MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 16 Feb 2008
Coal and our
energy future
The
U.S. coal industry is getting itself into a bind. The industry continues pushing for expansion even as global
warming looms larger, causing a public backlash that could leave coal stranded
for years just as nuclear power was stranded after its public opinion debacle
at the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. I'd like to suggest a change in course that will be best for
the planet and, in the long run, best for the industry.
Rising
natural gas prices and the Bush Administration's subsidies and encouragement
have stimulated a recent rapid expansion of coal, with over 150 new plants
proposed or started in the U.S. alone.
And rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India are
expanding coal, with some 1400 plants proposed or under construction around the
world. Because of coal's enormous
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most important global warming pollutant,
this "coal rush" is a disaster.
The
definitive response comes from James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute
for Space Science and one of the world's most knowledgeable climate
scientists. He argues that we are
near a tipping point beyond which the great ice sheets of Greenland and West
Antarctica will melt irreversibly, out of human control, fed by natural
"feedbacks" that amplify the global warming that humans have already
created. Human-caused global
warming has already raised temperatures by nearly 1.5 Fahrenheit degrees and
will soon add another three or four degrees, reaching temperatures not seen
since the interglacial ("between the ice ages") period 120,000 years
ago that preceded both the last ice age and the present interglacial period. That warming melted much of Greenland,
raising sea levels 20 to 40 feet.
This could happen again and, according to Hansen, "produce a new
planet." Hansen recommends
five steps to address the problem, of which the first is an immediate
moratorium on new coal plants until such plants are capable of
"sequestering," or capturing and storing underground, their CO2
emissions.
Arkansas
environmentalists regard such a moratorium as essential and have asked Governor
Beebe to institute it in Arkansas.
Yet the industry continues planning new coal plants such as the
Texarkana plant recently approved in a 2-to-1 Arkansas Public Service
Commission vote, the Osceola plant that began construction in 2006, and two
more planned future Arkansas plants.
The Texarkana plant alone represents CO2 emissions equal to half the
cars in Arkansas. As the planet
warms, citizens will be increasingly outraged by these applications for new
unsequestered coal plants.
Eventually, investors will no longer risk supporting the industry. This happened to nuclear power, and it
can happen to coal. Just a few
days ago three Wall Street banks distanced themselves from coal, requiring
those seeking financing for coal plants to prove that the plants will be
financially viable even under potentially stringent federal caps on CO2 emissions.
To
save the planet and its own skin, the coal industry needs to follow Hansen's
advice: rapidly develop the new
technology needed to extract energy from coal while capturing and burying the
CO2 that is normally emitted into the atmosphere, and initiate no new plants in
the meantime. It's important that
the U.S. develop and use this technology because without leadership from the
U.S. coal industry, the rest of the world (remember those 1400 looming new coal
plants) will proceed with the old coal technology, and this will be an
environmental disaster. Our
Department of Energy recently cancelled one such experimental plant for cost
reasons, but also recommended that the U.S. get going on several other new
plants that will capture CO2 and pump it underground by perhaps 2015.
But
what will the nation do for electric power until sequestration is ready? The answer: Turn first to energy efficiency, then to wind and other
renewables, and then to natural gas.
U.S.
energy supply is horribly wasteful.
Europe and Japan get twice as much useful energy service per unit of
energy consumed as we do. Wasted
U.S. energy represents a rich opportunity for providing energy services at
negative cost. For example, most
families can save money by installing additional home insulation; the energy
savings soon amount to more than the insulation costs. Power companies in some states actually
earn state-allowed profits by providing free efficiency services such as insulation. This reduces the need for new power
plants, saves customers' money, and reduces pollution. Everybody wins: the company, the customer, and the
environment. This sounds too good
to be true, but it's not. The
savings come from the fat in the U.S. energy system.
Solar
energy for heating water is as old as civilization and is practical and cheap
today for most of your hot water.
Wind energy is financially competitive with coal. At a wind energy conference in Fort
Smith last month attended by over 200 people, it was announced that Arkansas could
harvest at least 1000 megawatts of electric power from wind. That's about the equal of two large
coal plants. Wind, being
intermittent, is less reliable than coal, but up to 1000 megawatts this
intermittency poses little problem.
Before long, new technologies will store wind energy so that it can be
used reliably when needed.
Natural
gas is becoming more expensive, but is far better for the environment than
coal. For one big thing, gas emits
only 60 percent as much CO2 as coal for a given amount of electricity.
The
nation must declare a moratorium on new coal plants until sequestration is
ready. In the meantime, industry
needs to support sequestration, energy efficiency, and renewable energy
sources.