MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 12 May 2007
Swepco's planned
coal plant near Texarkana
We
stand at the beginning of a worldwide "coal rush" led by China,
India, and the U.S., which plan to install 850 new coal plants by 2020, 150 of
them in the U.S. The CO2 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 the Southwestern Electric Power
Company (Swepco) hopes to build near Texarkana will emit an enormous 5 million
tons of CO2 every year. This is
equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions of nearly one 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 efficiency, renewable
resources, and perhaps nuclear power (nuclear has its drawbacks, but a nuclear
plant is hugely preferable to the CO2 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 CO2 after the coal is burned but before it goes up the stack; a more
recent process converts coal to a gaseous form, removes CO2 from this gas, and
burns the remaining gas for power.
The CO2 is then pumped underground. CCS has been used for several years to pump CO2 into old oil
wells in order to stimulate additional oil recovery. In the future, plants will pump CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 8 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 Éplant 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, and 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 CO2 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 3-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 3-person Commission at the PSC
website www.acce.org/psc/. At the same website, 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 email to Secretary of the Commission <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 CO2 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.