascent technology, one of many. Coal may not be cool, but it is a hugely concentrated energy source.
Its going to take a village, of energy sources. And a lot of luck.
What I really object to is talk of building more coal plants with the idea that they be retrofitted for sequestration "later". Because I can bet that in the future there will be all sorts of reasons why it can't be done any more. You will have to prove to me that sequestration is real, can be scaled up, and still provide power at a reasonable cost before I am on board with this. Otherwise I would push for wind, solar or wave energy - at least there the technology is far enough along that it is a lot easier to say what the actual costs are.
Instead, the department said it would be willing to pay the cost of adding carbon capture and storage technology to new or existing coal plants bigger than 300 megawatts. Sell said that would lead to multiple projects and more sequestration.
And then goes on to mention that the 2009 budget includes $650million for coal energy research, a 25% increase.
Meanwhile renewables of one sort or another keep getting cheaper every year.
The only way to make alternatives viable is to regulate the free-ride emitters currently have. Or we could tax the bejessus out of energy and use the proceeds to fund alternative energy tax credits. Just like when we raised the gas tax to get us off of foreign oil, end our ME wars, and fund alternative transportation.
The US was once the leader in this area and due in large part to some ridiculous trade policies by both Parties we lost much of that industry and now import more steel than we produce. Steel, like most manufacturing jobs, seem to have left Amercia. Why? Is it cheap labor? Or is it simply too expensive relative to labor to go ahead a re-fit plants and bring them up to our standards in terms of the environment? I remember when you could not go a day without hearing about acid rain in the 80's which was a direct correlation to companies also dumping waste into our waters, bays, etc. So taken on balance it was not just the labor, but also the standards that have caused companies to relocate jobs where there is less regulations.
Now I am not endorsing less standards by any means, but have seen the dynamics of this before and no it is not fear-mongering but in terms of coal if the will not be able to reach "clean coal" levels and the tech is a ways off and the movement reaches Washington and these bills are passed then certainly what happen to steel, which is tied to coal in many ways for its own production, the industry will be lost.
My point is the folks it will not be lost on is the Chinese. Why? While we endeavor for clean coal and oppose both coal plants and nuke power as an option for the utility companies here at home, the Chinese are doubling capacity every six months as new plants come on line. So when we say the end of coal what we are really saying is the end of American coal, just like it was the end of the American steel industry.
Why? Take China Shenhua Energy Company in Mainland China--the third largest coal mining entity in the world. It currently has 12 mines with 9 in operation, 3 almost completed and 18 more in development. It has 13 coal processing plants, 5 "coke" burning plants (for military mostly) 4 coal equipment plants and 2 design institutes under its umbrella of operations employing some 50K employees. Plans are to triple this endeavor over the next 5 to seven years and keep in mind this is a state run enterprise so they will most likely have the money to do it. So as we attempt to put nails in the coffins of yet another American industry who will actually benefit more in the world market?
Its all good if we want to have the Walmart mentality driven economy where all our goods/resources roll through China first and we as Americans become a net consumer instead of a net producer in the world economy.
This issue and to a greater extent climate change to begin with should be center stage when the nominees for Presidency begin to debate the future of this economy. They are all linked as far as I am concerned.