MODERN TIMES : The coal rush
Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2007
We stand at the beginning of a worldwide "coal rush"led by China, India and the United States, which plan to install 850 new coal plants by 2020, 150 of them in the United States. The CO ² from these plants could easily push the planet past a global warming "tipping point"that would initiate irreversible melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. According to global warming expert James Hansen, NASA's chief climatologist, this would raise sea levels by 80 feet over about the next couple of centuries and "produce a new planet."
The 600-megawatt coal-fired electric plant that Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO ) hopes to build near Texarkana will emit an enormous 5 million tons of CO ² every year. This is equivalent to the annual CO ² emissions of nearly 1 million cars, or about half of all the cars in Arkansas !
Fortunately, there are solutions. One solution is to renounce coal plants entirely and switch to energy efficient, renewable resources, and perhaps nuclear power (nuclear has its drawbacks, but a nuclear plant is hugely preferable to the CO ² emitted by one of today's coal plants ). But it's unrealistic to hope for this anytime soon.
There's another solution: "sequestration"or "carbon capture and storage" (CCS ). Traditional plants can capture CO ² after the coal is burned but before it goes up the stack; a more recent process converts coal to a gaseous form, removes CO ² from this gas, and burns the remaining gas for power. The CO ² is then pumped underground. CCS has been used for several years to pump CO ² into old oil wells in order to stimulate additional oil recovery. In the future, plants will pump CO ² into suitable geological structures, as is already happening at three projects around the world. CCS is expected to be safe and capable of permanently storing CO ² from all global coal combustion for at least two centuries. CCS won't be free - it might drive up the price of coal-generated electricity by 50 percent.
It's clear that new plants will eventually have to include CCS technology. This could happen by direct legislative mandate, by carbon taxes that make CO 2 emissions costly, or by a "cap-and-trade"system that would also put a (market-based ) price on emissions. Coal companies know that the question is when, not if, this will happen.
The question of "when "is crucial: China installs two new plants every week, India is moving rapidly and many U. S. plants are on the drawing boards. We need to move on CCS technology and provide a healthy example to the world.
Dramatic developments in Texas indicate the tug-of-war that's going on. Pressures from environmentalists forced the TXU Corporation to cancel at least eight of its 11 planned un-sequestered coal plants.
SWEPCO has applied to the Arkansas Public Service Commission and must also apply to Texas and Louisiana for permission to build the Texarkana plant. Approval is by no means assured.
There are no plans to include CCS technology in this plant. The Arkansas PSC, to its great credit, noted this with alarm and in March ordered SWEPCO to answer 18 questions about CCS and global warming implications. Their first question asked "Why is Applicant proposing to construct a... plant that will produce more greenhouse gasses and potentially be in violation of anticipated federal legislation ? "Noting TXU's meltdown in Texas, they asked "To what extent should this commission view this event as a signal of future industry trends ? "They asked about end-use efficiency, renewables, CCS as options and much more. The PSC is clearly concerned that SWEPCO will build an unsequestered plant and then either pay through the nose for its CO ² emissions, or be required to retrofit CCS technology at great cost.
PSC commissioners are appointed by the governor, and PSC approval is a very public process. The three-person commission seems quite reasonable and open to such concerns as global warming, energy efficiency, and renewable resources. You can see and read biographies of the three-person commission at the PSC Web site: www. acce. org / psc /. At the same Web site, you can also read the PSC's transactions on the Texarkana case; just click on "APSC Online Services," click on "Docket Search," type or select docket number 06-154-U and click "submit. "SWEPCO's application is item 16, and the PSC's questions about global warming are item 56. You can also read the public comments received so far by clicking on "public comments"at the top of this page.
Most importantly, you can influence the approval process by sending your own public comment directly to the PSC. Simply write to Ms. Diana Wilson, Secretary to the Commission, Arkansas Public Service Commission, P. O. Box 400, Little Rock, AR 72203-0400, or send e-mail to the Secretary of the Commission at socmaster @ psc. state. ar. us. Try to keep it short.
You could mention that Arkansas recently legislated a Governor's Commission on Global Warming that will make recommendations during the next two years, and that SWEPCO should put its plans on hold until that time. Let them know that you support PSC concerns about global warming implications, that SWEPCO should wait until legislation is sorted out concerning global warming and CCS, and that SWEPCO needs to more seriously consider end-use efficiency and renewables or (depending on your preferences ) nuclear as alternatives to putting additional CO ² into the atmosphere of a planet already breaking down under climate change.
We have only one atmosphere, and one Earth. Arkansans need to take responsibility for global warming emissions originating here. Do contact the Arkansas PSC about the Texarkana plant.
Art Hobson is a local resident and retired physics professor and is the author of "Physics: Concepts and Connections," a college-level textbook for non-scientists. His column appears every other Saturday.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online